 A House of Representatives Committee recommends immunity for heads of national assembly and of course the chip justice of Nigeria. Our President Bahari has finally signed the Electoral Act Bill into law and Russia launches a military action in Ukraine after weeks of diplomatic moves fails. For this, it's plus politics. I am Mary Anacoff. The subject of the immunity clause for members of political office, for the members of National Assembly, talking about the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and of Costa CJN, has cost a controversy in the National Assembly since about 2016. Now just recently, a bill seeking to grant immunity to presiding officers of National Assembly and judicial officers was rejected by the House of Representatives Committee on the Amendment of the 1999 Constitution. Currently only the President, the Vice President, Governors and their deputies currently enjoy immunity under the 1999 Constitution. A similar bill was introduced in the 8th Assembly, however the bill was also rejected by lawmakers at the time. And in electoral matters, President Mohammad Bahari has finally signed Electoral Act Amendment Bill into law about a month after the National Assembly sent the bill to him. Well joining us to discuss this and more is Honourable Rima Shawalu. He's a member of the House of Representatives. Thank you so much for joining us Honourable Shawalu. Thank you very much. All right. Red food to be our bed. Let's quickly look at this controversial recommendation by the House Committee on Constitutional Amendment. I know that you are on the side of the divide that kicked against it. Because it's asking for the immunity clause for both the Speaker, the Senate's President and of course the CJN. Why are you against this? Well in the first place, it is not true that the House of Representatives Committee on Constitutional Conference decided that there should be immunity. When the bill came for consideration before the House Committee, it was voted down, it was rejected. At the Conference Committee, sorry, at the Humanization Committee with the Senate, the Joint Committees adopted the Senate position because the House did not have a position having voted down the recommendation to have immunity. The recommendation of the Senate was passed. The recommendation of the Senate was to strip the executive of certain forms of immunity. They only were to enjoy qualified immunity. And the reason the logic was very simple. If a governor reps a child now, are you saying that he cannot be tried? Because a rep in a child is not part of the functions of his office. Or if a governor takes a gun or president takes a gun and shoots somebody, are you going to say that because of immunity he should not be tried? So we did accept the Senate position to qualify immunity for the executive. And we did not at the harmonization meeting adopt any recommendation whatsoever to have immunity for the CDN or the presiding officers of the National State Houses of Assemblies. So procedurally, I'm surprised that such a recommendation will appear on the recommendations to be voted by the House. And it's very unfortunate because that is what gives the press and other people the right to keep claiming that budgets in the National Assembly are added and that a lot of luxury is coming out of the National Assembly. Our procedures do not recognize having a recommendation come to the House that was voted down at the committee level. So what do you presume is happening now? Because you're saying that it's coming to you as a shock of sorts because it was voted down in the first instance. And I remember in 2016 it was kicked against. It was kicked against early this year. So what exactly do you think is going on? How do you think this got into the recommendations for under the constitutional amendment? Do you think someone is playing a fast one? Well, I don't know whether a fast one is being played, but the Secretariat that produced the paper must have made a mistake. Because I do remember the House committee voted down that recommendation and the Senate passion which was adopted at the conference committee varied and reduced the forms of immunity to be enjoyed by the Chief Executive. That is following the best practice around the world. You cannot come and say because someone is holding an executive position, he commits a crime that is unrelated to his, the functions, performance of his office and that such a person would not be tried. There is no form of executive complete, unqualified immunity around the world again. The United States does not have it. The USA does not have it. Most countries in the world do no longer have, I mean, this unqualified immunity. As a matter of fact, the few countries that have unqualified immunity are the countries that have dictatorship and have deficiency in their democratic practice. So it will be surprising that National Assembly will want to take Nigeria down the road of countries that have serious disrepute. I remember that in 2016, if I'm not mistaken, at some point you were asking that the executive be stripped of some level of immunity and I see that you face some opposition on that particular issue. Are you still standing that ground because it seems like the argument you're making is in that direction? Are you sure that we're ready to strip our executives of that level of immunity? Already some people are complaining about distractions here and there as a result of petitions and court cases against our executives or even our politicians. So do you think we've gotten to a level where that can be done? Yeah, as a matter of fact, I did sponsor a bill for the alteration of the constitution, which sought the bill seeks to strip the executive of unqualified and complete immunity that they have today. Unfortunately, the bill came for first reading. It was not brought up for second