The high cost of running Nigeria’s legislative arm of government, the National Assembly, had always been closely scrutinized and criticized by most Nigerians. At the inception of the fourth republic in 1999, a massive public outcry welcomed the perks of office and other financial provisions for members of the National Assembly. These included provision of accommodation in a three-bedroom duplex for each member in the luxurious housing estate known as Legislative Quarters in Abuja with senators (109) and members of the house (360) getting N3.5 million and N2.5million, respectively, as furnishing allowances. It was also revealed that members of chambers would get N15,000 (Senate) and N14,000 (Representatives) as seating allowances for each plenary session. Brand new Peugeot 505 saloon car [ST] edition were procured for senators while brand new Peugeot 504 cars [2000] edition were handed over to members of the House of Representatives to ease their mobility.
Coming at the end of a prolonged corrupt and ruthless military rule that left the majority of Nigerians in poverty, the loud outcry against the mouth-watering packages for National Assembly members effectively supplanted the official whispering of other financial remunerations such as basic salaries, allowances and running costs. Members of the National Assembly, most of whom were drawn from struggling working class and outright poor background, whose elections were made possible by communal solidarity, became instantly wealthy by virtue of their new status as lawmakers. And vain profligacy set in as the new exposure to money and power brought out the beast in man. Completely disregarding the social contract upon which they were elected, most members of the National Assembly covetously converted all monies accruable to their offices to personal use while the vast majority of their constituents remained in abject poverty.
Realising that National Assembly is now an avenue to instant money and power, the fourth Assembly [2003-2007] was invaded by businessmen politicians who successfully used their personal resources to procure seats from willing constituents who had become disenchanted with the futility of selfless solidarity. With each succeeding Assembly proving to be worse than the previous, the political process has progressively become heavily monetized and on sale to the highest bidder. Primitive acquisition of wealth has made members of Nigeria’s political class greedy with a heightened insatiability thereby leaving the people with little or nothing. Gradually, with the greed for excessive money in order to sustain political relevance for the main purpose of self-service, some members of the National Assembly, clearly dissatisfied with their legitimate pay, have resorted to corrupt collaboration with the executive arm of government to criminally convert public funds to personal use laundered through the process of budgeting. The stage was set for a prolonged animosity between the people and the National Assembly members. This animosity and mistrust have been deepened by monumental corruption scandals that have rocked the legislature since 1999. Members of National Assembly, probably out of the fear of excessive demands, have learnt to conceal their earnings from the people. The true earnings of individual members have been a subject of mystery until recently when Shehu Sani, a senator from Kaduna State, blew open the lid on the amount he earns.
According to Sani, senators earn a consolidated salary of N700,000, while monthly running costs amounts to N13.5 million. Sani also revealed that the sum of N200 million was allocated to each senator as constituency project fund. Expectedly, there has been an upsurge in public outcry, with some calling for a reduction in financial privileges of National Assembly members. Some others have questioned the wisdom behind a bi-cameral legislature with a humongous cost to public resources. In extreme cases, some have called for the outright proscription of the National Assembly. In all these plethora of reactions, it is pertinent to sieve issues from emotions.
The institution of the National Assembly, which is the harbinger of Nigeria’s constitutional democracy, must be separated from the conduct of individual members. The current cost of running the National Assembly is the right price to pay for democratic governance. The financial autonomy of the National Assembly that culminates in the relatively high financial privileges enjoyed by members is largely responsible for the independence of the legislative arm of government from the all-powerful executive. Independence of the National Assembly is a condition precedent for the activation of democratic practices of checks and balances between the three arms of government. While members of National Assembly may not have lived up to full expectation, going down memory lane, they have on some important occasions risen up to activate the best side of their legislative duties in patriotic service to the nation.
In the 2006 Constitution amendment exercise, most members of the National Assembly resisted multi-million naira bribes from the executive arm of government and voted in line with the popular choice against the third term agenda for heads of the executive arm in the three tires of government. Similarly, the National Assembly would rise up in 2010 to save the nation from anarchy as a result of a constitutional crisis arising from the inability of the late President Umar Musa Yar’Adua to hand over presidential authority to Vice President Goodluck Jonathan before embarking on a prolonged medical vacation overseas. By inventing the “doctrine of necessity,” National Assembly members resisted pressure and patronage from the cabal of inner members of the Yar’Adua administration that was believed to be ruling Nigeria by proxy and put Nigeria first by unanimously granting a conveyance of legislative approval for Vice President Jonathan to act as President.
By 2011, the House of Representatives would resist executive interference by electing Aminu Waziri Tambuwal against the Aso Villa-anointed Adeola Akande as Speaker. That historic event had far-reaching consequences in the 2015 elections that saw an incumbent President Jonathan losing to an opposition Muhammadu Buhari; an indication of a mature democracy. In the build-up to the 2015 general election, Speaker Tambuwal wnet ahead to lead about 30 members in an unprecedented mass exodus from a ruling party (PDP) to then fledging opposition APC. Nine senators also crossed from the PDP into APC. This was addition to regular cases of close scrutiny of executive policies, programmes and spending.
The independence of the National Assembly enables it to challenge executive recklessness and bullying by rejecting executive nominees, adjusting financial estimates with recommendations in line with public interest.
All these might not have been possible with a National Assembly without financial autonomy whose members are poorly remunerated relative to a powerful executive. The current vibrancy in the polity, where the National Assembly does not rubber-stamp every decision of the executive is very healthy for democracy. That Sen. Sani has successfully transformed his human rights activism into legislative vibrancy is largely premised on the atmosphere of freedom he enjoys as a member of a legislature that is financially and politically independent of the executive.