The ongoing debate over whether or not to extend the immunity privileges being enjoyed by the ex­ecutive to the presiding officers of the National Assembly appears to have added a new twist to the old debate on the contentious issue of immunity itself. Be­fore now, the discourse had concentrated on the con­tinuing retention of the immunity privileges for the executive arm of government.

That the issue has again resonated in this new dimen­sion no doubt, is an obvious fallout of the current trial of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki over alleged vio­lations of his assets declaration while in office as the Governor of Kwara State some 12 years ago.

The proponents of this new debate on immunity be­lieve that the leadership of the National Assembly, like their executive counterparts, deserves the privilege to enable them concentrate on the effective discharge of the demands of their offices.

Drawing from what happened to Saraki, where the number three citizen of the country had to be docked in the full glare of both the local and international com­munity, this school of thought believes that such an ac­tion is capable of psychologically and mentally debas­ing such a highly placed political officer, and derail him from the proper discharge of his office.

At the moment, only the President and his vice, as well as the Governors and their Deputies are the per­sons conferred with the privilege of immunity by Section 308 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

The immunity privilege insulates the political offi­cers from civil and criminal prosecution while in office. The logic behind this is that, such civil and criminal prosecutions, if allowed are capable of distracting the officers from effectively discharging the responsibili­ties of their offices, for which the citizens invested their votes.

While the executive arm of government enjoys com­prehensive immunity from civil and criminal prosecu­tion, the legislature on the other hand is only entitled to partial protection by the law while within the precincts of the parliament and in the course of the discharge of their duties only.

Section 308 of the constitution, which provides im­munity for the President, Vice President, Governors and the Deputy Governors states that, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, but sub­ject to subsection (2) of this section- No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office; A person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; No process of any court requiring or compelling the ap­pearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued. Regarding legislative immunity for members of the National Assembly, it can be found under the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act. Section 3 of the Act entitled, "Immunity from proceed­ings" provides that, "No civil or criminal proceedings may be instituted against any member of a Legislative House in respect of words spoken before that House or a Committee thereof; or in respect of words written in a report to that House or to any Committee thereof or in any petition, bill, resolution, motion or question brought or introduced by him therein."

Any need for political office holders to enjoy immunity?

The issue of immunity for political office holders as provided for under section 308 of the Nigerian 1999 constitution has generated heated arguments, contro­versies and debates. For a nation like Nigeria where political office holders had been called to question on the issue of corruption, stealing and abuse of office, there had been intense clamour for the removal of the immunity clause from the constitution. Those who are calling for the removal of the immunity clause are of the opinion that it encourages and promotes corruption and therefore give room for bad leadership which the people they are to serve don't deserve. Their argument is based on the fact that political office holders came into public positions through the mandate of the peo­ple and therefore are expected to hold the positions in trust for the people and be accountable to them. It would be recalled that former President, late Umaru Musa Yar'Adua when he assumed office in 2007 had called for the removal of the immunity clause, saying nobody in the country deserves the right to be protected by law when looting public funds.

Yar'Adua hinged his argument on the fact that the immunity granted public office holders promote cor­ruption.

The views of Yar'Adua was further reinforced and supported by Ibrahim Shekarau when he was Kano State governor. He must also have seen reasons for the removal of immunity to ensure that public office hold­ers are made to be accountable even when in office.

However, many others who are in support of the re­tention of immunity clause have argued that, removing the immunity clause would allow those holding politi­cal offices in the country to be distracted from perform­ing their statutory roles with frivolous and unnecessary litigations.

They are also of the opinion that removing the im­munity clause would open up opportunity for political office holder who has not performed to the expectation of the people to have excuse that his performance was hindered because he was distracted by litigations which put him under pressure and did not allow him to func­tion optimally.

However, Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution does not prevent investigation of any political office holder while occupying office. Even where any of the political office holder protected by immunity is found wanting in the discharge of his duties, there are provisions in the constitution to ensure checks and balances through impeachment of such public officer by the legislature if they commit offences considered impeachable.

While Nigerians would have to decide whether or not to remove the immunity clause from the constitution, many people believe that public office holders should not be allowed to do what they like while in office to the detriment of the generality of the people.

The power it is said belongs to the people who put them in positions and not to the political office holders who are expected to serve and discharge the duties at­tached to their offices in the overall interest of the peo­ple and the nation.

