Nigerian Concord Newspaper
Comrade Mnzughulga Orseer Fabian, a Political And Public Affairs analyst says that the 10th House of Representatives lacks the constitutional power to summon any state governor for any reason until the federal lawmakers pass a Bill to confer upon the National Assembly to do so.
The statement reads:
In the face of the rising cases of COVID-19 in Nigeria in March 2020, the Senate, under the leadership of Ahmad Lawan, took a monumental step by passing a landmark bill designed to confer upon the National Assembly and State Assemblies the extraordinary authority to summon the President and Governors to provide clarifications and respond to inquiries pertaining to national and state security and other critical issues that fall within the purview of their various legislative competence.
The House of Representatives and the Senate, in the bill, sought to alter Sections 67 and 108 of the principal Act of the Constitution of Nigeria, the sections that primarily focus on the President’s attendance rights rather than granting summons powers to the National Assembly.
It is needful to note that after a bill is passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is sent to the President for consideration. The President has three options: sign the bill, veto the bill, or pocket-veto the bill. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law; where the President vetoes the bill, it is sent back to the National Assembly. To override the veto, both the House of Representatives and the Senate alike must pass the bill again with a two-thirds majority. If the President takes no action on the bill within a “specified time frame,” it “may” become law without their signature or be returned to the National Assembly.
Remember, this bill was passed by the National Assembly under the watch of His Excellency Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, then President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
In Nigeria, if a bill is passed by the National Assembly and submitted to the President for signature, but the President’s term expires before they can act on it, the bill lapses. According to the 1999 Constitution, a bill that has not been signed or vetoed by the President within a specified timeframe can become law, but this provision does not apply if the National Assembly has risen or the President’s term has ended.
The National Assembly would do well to familiarize itself with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution governing the expiration of a President’s term, particularly in relation to pending legislative business, in order to temper its actions with a sense of constitutional propriety and avoid the appearance of an unseemly grasp for power.
The National Assembly must know that when a bill is transmitted to the President and their term expires before they can assent to or veto it, the bill lapses and does not become law, as earlier stated. If a new President takes office, they would need to start the process anew, and the bill would need to be re-passed by the National Assembly and re-submitted for their consideration.
In this scenario, the new President cannot reconsider a bill that lapsed due to the expiration of their predecessor’s term. Instead, the bill would need to go through the entire legislative process again.
If this is not an unfortunate drama, one would wonder where the House of Representatives Committee on Public Petition has derived the constitutional backing to “summon” the Governor of Benue State, His Excellency Gov. Hyacinth Iormem Alia, and his Zamfara State counterpart, Dauda Lawal, and their various assembly leaderships to appear before it on Thursday, 8th March, 2025, and “explain why they should not be sacked,” as captured in Vanguard Newspaper of Saturday, 3rd May, 2025, Page 7, and other national dailies.
Is it the considered view of these national lawmakers that the Governors are functioning in a capacity akin to appointees, rather than as democratically elected representatives answerable to their masses, a perspective that would seem to fundamentally misunderstand the constitutional framework of Nigeria’s governance structure?
If the National Assembly is operating under a misconception regarding the scope and effect of the 2020 bill, it is incumbent upon it to promptly rectify its understanding and conform its actions to the constitutional framework that governs its authority.
Is the National Assembly not duty-bound to adhere to the Constitution? Regrettably, it seems that the Assembly, succumbing to the intoxication of power, is presently overstepping its constitutional limits and acting ultra vires, in contravention of the fundamental law that governs the nation.
The National Assembly does not possess the constitutional competence to summon an elected Governor to appear before it, as such power is not vested in it by the Constitution.
Under Nigeria’s federal system, the House of Representatives, being a federal legislative organ, lacks the constitutional jurisdiction to compel the attendance of duly elected Governors of states, who are the chief executives of separate constituent units.
According to Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution, the National Assembly has the power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Federation, but this power does not extend to summoning governors.
In fact, the Constitution outlines specific provisions for the relationship between the National Assembly and the Executive, particularly in Sections 67 and 108. Section 67(2) mentions that the House may summon a minister before it to explain the conduct of their ministry, but there is no similar provision for summoning governors, which is the reasoning they passed a bill in 2020 seeking that power, which has not been granted.
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the National Assembly is empowered to assume the functions of a State House of Assembly only in extraordinary circumstances, specifically under Section 11(4), and solely when the State Assembly is rendered incapable of discharging its responsibilities due to a breakdown of law and order. This constitutional prerogative is not exercisable at the behest of a committee’s caprice or mere dissatisfaction, but rather in response to a genuine inability of the State Assembly to function.
The National Assembly must also know that the gubernatorial offices held by Governor Hyacinth Iormem Alia, and his Zamfara State counterpart are constitutionally recognized positions that operate within a framework of federalism, wherein they are accountable to their respective State Assemblies and the electorate that vested them with authority. As such, they are not subordinate to the National Assembly but rather occupy a coordinate position within the constitutional structure, with distinct spheres of responsibility and accountability.
The National Assembly’s purported ‘summons’ is not only “unfortunate” but also “patently unconstitutional,” betraying a propensity for political grandstanding rather than a bona fide exercise of constitutional authority. This action raises fundamental questions about the legislative priorities at the federal level and the extent to which they align with the constitutional mandate.
Until the 2020 bill, purporting to grant the National Assembly and State Assemblies the authority to summon the President and Governors to answer questions on national and state security and other matters within their legislative powers, is revisited by going through fresh legislative processes and assented to by the President, Governor Alia and other democratically elected governors in Nigeria are confronted with a constitutional conundrum wherein they must choose between acquiescing to invitations purportedly issued under such unconstitutional powers or rejecting them outright, in defense of the dignity of their offices and the democratic mandate conferred upon them by the people.