NE unfortunate
custom exposed by the Senate’s passage of the Trade Unions Amendment Bill is the
habitual failure of many senators to be present to discharge their
constitutional responsibility, which is to make laws for this country. Of the
109 senators, only 36 sat and passed the highly controversial but critical bill.
Ordinarily, the habit as evidenced in this case would have
been dismissed as recrudescence of absenteeism in the upper house, However, the
bad habit of senators absenting themselves from proceedings never seemed to have
left the upper house. On the score of habitual absenteeism, the Senate had
cancelled or suspended its scheduled sittings several times, particularly in its
early years. In about one week, the Senate, because it was unable to form a
quorum, aborted its sittings thrice in 1999 — on October 29, November 5 and
November 8 of that year. Other such instances have occured in later years.
The Senate has 109 members, and section 54(1) of the
country’s constitution demands one-third of all the members as quorum. That is,
at least 36 members of the Senate must be present before the business of the
House can begin. Therefore, the 36 senators who passed the labour amendment bill
formed the required quorum, constitutionally. Just as well all other decisions
taken by less than one-half, but upto one-third, of the senators are legal.
Beyond legalism, however, the misely attendance of senators
to proceedings at various times has tended to trivialise the very serious
business of governance, particularly law-making. The situation is bound to
vitiate the quality of the laws made by this legislature. It will be an
insufficient accomplishment for the present Senate to brandish its passage of 28
out of 94 bills in its first legislative year without weighing such factors as
the quality of the bills passed and the broad input of legislators into the
bills. In most cases, the quality of a bill is largely a function of
extensiveness of debate on it. This being so, the quality of a bill passed by
just 36 senators is likely to be found wanting compared to that passed by 60 or
more senators, the quality of members being constant.
If the bills passed by the Senate were more of routine bills
than private members bills, or mainly originated from the presidency, as they
appeared to have been the case the indication could be that the senators were
not living up to their promises to their individual constituencies. The
senators, like all other elected representatives, promised the electorate a
number of programmes on which basis they were elected. To fulfil the promise,
senators are supposed to initiate relevant bills to ensure the desired
programmes are implemented.
Absentee senators, or an on-and-off Senate chambers, are
unlikely to achieve this. More pointedly and frustratingly, habitual absenteeism
in the legislative chamber excludes voices on national issues, especially those
represented by absentee senators. In the end, it is the entire country that
loses, because absenteeism negates the goal of drawing up constituencies. The
idea is to accommodate Nigeria’s enormous diversities, interests and opinions.
The other dangers of legislators’ persisting absenteeism,
illustrated by the protest against the passage of the labour bill, are quite
stark and obvious. Some of the senators have publicly criticized the haste in
passing the labour bill. A number of these senators who were absent when the
bill was passed have threatened litigation to nullify the passage of the bill.
As the aggrieved senators argue, the bill does not represent broad interest and
view of the legislators. But who is to blame in this unfortunate setting? Were
the absentee senators on some official duty when the labour bill was passed? Or
was the bill surreptitiously tabled and passed? Unless these were the case the
complaining senators have nobody to blame. By absenting themselves from the
relevant sitting, they made room for those who held contrary opinion to have
their way.
The job of the senators is full-time, and by section 63 of
the constitution, the Senate shall sit for a period of not less than 181 days a
year. If the Senate fails to sit thrice or more in a week, as it had happened
before, the minimum number of sittings days may not be met.
It is true that the responsibility of senators are not
restricted to debates and passage of bills in the Senate chamber. The duties
extend to detailed work of committees, of which a number of the senators are
chairmen and members. Activities of the committees include meetings as well as
local and oversee tours. The reality of this arrangement should not be
justifiable grounds for absenteeism. The activities of the committees should be
so properly programmed and co-ordinated as not to conflict with Senate sessions
especially when major issues are in focus. Afterall, the Senate has only one
leadership, of which responsibility should be to co-ordinate the sub-groups.
We recommend that senators, distinguished lawmakers that they are, should
learn a lesson about the cost of absenteeism from the labour bill. The country
expects full attention and alertness from its lawmakers.
