ABUJA— ALLEGATIONS of highhandedness made against Senate President, Chief Adolphus Wabara, in the passage of the Labour Reform Bill yesterday received mixed reactions from Senators with some saying that the level of discontent was being exaggerated.
Senator Ike Ekweremandu, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Housing, responding to an impeachment threat issued by Senator Farouk Bello on Tuesday, charged dissenting Senators to take their case to the court of law, insisting that the Senate was through with instability.
Other Senators who spoke yesterday supported Ekweremadu that there was no impeachment plot against the Wabara leadership, even as some of them agreed that the passage of the bill was done against their objection and absence.
Senator Bello, arrow-head of the effort to reverse the passage of the Labour Bill insisted, yesterday, as he told Vanguard that more than 73 Senators were away when the bill was rushed through the Senate last week. He affirmed that the reversal of the passage of the Labour Bill and not the removal of the Senate leadership, was the principal concern of agitated Senators.
Refuting Senator Bello’s assertion of a groundswell of opposition to the Labour Bill and the Senate leadership, Senator Ekweremadu currently on oversight duties in Enugu told Vanguard on telephone yesterday that there was no considerable level of opposition to the Senate decision on the Labour Bill.
“There is no plan to topple the Wabara leadership on account of the Labour Bill and Farouk Bello is speaking for himself,” Senator Ekweremadu said. Hinting at a plan to create instability in the Senate, he continued: ”He is trying to paint the Senate as unstable and it is my belief that anyone that is dissatisfied with what we have done on the bill should go to court, at least that is why the courts are there,” Senator Ekweremadu said.
Senator Bello was, however, insisted that it was a common knowledge that the Senate lacked a quorum at the deliberation of the bill. “Even if they say that there were 36 Senators present at the session, are they trying to say that the 73 of us absent who did not believe the bill would be brought up for deliberation on that day are to be ignored?” he asked.
