The Enugu State House of Assembly has, for a second time, rejected the amendment of some sections of the 1999 Constitution as proposed by the National Assembly.
Ruling on the motion, the Speaker, Eugene Odoh, advised his colleagues at the National Assembly to heed the rule of law irrespective of the interests they might be canvassing.
According to him, there is no justification for the inclusion of the electoral timetable in the Constitution.
``Such a provision should remain in the electoral act because human factors may necessitate a change in any date,’’ the Speaker said.
Also, Mr. Odoh reminded his colleagues that a few weeks ago, a Federal High Court in Lagos declared the first constitutional amendment as ``null and void’’, since the president did not give assent to the amendments.
``We shall communicate to the National Assembly our total rejection of the amendment but if any court of competent jurisdiction states otherwise, we will abide by it
``No court has given any stay of proceedings in respect of the Federal High Court judgment and since human nature is flexible and dynamic, it may not be proper to put such timetable in the constitution,’’ he said.
Moving the motion, Johnny Obidinma, the Leader of the House, urged his colleagues to reject the provisions of the amendments as contained in clauses 1 to 11.
Paul Anikwe, (PDP-Ezeagu), suggested that provisions of the 1999 Constitution should be used to conduct the 2011 general elections, since the judgment of the Lagos High Court had not been vacated.
Cletus Enebe, (PDP-Awgu North) said that provisions of the second constitutional amendment would promote constitutional crisis as section 132 (2) of the 1999 Constitution made provisions for days within which elections should be conducted.
Legislators present during the proceedings, unanimously voiced a rejection of the Act to alter the Constitution (First Alteration).
In another development, Abel Chukwu, Chairman, Joint Committee on Works, MDGs and Judiciary, presented a report of the public hearing held on the Public Procurement Bill and Regulatory Authorities.
He noted that many of the contributors objected to a governor being chairman of the bureau because there could be other state matters that might require attention of a chief executive and could thus delay public procurement.
Debate on the report for possible passage was deferred to a later date to be determined by the Rules and Business Committee of the House.
No comments:
Post a Comment