For The Record
Labour Relations In Nigeria
What is labour relation?
It is the system that attempts to regulate labour relationship (employers, employee & state) in society.
It consists of various parties that are involved in power relations. The vehicle or mechanisms through which the parties seek to exert their authority or influence over the others are:
·Collective bargaining
·Recognition of agreement.
·Workplace disciplinary / grievance procedure
·Legislative framework: laws which impact on rights/duties of parties, determine the voluntary/compulsory nature of legislation.
·Worker participation.
·Dispute resolution.
The interplay of these factors determines the character of labour relations regime. Anyone of the following could be the defining characteristic:
·Authoritarianism – denial of rights.
·Acrimony/Disputes – state of anarchy.
·Dominated by ruling class.
·Unfriendly to workers – unfair laws & poor remunerations.
·Non-respect for collective agreement – weak tripartism.
·Restrict/restrain free collective agreement.
·Capitalism.
Forms of Labour Relations
Labour relation is informed by sets of beliefs that determine the society’s political, social and economic relationships – the ideological base of society. There are two extremes:
1.Individualism
This is characterised by:
·Individual freedom.
·Minimum state interference.
·Private property/capitalism.
·Market forces (Adam Smith)..
2. Communitarism.
This is characterised by:
·Collective interests
·State responsible for well-being of its citizens.
·Common ownership of means of production (Karl Marx).
3.Convergence Theory.
This is a middle road between Smith & Marx. It is informed by a philosophy of promoting individual endeavour and competition but with due reference to needs of society – necessary for some state interference.
4.Other theories
There are other theories such as the unitarists, pluralists, corporatism & co-determination.
External Factors that impact on Labour Relations.
1.Globalisation: search for markets/cheaper labour, resources, continued dependence on global economy.
2.North – South divide: developed, developing & under developed worlds.
3.Diminishing role of the state – rising influence of international financial institutions and multinational corporations.
4. Forms of work: flexibility, casualisation, outsourcing, etc.
5.Democratic political system – impacts on socio-economic relationships.
6.Forms of organisations – capacity & skills.
Political Economy of Labour Relations in Nigeria Colonial Era
Beginning of modern Nigerian state dates back to four centuries ago. Some of the factors that contributed in shaping the process of state formation include:
i. Islamic conquests of Northern Nigeria.
ii. Patterns of trade.
iii. Inter marriages and alliances of kingdoms and empires.
iv. British colonial conquest emergence of limited liability companies and later multinational companies (17th centuries).
v.Occupation of Lagos in 1862 – proclaimed crown colony: the beginning of direct colonial administration and rule in Nigeria.
Therefore modern Nigerian state formation was laid between 1860 & 1898 by European commercial firms and local trading magnets engaged in cut-throat competition in Lagos, old Calabar & Niger- Delta.
The purpose of state labour policy under colonialism in Nigeria was the creation of wage – labour force to meet the commercial needs of both local and European companies. The bases were laid after Lagos became a Crown Colony in 1862.
The aims were to:
·Create a labour market .
·Develop a stable labour force.
·Ensure ready market for imported consumer goods and wares.
·Create conditions favourable for ‘legitimate trade’ and other activities of increasing importance.
The Royal Niger Company was granted charter in 1886, which recognise it as the official agent of British government and therefore set the stage for military and direct political control.
The task of combining establishment and administration of the political territory and ensuring profitable business in the face of stiff local and foreign competition led to the establishment of West African Frontier Force to check threats against British. This task was executed by Lord Lugard.
Between 1890 and 1910, there was systematic military subjugation of local rulers in all parts of the country. The charter granted to the Royal Niger Company was revoked in 1892 due to warfare and resistance to monopolistic trading practices and by January 1, 1900 direct political control was established. Nigeria was divided into three administrative units:
1.Colony of Lagos administered by the colonial office.
2.Niger Coast Protectorate (Old Bendel State & former Eastern Region with headquarters at old Calabar) administered by the foreign office.
3.Empires of Sokoto & Kanem Borno & the confluence of Rivers Benue and Niger (Lokoja area) administered by the Royal Niger Company subject to supervision of the foreign office with headquarters at old Asaba.
Poor communication, vast territory and prohibitive cost of European civil servants made Lugard to start utilising indigenous political administrative arrangement.
Institutional Development
Between 1862 & 1900, technical and professional departments began to emerge. These include:
· Customs
· Medical
· Sanitary
· Public Works
· Post Offices
· Railways
· Harbour
· Engineering
· Education
The functions of these departments include processing of grievances.
