Imperative Of Strengthening Legislative Performance – TheNigerialawyer

[email protected]^[1]
08077787701

Last Thursday, October 3, 2019, in Abuja, the Centre for
Legislative Engagement of the Youth Initiative for Advocacy, Growth
& Advancement better known as YIAGA Africa, a non-governmental
organisation, publicly presented the “Scorecard of the 8th National
Assembly”. I was privileged to be among the august gathering. The
immediate past Chairman of the Independent National Electoral
Commission, Attahiru Jega, led the team of researchers to
understudy the performance of the Bukola Saraki-led Senate and
Yakubu Dogara-led House of Representatives. The 117-page report was
an eye-opener to the operations of the Eighth National
Assembly.

The study drew its data from secondary and primary sources.
Secondary data were sourced from books, journals, committee reports
(sessional and legacy reports), records of proceedings, Hansards
and other official documents of the National Assembly. Primary data
were generated through in-depth interviews, survey using structured
questionnaires, and Focus Group Discussions. A total of 2,910
questionnaires were reportedly administered in 12 randomly selected
states, two per geopolitical zones (one Senatorial District and one
federal constituency per state). In-depth interviews were conducted
with the leadership of the National Assembly and chairmen of the 12
selected committees (five Senate and seven House). The survey
questionnaire was also administered to clerks of the 12 committees
and senior legislative aides to the committee chairmen and other
legislative bureaucrats.

With respect to lawmaking, the report observed that there was a
significant increase in the number of bills handled by the 8th
National Assembly. Specifically, 2,166 bills were introduced, out
of which 515 pieces of legislation were passed, including 21
constitution alteration bills – five of which received presidential
assent. The Senate passed a total of 172 bills while the House of
Representatives passed 343 bills within the same period.

Of all those bills, 53 were declined presidential assent and
only about 80 received assent although several bills were still
awaiting assent as of the time of the study. Regrettably, data on
the number of bills transmitted to the President for assent were
not available. Over the same period, 15 bills were withdrawn while
33 were ‘negatived’, that is, killed. In terms of the gestation
period, some of these bills took long to be passed. According to
the report, a bill should, on average, take less than six months to
pass. But out of the 515 bills passed in the 8th National Assembly,
only 47 (9.1%) were passed within 50 days, while a whopping 271
(52.6%) took over 351 days. Furthermore, 14 bills were passed
within 100 days, 12 within 150 days, 80 within 200 days, 41 within
250 days, 23 within 300 days and 27 within 350 days. Notably, most
of the bills passed within 50 days were either executive bills or,
of emergency nature.

In terms of oversight, the 8th National Assembly was found to
have excelled in some areas, but performed below expectations in
many others. It was reported that, “the ratings are not as
encouraging with respect to core components of representation such
as visits and meetings with constituents, establishment and
management of constituency offices, responses to constituents’
demands, attraction and execution of constituency projects, and
communication with constituents.”

The report identified some of the general challenges that
hampered the performance of the 8th National Assembly to include
inadequacy of resources, especially finance, high rate of
legislative turnover, which affects legislative capacity and
tensions in legislative/executive relations. Specific challenges of
legislation include a moribund bills processing system/procedure
that sometimes allowed bills to be passed into law without adequate
scrutiny; a flawed system of reconciling differences between
chambers (Constitution Alteration Bills passed with differences
between chambers of the 8th National Assembly were never
reconciled); undue delays in considering major legislation;
introduction of huge number of bills, coupled with an abysmally low
rate of passage; and a public hearing system that is still not
robust enough to input public views into legislation.

For oversight, notable challenges include poor funding, which
not only undermines public hearings and oversight visits, but also
tends to encourage reliance on the MDAs for financial assistance
for oversight. The multiplicity of committees, purely for political
exigencies and often with overlapping jurisdictions, also results
in conflict and inefficiency. The large number of committees
ultimately affects funds available to individual committees. Yet,
the question of corruption was also an issue.

The identified challenges of effective representation include
the inability to effectively manage the weight of rising
constituents’ expectations and demand on the legislators, abiding
stereotypes and misconceptions about legislative emoluments,
including widespread perceptions that Nigerian legislators are the
highest paid the world over; managing tensions between collective
legislative interests and constituents’ interest; quality of staff
(legislative aides); and poor level of citizen participation in the
legislative process.

According to Jega, who gave a synopsis of the scorecard, 17
recommendations were put forward for consideration of the federal
parliament. Some of them include: The National Assembly was advised
to entrench Pre-Legislative Scrutiny as a norm for all proposed
legislation; It should consider creating a Legislative Standards
Committee to oversee the pre-legislative scrutiny process; there
should be a clear monitoring mechanism of implementation of
legislation, including mid-term review/evaluation to assess the
effectiveness of the legislation in accomplishing their stipulated
objectives.

Other recommendations include, the National Assembly should
adopt electronic voting on bills and motions. Voting records should
be available to members of the public on all NASS online and
offline channels; the National Assembly should maintain an updated
open and accessible Bills Progression Chart to enable legislators,
legislative aides and other stakeholders track or monitor progress
of bills passage. It was also suggested that the federal lawmakers
should maintain an accessible database of assented and gazetted
legislation passed by the legislature.

The scorecard recommended improvement in the quality of
legislative oversight by establishing minimum benchmarks/targets
for committee meetings oversight work in line with the assembly’s
legislative agenda. Failure to meet those targets should attract
sanctions; Legislative committees should uphold the principles of
integrity, professionalism, transparency and mutual respect in the
performance of oversight functions; parliamentary committees should
work closely with civil society groups in performing their
oversight functions; the National Assembly should prioritise
adequate funding for committees, which is pivotal to effective
legislation and oversight. Further to this, the National Assembly
should ensure transparency and accountability for funds allocated
to committees.

Nigerian legislators are advised to establish functional
constituency offices that are not only accessible, but also
well-staffed and equipped. The leadership should compel legislators
to provide periodic reports on constituents’ engagement and
constituency office management. NASS needs to improve the quality
and capacity of legislators and legislative aides. No doubt, the
National Assembly does not have control over the kind of people who
get elected into it; but political parties and Nigerians do.

Lastly, it was noted that the prevailing high rate of
legislative turnover in successive elections affects the quality of
representation. Political parties, senatorial districts and federal
constituencies were counselled to promote continuity of
representatives who perform well.

YIAGA’s effort in coming up with this scorecard is laudable.
Ordinarily, this study should have been conducted by the National
Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies which is an organ
of the National Assembly. However, as the saying goes, “None so
deaf as those who will not hear”. Many of the findings and
recommendations in this report are not new. They have been
highlighted in many seminal papers, conferences and workshops.
However, I do hope the current leadership of the National Assembly
and indeed those of the state Houses of Assembly will have the
political will to implement some of these noble
recommendations.

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!