As House’s Rejection of  Two Critical Bills Raises Concerns

The rejection of two critical bills, widely viewed by many Nigerians as pivotal for elevating the country’s leadership standards, by the House of Representatives sparks debate over the sincerity of the federal lawmakers in Nigerians’ quest for good governance, Juliet Akoje writes

Recently, the House of Representatives rejected two critical bills that could have improved the quality of governance by raising the bar for political office seekers amid hostile opposition from a majority of the lawmakers.

First was the bill, which sought to raise the academic qualifications for the positions of president, governor, and National Assembly members to a minimum of a bachelor’s degree level, while the second was a bill that sought to make it mandatory for presidential and governorship candidates to secure more than 50 per cent of the total votes cast, to be declared winners in an election.

Many Nigerians have considered it ridiculous that while corporate organisations in their vacancy announcements demand that applicants should have a minimum of university and polytechnic education, the minimum requirement for those in the echelon of the country’s leadership positions such as the presidency, governorship and lawmaking is a proof of secondary school certificate or its equivalent.

The bill, sponsored by Oriyomi Onanuga (APC, Ogun), sought to amend sections 65, 106, 131, and 171 of the 1999 Constitution, which basically state that a person for the positions of president, governor and National Assembly members must be qualified for election into the aforementioned elective offices if he/she “has been educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent.”

Before the bill was brought before the House, many Nigerians had expressed support for the review of the minimum educational qualifications for persons aspiring to hold political offices in order to improve the level of governance in Nigeria.

Indeed, academic qualification should matter more for those aspiring to occupy political offices, given that it is the political leadership that formulates programmes and policies that drive development and also provide direction for the corporate environment.

Though many analysts have argued that possessing higher educational qualifications does not guarantee good governance and leadership, insisting that character and integrity remain paramount, others believe that people of great intellect will make better leaders than others who are half-baked educationally.

Those who spoke to THISDAY feel that it is completely preposterous for Nigeria to have over 200 universities and over 150 polytechnics only to have the school certificate as the minimum educational requirement for public officeholders. 

They maintained that if higher educational qualification is needed to employ an individual who would take up a particular responsibility in a given organisation, then a double of such qualification should be recommended for those that will be saddled with the responsibility of administering the states and the country.

It was perhaps against this background that Onanuga sought to raise the qualification to at least a “university degree level or its equivalent”.

Leading the discussion on the bill, she said the bill would raise the education qualifications to contest elections in Nigeria to a minimum of a university degree and its equivalent. She urged her colleagues to support the bill, noting that the action was long overdue.

Also speaking in favour of the bill, the Minority Leader, Kingsley Chinda (PDP, Rivers), said the constitution must conform with the current realities in the country.

“What we are discussing is whether elected officials should have wisdom and knowledge. Are you telling me that a school certificate holder in 1960 is the same thing as today? In the past, primary school students were drafted to be teachers. Can a primary school holder get a job in private establishments? We must say that education is important. We should do the proper thing,” he said.

Several other lawmakers also spoke in support of the bill. However, it was not sufficient to convince those opposed to the bill. 

For instance, speaking against the bill, Aliyu Madaki (NNPP, Kano), said the bill could create an elitist society where only a group of people is allowed to participate in politics. 

He added that the bill would not affect him or his children, but insisted that laws should be made in the interest of the greater majority.

“Your leadership quality is not determined by education. I have three grown-up children; they are all in universities. What we are trying to do is about all Nigerians. The level of education is not in the constitutions of some states. In the case of INEC, what we saw the professors do is terrible.

“As a person, I hold an MBA, but it is not about the individual. It is about the collective. I believe we should allow that section of the constitution to stay,” he said.

Other lawmakers also spoke against the bill, citing exclusion as the reason for their positions against the bill. Some of the lawmakers who spoke against the bill include Kabir Maipalace (PDP, Zamfara), Ahmed Jaha (APC, Borno), Bello Kumo (APC, Gombe), and others.

At the end of the debate, the bill was shut down.

The irony is that while employment into Level 8 and above in the civil service is pegged at bachelor’s degrees and above, those of the presidents, vice presidents, governors, deputy governors and even lawmakers are left at school certificate otherwise called WASC and its equivalent (NECO).

In the same vein, a lawmaker’s proposal to amend sections 134 and 179 of the Constitution, mandating presidential and governorship candidates to secure over 50 per cent of total votes to win, was vehemently rejected by colleagues.

As it is currently operational, in the case of a presidential candidate, they are only deemed elected after securing the “highest number of votes cast at the election; and they have not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja,” as stated in section 134 of the constitution.

Similarly, a governorship candidate must secure the highest number of votes cast at the election and have not less than one-quarter of all the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of all the local government areas in the state.

In the February 25, 2023 presidential election, President Bola Tinubu scored 37 per cent of the vote count to defeat his main rival Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who polled 29 per cent, and Labour Party’s Peter Obi who got 25 per cent.

The bill aimed to prevent the scenario that played out during the last presidential election, where Tinubu, the candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) emerged as the winner without securing the majority of the total votes cast. He had a simple majority having polled 8.79 million of the total votes.

Over 90 million voters registered to vote in the 2023 presidential election out of which only 88 million collected the Permanent Voters Cards. Of this figure, only 25.2 million voted in the February 25 election.

It was against this background that Awaji-Inombek Abiante (PDP, Rivers), sponsored the bill aimed to amend the 1999 Constitution by removing the simple majority rule for presidential and governorship candidates.

Abiante’s proposal sought to change the simple majority rule to a majority. In other words, when there are more than two candidates in the race, the winner must secure more than 50 per cent of the total votes cast.

However, the lawmakers did not allow Abiante to lead the debate on the bill. When the Speaker, Abbas Tajudeen, put the question for the bill to be considered for a second reading, the “nays” were louder than the “ayes.”

Shocked by the development, the Speaker repeated the voice votes, and the voices of those opposed to the bill were louder. Consequently, Tajudeen ruled in favour of those who wanted the motion thrown out.

Many Nigerians are disappointed that even during the process of constitutional amendments, the federal lawmakers do not always want any serious and impactful amendment that would disrupt the status quo, fuelling concerns over their sincerity in the quest for good governance and genuine democracy.