The House of Representatives has rescinded its earlier decision to pass a bill seeking to remove the immunity granted to the Vice President, governors, and deputy governors. This decision was made to allow for further debate and scrutiny of the controversial amendment.

The bill, sponsored by Solomon Bob, aimed to amend Section 308 of the Constitution, which currently grants absolute immunity to the President, Vice President, Governors, and Deputy Governors while in office. The proposed amendment sought to qualify the immunity of the President, making them liable for prosecution under certain conditions, while completely removing immunity for the Vice President, governors, and deputy governors.

However, the House of Representatives has decided to revoke its earlier decision on the second reading of the measure, proposing to deprive the Vice President, governors, and deputy governors of immunity. This move has sparked intense debate and discussion among lawmakers and stakeholders.²

The decision to rescind the bill has been met with mixed reactions. Some lawmakers have expressed concerns that the bill, if passed, could be used as a tool for political witch-hunting. Others have argued that removing immunity would promote accountability and transparency in governance.

As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether the House of Representatives will revisit the bill and push for its passage. One thing is certain, however: the issue of immunity for public officials is a complex and contentious one that requires careful consideration and scrutiny.

Background of the Bill

The bill, titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to Qualify the Immunity Conferred on the President, Remove the Immunity Conferred on the Vice President, the Governors and their Deputies, in Order to Curb Corruption, Eradicate Impunity and Enhance Accountability in Public Office and for Related Matters (HB.1664),” was one of the 42 Constitution amendment bills that scaled second reading during plenary on Wednesday.

Implications of the Bill

If passed, the bill would have significant implications for public officials in Nigeria. The removal of immunity would make them liable for prosecution while in office, which could promote accountability and transparency in governance.

However, critics of the bill have argued that it could be used as a tool for political witch-hunting, and that it could undermine the ability of public officials to carry out their duties effectively.

Next Steps

The House of Representatives has rescinded its decision on the bill, and it remains to be seen whether the bill will be revisited and pushed for passage. The decision to rescind the bill has been met with mixed reactions, and it is clear that the issue of immunity for public officials is a complex and contentious one that requires careful consideration and scrutiny.

As the debate continues, it is essential that lawmakers and stakeholders consider the implications of the bill carefully and make an informed decision that promotes accountability, transparency, and good governance in Nigeria.