reading. And so I was delighted when a similar version was brought from the Senate and the version and it's very clear that we cannot have the extension of any form of immunity to legislators or principal officers. A principal officer or a presiding officer does not perform executive positions and he does not, he stands to reason therefore that he cannot or she cannot engage in those activities in the portion of his office that would require any form of immunity. If a speaker of the State House of Assembly needs immunity to go to his constituency, then all members of the State Assembly or the National Assembly require immunity. Immunity the speaker or the presiding officer is first among people. He is not supposed to be an executive and is not supposed to express any views other than the views that the House has. It's very unfortunate that we are reaching a stage where the National Assembly or even the State Houses of Assemblies want to overreach to take over functions of executive, issue instructions to MDS and forget the primary role that we have in the constitution. I do not think, and it is going to, it's a very big service to Nigeria, it's a big service to the National Assembly for anyone to come out today in the 21st century who will be wanting to have immunity for legislators. I'd like to go back to Mr. Leo Ogo, he is, I think he was in the 8th assembly at the time, at the time he was the minority leader, he was obviously of the PDP representing Delta State. And he made a case saying that there are too many distractions, too many people coming up with accusations, allegations, sometimes these things are to distract you from the work that you've been called to do as a representative, you know. And he says that this will help also, something that hit me was that he said this will help for there to be more independence in the legislature. And I'm asking you as a member of the legislature in the lower chamber, is the legislature not independent enough as it would want to be? And is this as a result of the constitution or is it as a result of the people who make up the legislature? Let me say two things quickly, as I answered that question. In the first place, the legislature already has some form of immunity, unqualified immunity over what we say, over our debates, over our functions. So now to extend it to immunity, a speaker goes, a speaker for instance or senate president goes and slaps his domestic staff and you say the domestic staff cannot take him to court. And in the second place, Donald Trump was taken to court, Boris Johnson is facing charges in the UK today. As you go around the world, sitting presidents have been brought to court. But you're talking about countries where, you're talking about say no, we do respect you're talking about countries where the law justice is allowed to take its due cause. I don't think that the same can be said about Nigeria. I remind you of that legislature, I'd like to talk about the PDP member who slapped a lady in a shop. Do you remember that case? What was done to that man? I'm a PDP member, I was a PDP member, we voted against it and we killed that proposition in the 8th assembly. And I assure you that that proposition is going to be killed, it's not going to succeed because it brings the National Assembly to this preclude. One thing to have, we voted against it in the 8th assembly. What was done to Elisha Abba, who hit a woman in a store, asked his orderly to also arrest and take this woman away from her place of business. He was a PDP member at the time, nothing was done. The law should take its course, you are following my argument. That's why I asked you, you're making reference to the U.K., you're making reference to the U.S. where justice does take its actual cause. But when you leave that here in Nigeria... Are you saying therefore that we are subhumans and we cannot... I did not say that in any way but I'm asking, can we say the same about Nigeria? You look for best practice, you don't look for bad practice. Are you telling me to go and copy someone that is doing something that is wrong? I should copy someone that is doing what is right. What is right is that a political position that you hold does not strip you of the fakia, you are a citizen and you have rights and you should have obligations, obligations not to commit crime. So if you commit a crime, you should be punished. If the senator who was a PDP member, I just imagine if the senator had immunity, it means that that woman would have been slapped for no reason. Now we can allow that to happen. If the legislator does not need immunity to be free, to be independent, you choose to be independent. Let me tell you something about another best practice in the United States. The president of the United States appoints the minister of justice or secretary of justice and the secretary of justice still does his duties without letter of hindrance, which is why Renaud Genet set up the committee, the star committee to probe Bill Clinton. And that keeps happening around the world where democracy thrives, where the economy is improving. When a system is opaque, crime thrives and that is why we cannot, Nigeria cannot afford to have immunity extended to the legislature and the judiciary. What we need is to reduce the immunity that the executive has so that when you know that if you commit a crime, you can be punished for it. Okay. All right. Well, I want to say a big thank you to you. Honourable Rima Shaolu is a member of the House of Representatives and we appreciate your thoughts. Have a good evening. Thank you for joining us. Thank you very much. All right. And thank you all for staying with us. We'll take a quick break. Now, when we return, we'll discuss the Russian occupation of Ukraine, in fact. Ukraine has been invaded by Russia since yesterday. We'll tell you more about it when we come back.