Negotiations and consultations were restricted to public admin and mainly European officers who by 1897 were not more that 90. Colonial labour policy during this period was more a response to demands and protests against working conditions and wage rise by workers. Wage tribunals and commissions were major features of the response. The following are lists of commissions that were set up to address particular issues:
1. Hunt Committee – 1934. It was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the wages of unskilled workers and to determine reasonable standard of living for labour.
2. Bridges Committee – 1941.
It reviewed wages of African government workers in Lagos & recommended compensatory increases subsequently called cost-of-living awards’ (COLA).
3.Harragin Commission – 1945.
Reviewed salaries of ‘established’ government staff.
4.Tudor Davis Commission – 1946.
It was appointed in the wake of June 1945 general strike. It granted workers demand for COLA.
5.Miller Committee – 1947.
Looked into wage rates of daily paid workers.
6.Cowan enquiry – 1948.
Investigated and reported on methods of negotiations between government and employees in state-owned industrial establishments. The Cowan enquiry introduced Whitley Councils:
·Junior Whitley Council (A) for clerical & other office employees
·Junior Whitley Council (B) for industrial and manual workers
7. Fitzgerald Commission – 1949.
It examined the circumstances leading to violent protests and deaths such as the Enugu coal miners protest.
8.Gorsuch Commission – 1954.
It reconciled the salaries and fringe benefits of federal and regional civil servants.
9.Mbanefo Commission – 1958.
Set up the federal, eastern governments. Looked into workers agitation for competitive wages.
10. Morgan Commission – 1959.
Set up by the Western Regional government to look into workers agitation for competitive wages.
These commissions, committees and enquiries form a significant twists and turns to the evolution of labour relations practice in Nigeria.
Legal Framework for Labour Relations Institutions in Nigeria
Trade Union Ordinance – 1938: The ordinance defines trade unions as “any combination whether temporary or permanent, the principal purpose of which are the regulations between workmen, or between masters and masters whether such combination would or would not, if this ordinance had not been enacted, to have been deemed to have unlawful combination by reason of some, one or more of its purposes, being in restraint of trade.
Features
·The ordinance barred prison and police workers from belonging to unions.
·All trade unions have to be registered within three months of formation or disbanded.
·It created the office of Registrar of Trade Unions with powers to register or cancel registration.
·Two copies of union rules/constitution and list of officers have to be deposited with the Registrar.
Membership of unions restricted to persons above the age of 16 and as few as 5 persons can form a union.
· Illiterates and minors were not allowed to hold positions of treasurer, secretary and president.
·Unions must keep comprehensive membership list indicating occupation, trade, and names of employer and for the records to be open to inspection by any person having an interest in the funds of the union.
· Accounts were required to be kept and audited annually by persons approved by the Registrar of Trade Unions and a copy submitted to him within a month and general statement of account to be rendered to him (Registrar) yearly before 1st June.
· The Registrar had powers to call for Special Returns and empowered to institute criminal or civil proceedings.
The Trade Union Ordinance also established labour inspectorate. The labour inspectorate became Department of Labour in 1942 and a full fledged Federal Ministry with a Minister in 1957. Part of the function of the Ministry include administering laws and regulations pertaining to organised labour and providing such services as conciliation, arbitration and supervision of the provisions of the Factories Act that periodically involve employees.
Trade Disputes (Arbitration & Inquiry) Ordinance was enacted in 1941.
Labour (Wage Fixing & Regulation) Ordinance No. 40 was enacted in 1943. The Ordinance attempted price control and establish higher minimum wage in tin mines.
Labour Code Ordinance was enacted in 1945. It:
·Sought to protect workers from abuses
·Prohibit force labour
·Regulate the employment of young persons and women at night.
·Spell out the manner of payment of wages
·Concerned itself with other non-monetary benefits and entitlements .
The ordinance was a response to the 1945 general strike. The Tudor Davis Commission appointed in the wake of the strike deplored the absence of official direction on matters of collective bargaining and disputes and the ineffectiveness of the Department of Labour. The Ordinance recommended the establishment of ad hoc National Negotiating Committee comprising state representatives, private employers and workers. Labour (Wage Fixing and Regulation) Ordinance of 1943 established Labour Advisory Boards based on the recommendation of the Bridges Committee of 1941. The Ordinance empowered the Boards to make enquiries into conditions of service and wages referred to them and to make recommendations for fixing statutory minimum wage.
Wage Board Ordinance of 1957 established the Wage Boards.
Post Colonial Era
1.Junior Whitley Councils were reconstituted into a National Public Service Negotiating Councils in 1974 following recommendations of Udoji Commission.
a.Council I for adrnin 8: professionals.
b.Council II for clerical, executive and typists.
c.Council III for technical.
2.Joint Industrial Councils or Joint Consultative Committees were adopted for public corporations and utilities (parastatals).
