Few weeks ago, upon the removal of the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, I had cause to interrogate the implications by way of matters arising in this column. Today, I am further revisiting the subject not out of delight but necessity. It is not all the time that a topic enjoys such privilege in this column as there are always contemporary issues to address at all times. More so in this particular instance, I ordinarily will consider it an overkill to discuss the subject again, particularly in view of the tendency to misconstrue same as a personal vendetta.
Let me state categorically that beyond being a stakeholder in the polity and governance of Lagos State, I have no personal interest in the removal and or restoration of anyone as Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly. Hence, it should have been a case of afi seyin ti eegun n fi aso which literally means the matter would have been a forgotten event, as far as I am concerned so that I am not guilty of crying more than the bereaved.
The rationale behind this further intervention, however, lies in the compelling need to correct some misrepresentations being peddled in the public space on the issue. It will be recalled that in my last conversation on the removal question, I had said that we are yet to see the reaction of the removed Speaker, Mudashiru Obasa on the removal and the allegations purportedly levied against him.
As if responding to that statement in the column, the embattled Speaker had a rally cum press conference, not only to purportedly debunk the allegations, supply some (dis)information but to assert his Speakership of the House of Assembly.
The scenario became immediately interesting as Lagosians, with scorn for the embattled former Speaker, awaited the resolution of the logjam on the next official day which was the penultimate Monday to ascertain who rightly and truly is the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly. In my immediate reaction to the development on X, I had said that the embattled Speaker must simply be grandstanding as the game was over as contended in my initial intervention.
This, therefore, did not bother me a bit. However, my source of concern was the attempt of the embattled former Speaker to rubbish my assertion on the issue of the removal of the then Deputy Speaker, Honourable Funmi Tejuoso, when I asserted that she was removed in identical circumstances, barring the allegations in this current scenario. Specifically, I said that she was abroad when the removal was effected, just as Mr. Obasa was abroad when his removal took place.
Although the embattled former Speaker had attempted rewriting the history by stating that she was removed while on ground.
This is far from the truth and I am putting the record straight in this respect. The record of proceedings of the House on the inglorious day the House of Assembly removed Funmi Tejuosho in absentia will bear me witness. This is why they say Karma is a bitch. The content of the column thus remains the whole truth and nothing but the truth of what transpired then. The embattled Speaker may need to crosscheck his record to verify this fact. The good news is that the affected person is still alive.
The other aspect demanding clarification stemmed from the contention of the embattled former Speaker that his removal from the office of Speaker is illegal as due process was not followed.
As I opined in my last intervention, by the constitutional dictate, all that was required to remove a Speaker of a House of Assembly is two-third majority votes in favour of the removal and nothing more. Just as the ascendancy to the office requires no special skill nor qualification other than being a member of the House, it is the same that is obtainable in the removal once two-third votes have been mustered.
There is certainly no need to adduce any reason. It is sufficient that two-third majority of the members do not want that leadership again, period. Just as I indicated in the last column, it is the attempt to provide justification that often endangers the removal process. Since that was not what occurred in the House of Assembly during the removal process, I see no flaw in the process. Any accusation or allegation peddled outside the plenary is a mere ‘campaign issue”. They impugn not the removal.
Consequently, I am unable to fault the process. Regrettably, the embattled former Speaker did not equally inform us of the missing point that afflicted the removal process. The same challenge I have with the statement credited to Senator Anthony Adefuye that the process was flawed. As I remarked in my last X intervention, I suspect that the elder statesman must have been misquoted as, beyond being an experienced politician, he was once a member of the parliament. Again, our leader did not disclose what impaired the removal constitutionally.
Related Posts
The error in the contention of the embattled former Speaker alongside his other co-travelers is the muddling of “impeachment” process as obtainable in the removal of a chief executive occupying a political office with the removal of a Speaker of a parliament. I blame them not so much as so many journalists fall into the same error. It is for this reason that I am taking a dive into the area.
While the process for the removal of a Chief Executive of a constitutionally recognised office, such as that of the President and the Governor is specified in the Constitution of the country, the removal of a Speaker simply requires, constitutionally, two-third of the members in parliament voting for his removal without more.
There is no elaborate process for such removal as spelt out for the chief executives. For instance, in case of the chief executives, there must be allegations to confront the chief executive with; he must respond to it; there must be a panel set up for the investigation of the allegations in which the concerned occupier must be afforded the opportunity to defend the allegations; there must be an outcome by way of report indicting the affected occupier of the office, and the endorsement of the parliament. All these are inapplicable to the office of the Speaker and other principal officers of the House of Assembly.
The removal of the Speaker of the House thus requires no process than voting at the plenary with two-third of the members in favour of the motion. The justification for the dichotomy stems from the fact that the removal of chief executives attracts severe consequences such as being barred from holding public office for a period.
Hence, the laborious process for the removal, technically known as “impeachment” in some other climes. This position is in contradistinction to that of the removal of a Speaker or any other principal officer of the House which does not engender such consequences.
As a rider to the above, and in a nutshell, while the removal of a Chief Executive must be premised on justifiable and constitutionally recognized grounds, no such is demanded in the removal of the Speaker or any other principal officer of the House. Be that as it is, the question of the propriety or otherwise of the removal goes beyond the pages of the newspapers. It is a matter that can only be ventilated before a competent court of law.
Addressing press conference, or issuing press releases is no antidote to the grievance. The proper forum for the agitation of such legal question is the courtroom.
To my mind, there is no other option to that. That will be a further opportunity to develop and enrich the country’s jurisprudence if the matter goes to court. As I remarked elsewhere, leadership of the parliament is not the birthright of any member of the House of Assembly and pragmatically, not so much a function of any extraordinary skill or popularity, at least, in Lagos State.
There is a process for the emergence of leaders that is known to all the initiated members of the ruling party in the State. Grandstanding in circumstances of this nature is therefore short of loyalty to the system that, in the first instance, produced the occupier of such office. I am quite optimistic that there is no basis for apprehension as I am sure that Mudashiru Obasa is not going to approach the House to preside as Speaker until such time that the court says otherwise.
Any ranting on the pages of newspapers or on social media is therefore not only a waste of time but mere exacerbation of the already precarious situation of the embattled Speaker.
My advice, therefore, to the removed Speaker, is to mute himself for now, otherwise his affairs will continue to earn him adverse media reports as each utterance by him will not only be generating a new set of media reactions but that which will be largely inimical to his interest. His media strategist needs to guide him in this regard. As the rhythm plays, I see a repeat of the old political gimmicks again.
Over the weekend, pictures suggesting a meeting of the President with the embattled Speaker was in circulation all over social media. Certainly, it was an old picture of the visit of the then Speaker to the President, as no such meeting took place most recently. The whole scenario was orchestrated to throw confusion into the political arena. As a follow up to that, news started suffocating social media that the embattled Speaker was about to be returned based on the order of the President. Again, that attempt to paint Mr. President in that toga of a dictator and dress him in a garb that does not belong to him will certainly backfire in this regard as I do not see him imposing a member over thirty-eight other members who have unanimously rejected that person.
As I remarked elsewhere, the dreamers of such eventuality must certainly be clowning. In this intervention, I have come in peace except if and when eventually called out. Let the removed Speaker honourably go back to the House and continue representing his people as a member. That is the primary duty and obligation he owes the people he claims to be representing and not Speakership by all means. Hopefully, this will be my last discourse on this issue while I leave the rest of the intrigues to the politicians.
•Written By Muiz Banire