History of executive interference in NASS leadership

Executive interference in all things legislative, start­ed in 1999 when then President Olusegun Obasanjo was President. The first president of the Senate in the Fourth Republic, Senator Evan(s) Enwerem who emerged against the wishes of the President, like Senator Buko­la Saraki was haunted to an early ouster, leading to the emergence of Dr. Chuba Okadigbo, another staunch ri­val of the President. Sen. Enwerem's helmsmanship got the bashing of key members of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, who had earlier in a mock election, gone for Senator Chuba Okadigbo. Okadigbo who was annointed by majority of the PDP governors, with the party hier­archy in tow, had lobbied every Senator for their sup­port and actually got it. But days before the leadership contest, President Olusegun Obasanjo moved against him and used the minority parties, the Alliance for De­mocracy, AD, All Peoples Party, APP and a sprinkling of PDP senators. In the end, Enwerem triumphed princi­pally because Obasanjo backed him against the desire of the majority of PDP senators. Though in the case of Saraki, Buhari had refused to interfere . A last-minute move to force him into action after the PDP endorsed the All Progressives Congress, APC rebel candidate, Saraki was unsuccessful as the rebels refused to come for the meeting insisting that the president did not call the meeting. Enwerem's stay in office was for barely five months before his removal by a majority of senators in November, 1999. That was the only one of two success­ful impeachment moves against any principal officer of the Senate in the Fourth Republic. It happened on the day that his backer, President Obasanjo jetted out of the country. And in came Okadigbo, who was himself removed in July, 2000.

Okadigbo's era was draped in melodrama, fireworks and legislative activism. Anyim Pius Anyim, who suc­ceeded him, led a Senate that moved from subservience to a senate that tackled the president and almost im­peached him.

After a rocky Senate Presidency, in his departure speech, Anyim announced his decision to quit the PDP. After Anyim, a slavish loyalist to Obasanjo, Sen. Adol­phus Wabara took the Red throne. Wabara was said to be Senate President even before his election as a sena­tor was confirmed. For Wabara the Presidency of OBJ was squeaky clean. But when Wabara supposedly toyed with the idea of becoming the first Igbo President, his end came quickly. His fall was quickened by the uneven appropriation of Senate funds which led senators to revolt against him leading to his forced resignation in April 2005 after he was indicted in the Education Bribe for Budget scam.

Senator Ken Nnamani, who replaced him as Senate President, perhaps led the most stable Senate of the era and when the life of the second Senate of the Fourth Re­public came to an end it was no surprise he was touted for the vice-presidency. Senator David Mark emerged as the President of the Sixth Senate and became the first and only person so far to complete a four-year term as Senate President. Senator Mark's resilience was be­cause he avoided the banana peels, despite some of his shady outings to protect the presidency of Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan.

House's resolution against external influences

For the House of Representatives, it is logical for leg­islators to find a way of protecting the legislative arm of government, especially its principal officers, to en­sure its true independence. Thus, the House at its ple­nary on Wednesday September 30, 2015, resolved to find a way of ensuring protection for the principal officers of the National Assembly. How this would be done, is one thing that is not yet clear to the public as immunity for certain public office holders has remained a func­tion of the constitution. It was the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Hon Leo Ogor, PDP, who brought the proposal to ensure protection for the Princi­pal Officers of the national assembly. Although the main motion was about the celebration of the 55th Indepen­dence of Nigeria, Ogor was rather worried that though it was worth celebrating, the national assembly was not going to be smiling because of the troubles it was fac­ing from external influences that intend to frustrate its powers. He believed that democracy was in danger giv­ing the unwarranted and incessant interferences in the affairs of the legislature by the Executive arm, in spite of the fabulous contributions of the legislature to the sustenance of the country and its democracy. Seeing the travail of the Senate President, Senator Bukola Saraki, in the hands of forces in the Executive and Judiciary arms, who were bent on rubbishing him out of office as a duly elected Senate President, Ogor successfully got the House to believe and resolve to evolve the measures for protection not only to them in the House alone, but also the Senate. He got the House to believe that what was going on with Saraki was not about him alone as a lawmaker, but it was a spite on them all as Saraki is the Chairman of National Assembly and number one lawmaker in the country, constitutionally positioning him as number three citizen of Nigeria. The logic is that the Chairman of National Assembly was suffering this travail in office because he did not have any form of protection in the constitution or any act of parliament. If he was covered by immunity clause like those in ex­ecutive, then this would certainly not have happened. Although the proposal as carried by the House was that Speaker Yakubu Dogara should meet with President Muhammadu Buhari, to resolve all the outstanding problems facing the National Assembly, he was also to embark on a fact-finding mission to ascertain what led to the travails of the Senate President. Ogor had argued that in a civilian dispensation, the legislature was the foundation of democracy. He urged members to protect the legislative arm and fence off any external influence, as the onus was on them to protect the legislature in or­der to make it truly independent. These were his words: "Mr. Speaker, we have had issues and the legislature as an independent arm of government is under threat. "We have to protect our own. As an amendment to the motion on the Independence Celebration, I am propos­ing that the House takes a position to ascertain what led to the travails of the Senate president, Dr. Bukola Saraki. "We need to know what exactly is happening to the Chairman of the National Assembly. I am there­fore urging the Speaker to investigate and report back to the House, after which we shall take a position on the issue."

Since the legislature does not enjoy immunity and it would take time to have it successfully enact a law to give such protection, it is believed that both Chambers would in no distant time agree on a common measure to protect the legislature against executive disrespects and defend it jealously as injury to one is certainly going to now mean injury to all.