Solomon Bob, the federal lawmaker representing Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency of Rivers State, has mounted a compelling case for the removal of constitutional immunity for key political office holders, arguing that the current system breeds impunity and corruption in governance.
The proposed legislation, which has sparked intense debate in political circles, seeks to significantly modify the immunity clause that currently shields the vice president, governors, and deputy governors from prosecution while in office. Bob’s reform agenda maintains limited immunity for the president, restricting protection only to actions directly related to constitutional duties.
In a detailed interview discussing his controversial bill, Bob dismantled the traditional argument that immunity is necessary to prevent political leaders from being distracted by litigation. Drawing parallels with the United States, which he described as the world’s most litigious society, the lawmaker pointed out that American governors and presidents function effectively without absolute immunity, suggesting that Nigeria’s current approach may be counterproductive.
The untold levels of impunity, corruption, and indiscipline that we are exposed to as a result of retaining this absolute immunity far outweigh any potential benefits,” Bob argued, addressing concerns about frivolous litigation. He expressed confidence in the judiciary’s ability to dismiss meritless cases, stating that courts are well-equipped to recognize and reject frivolous actions.
The proposed legislation represents a significant departure from the status quo, introducing a more nuanced approach to executive immunity. Under the new framework, presidential immunity would be limited to actions directly related to constitutional duties, while completely removing protection for vice presidents, governors, and deputy governors. This targeted approach aims to strike a balance between ensuring effective governance and maintaining accountability.
However, Bob acknowledges the significant hurdles facing the bill’s passage. The proposal requires support from two-thirds of state houses of assembly, many of which are influenced by governors who would likely oppose such reforms. Some of my colleagues have described the bill as fantastic but they fear the governors will not support it,” Bob revealed, highlighting the complex political dynamics at play.
The lawmaker strongly criticized the current practice of waiting until officials leave office before pursuing legal action against them for alleged wrongdoing. He argued that this delay often leads to the destruction of evidence, witness tampering, and loss of crucial documents, ultimately undermining the justice system’s effectiveness. “It is counterintuitive to think that we have to wait until they finish their terms to take action against them,” Bob stressed.
Drawing attention to the potential for abuse under the current system, Bob painted a stark picture of the implications of absolute immunity: “The way things stand today, a governor can walk into a room, shoot all the people and leave. He is shielded from prosecution because he has immunity. We can’t continue this way.” This dramatic illustration underscores the lawmaker’s concern about the extent of protection currently afforded to political leaders.
The proposed reform has broader implications for Nigeria’s political landscape. Bob also opposed extending immunity to federal lawmakers, a proposal that surfaced in the 9th Assembly. He argued that expanding immunity would create “too many centres of absolute madness” and further erode accountability in public service.
Beyond the immediate issue of immunity, Bob advocated for more comprehensive constitutional reform. He suggested that Nigeria needs either a brand-new constitution or a comprehensive constitutional reform proposal from the president, noting that the current practice of periodic amendments has become a mere ritual without addressing fundamental issues.
The debate over this proposed legislation reflects deeper concerns about governance, accountability, and the rule of law in Nigeria. While the bill faces significant political obstacles, its introduction has sparked important discussions about the balance between executive protection and accountability in public office.
As the proposal makes its way through the legislative process, it will test the political will of Nigerian lawmakers to implement reforms that could fundamentally alter the power dynamics between political leaders and the constituents they serve. The outcome of this legislative initiative could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s fight against corruption and the pursuit of good governance.
Whether the bill succeeds or fails, Bob’s push for reform has highlighted critical questions about the nature of executive immunity and its role in modern democratic governance, potentially setting the stage for future reforms in Nigeria’s political system.
