Expanding theatre of war against the legislature

The seventy fifth birthday anniversary of Nigeria’s former military head of state General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida(aka IBB), was an occasion that gave cause for cheer to his many admirers, but for one issue that put him on the spot as an unrepentant assailant on the nation’s democratic heritage. That was his call for a part-time legislature for the country. In a chat with journalists to mark his birthday anniversary IBB was quoted to have said that “during my public life, there were a number of decisions we took as a military officer or as a political officer that if I had the chance again, I would have done it differently. For example, in 1989, we proposed that the National Assembly should be optional, that is part-time.I still believe that if I had the opportunity, I would make the National Assembly part time. I believe in that strongly, it is all in an effort to cut down the cost of governance.”
 Under full amplification, IBB’s suggestion – which in any case had also been made by several other commentators, would imply a reduction of the vital functions of the legislature to the level of a village square forum, which people attend only at their convenience; may be after returning from the farm or a fishing expedition. The major weakness of that suggestion is that it dispenses with valid considerations of the regular work load associated with the routine of legislative enterprise.
Interestingly, routine legislative enterprise is unlike voodoo rites that are confined to a select caucus, but enjoys universal application. Hence as a former head of state to whom can be ascribed the advantage of better informed insight into the fortunes of the legislature, a suggestion from IBB advocating a part time legislature for the country, and  at this time which demands close marking of the nation’s patrimony is at best unfortunate. Needless to bellyache over the fact that the typical legislator is busy all day round on a schedule that part time attention may not sustain.
In the current ambience of free speech which in IBB’s time was denied Nigerians to a large measure, it is noteworthy that he can now enjoy the liberty of re-enacting the mindset that accounted for the outrages of his regime, which set the stage for the macabre drama surrounding the June 12 1993 crisis. For the purpose of recall the crisis was over the unilateral annulment by the IBB junta, of the victory of Chief Moshood Kolawale Abiola in the presidential elections held that year. The convolutions from that development resonated far and wide across the globe, and lasted long enough to the time of IBB’s successor – General Sani Abacha who facilitated the eventual incarceration as well as death of Abiola, his wife Kudirat, a journalist Bagauda Kaltho and many others too numerous to mention,and who made sacrifices including losing their lives, in order that Nigeria may be better.
 Many scholars have tried to denigrate conventional history as comprising mere tales told by victors and survivors in past conquests, because the narratives by the dead and vanquished hardly surface for attention by posterity. Hence while controversial political figures like IBB,who by the divine grace of Allah and at the expense of lives and limbs of numerous victims, now enjoy the liberty of free speech to regale his admirers with his tales of self-serving personal heroism, it remains a disservice to his country men and women for him to add to the nation’s woes by joining forces with the agents of retrogression – the league of parliament bashers.
Seen in context IBB’s take on the National Assembly qualifies for more than a casual glance. Nigerians of an older generation will easily recall how during his tenure as the Head of State he failed the nation by denying the people the benefit of returning the country to full democratic governance. It was during his tenure that the most vicious attack on the nation’s age long aspiration for democratic rule was executed with the introduction of the oddity of diarchy in which political power was shared between the military and elected political office holders.
In order to facilitate the corruption of the democratic credentials of the country, he adopted the title of President for himself, a development that was at variance with the tradition of previous military leaders of the country who were content with the regular and unambiguous title of Head of State. With him at the head of a military junta complete with the over-arching Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC), his administration went ahead to sponsor elections into a National Assembly for the country and Houses of Assembly for the various states under the rule of military governors. By that arrangement laws made by the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly were assented to by the military leaders who were at the head of the executive arm at the federal and state levels.
With such antecedents it should not be surprising even if disappointing that IBB remains a most unrepentant enemy to a free and unfettered democratic dispensation with its indispensable, fully operational legislature. It is also in the same vein that his latest sermon on the desirability of a part time legislature is at best unfortunate as it runs in the face of logic, given the expectations of Nigerians from the democratic dispensation. Placed in proper perspective what Nigerians expect from the democratic dispensation is the domiciliation of the processes of governance with the ordinary people through their elected representatives in the legislative establishment comprising, the National Assembly, the various state Houses of Assembly and the legislative chambers of 774 local government councils in the country. Admissibly however, the desired domiciliation of governance with the people has not taken place, to the lament of most Nigerians, and this is where many Nigerian are begrudging the legislature and its operators.
According to the provisions of the Constitution and in line with the expectations of the public, the legislature at every tier should serve as the eyes, ears and conscience of the constituents. Little wonder that in the entire gamut of public misgivings on the role of the legislature, the central grouse has been the perceived incapacitation of the arm of government to play its designated role of guidance to the government.
Meanwhile IBB’s intervention in the conversation on the future of the country’s legislature through his suggestion of part time service by legislators, should not be underrated as such a slip may prove to be unduly presumptuous. Rather it should be seen in a better light as a metaphor signaling an expansion of the assault on the Nigerian legislature. And only time will tell if the last on this matter has been heard from him.