 In another story, the Nigerian Senate has thrown out a bill seeking to amend the electoral act to allow political parties nominate or replace validly elected candidates in the event of death, resignation, or vacancy of seats of seven states or federal lawmakers. The bill sponsored by senator representing Kogi West, Sunday Karimi, suffered a major setback during Wednesday's plenary as his colleagues did not allow it past 2nd reading. His lead debate, senator Karimi, has said the bill is necessary as it would put an end to unnecessary expenditures in rerun elections. According to him, various Supreme Court judgments had indicated that political parties have the sole right to produce candidates for elections, which is why party logos are printed on Barlow's papers during elections and not the candidates. On the other hand, the purpose of this bill is to eliminate waste in conducting bad elections by ILEC. This bill that I'm proposing is not a new thing. It's what is happening in other climes of the world, in America, where we borrowed a presidential system from. What is in place here is that when a candidate resigned or during the tenure died, you don't go to another election, the candidate is replaced by the party. However opposing the bill, senator Kawu Sumaila from Kanu South said democracy in its purest form deals with the wishes of the generalty of the people and not that of a political party as envisaged by the bill. How can we allow the FATI leaders to choose a representative in the constitutional representation in a heterogeneous society like Nigeria? Yes, the ticket is for the party, but the vote is for the candidate and policy representation. We are here, all of us, has a particular thinking and belief in what he is here for. It puts into rest any further discussion on abuse in its leaders in a talk by Amibamidili lamented the inability of the sponsor to present copies of the lead debates to lawmakers to see. It very specifically provides that the debate shall be on the merits of the bill. To begin with, the first fundamental error was the fact that even the sponsor of the bill, unfortunately, did not present us with the lead debate. A lead debate that should have stated the merits of the bill itself was not present. And more importantly, Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, I believe our procedure here should be with respect to both constitutional amendments as well as proposed amendments to the electoral bill. In spite of the fact that we did not see the lead debate, but we have a general idea of what the proposed amendment is all about. Those who are in support of further steps being taken on this proposed amendment say aye. Those who can't say nay. The nay is having.