For The Record
BROADCAST BY HIS EXCELLENCY, SIR SIMINALAVI FUBARA, GSSRS ON TUESDAY, 18TH JUNE, 2024
For The Record
An Open Letter To President Bola Ahmed Tinubu On The Imperative Of Revisiting The Eight-Point Resolution Brokered As Truce For The Rivers Political Crisis
Your Excellency, as belated as it may come, please, do accept my congratulations on your victory in the last Presidential election, and the seamless swearing-in ceremony that ushered you in as the sixth democratically elected President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Of course, your victory did not come as a surprise to many, given your antecedents as a democrat, astute administrator and, a go-getter. Whereas your track record as a political activist, especially in the wake of the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election is self-evident; your exceptional performance as Governor of Lagos State is a clincher any day.
It is my prayer therefore, that the good Lord, who has brought you this far, guide and direct your ways to steer the ship of state aright.
That being said, Your Excellency, please permit me to commence this correspondence with an allegory drawn from our recent past. A few years ago, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was elected Nigeria’s President on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). You were equally elected Governor of Lagos State on the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD). This electoral upshot inevitably placed you in opposition to the government at the centre.
The dust raised in the wake of the elections was yet to settle before you disagreed with then President Obasanjo. The bone of contention transcended personal vendetta, or so it seemed. Again, it happened at a time when our democracy could rightly be described as nascent. You had approached the court to seek judicial interpretation on some grey areas of our constitution, as provided for, in the concurrent list.
Much as Obasanjo would have loved to have things go his own his way, he was apparently restrained by the grundnorm. And he recognized it was within your right to seek judicial interpretation as to whether he wasn’t exercising his powers as president ultra vires. That was the rule of law at play; a classic specimen of what we fondly refer to as the beauty of democracy in our political parlance.Above all, it underscored the centrality of the constitution in resolving state matter.
Nigerians gave you thumbs up for engaging Obasanjo and the federal government all the way up to the Supreme Court. Moreover, happening at a time when the fear of President Obasanjo and the unwritten federal might were considered the beginning of political wisdom in our polity. Of course, the constitution came handy as a leveler between your good self and former President Obasanjo.
In light of the above, Nigerians naturally expect a clear departure from what the Obasanjo era and the immediate past regime offered them as constitutional democracy. Whereas it is still early in the day to rate your performance in this regard, one cannot but acknowledge that you have so far shown that you have some listening ear. Your intervention in what could have degenerated into a total breakdown of law and order in Rivers State late last year comes as a reference point. For me, stepping in to halt the ship of state from completederailment is an eloquent attestation to the fact that you place the security of lives and property, peace and harmony, and national cohesion over and above partisan interest.
You could equally have looked the other way and allow the crisis fester, since Rivers State is a PDP state. But you hearkened to the voice of reason, and that of well-meaning Nigerians, particularly, Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark, the leader of the Ijaw nation, and, the Ijaw National Congress (INC) to halt the drift. Notwithstanding your tight schedule, you took out time to summon the governor of Rivers State, Sir Siminalayi Joseph Fubara, his predecessor, now FCT minister, Barr. Ezebunwo Nyesom Wike and Hon. Martins Amaewhule who were the principal actors in the crisis to the Villa, and have them subscribed to a peace deal.
Although I had my reservations over the eight-point resolution ab initio, I refrained myself from joining the bandwagon in pointing out some of the obvious limitations in the document at the time. My position was informed by the following reasons. First, I didn’t see it as the wisest thing to do at a time when the crisis was raging like a wildfire. For me, nothing could have been more paramount than bringing the situation under control, which the armistice effectively accomplished. Second, I trusted your judgment, and honestly believed that you brokered the deal in good faith. I was therefore willing to give the truce the deserved benefit of the doubt by putting it to test. Finally, and most importantly, the governor who was in the eye of the storm was unwavering in restating his commitment to the terms of the truce.
However, three months after the deal was struck, I dare say, Your Excellency; that it has failed in attaining the ultimate goal of reconciling the warring factions.Instead, it had become the template for the palpable tension the state has since been grappling with. This outcome is by no means surprising to any discerning mind. And the reasons are not far-fetched. First, as I mentioned earlier, it would appear that in a bid to halt to the looming anarchy, the constitution which is the grundnorm was not properly consulted in forging the eight-point resolution. Also, a reexamination of the document reveals a certain degree of political fiat in its construct.
That the eight-point resolution has since triggered a plethora of litigations is only natural. That it has induced a near state of anomie clearly points to the inherent flaws in the document. That it has thrown up desperadoesand warmongers like Chief Tony Okocha and Engr. Samuel Nwanosike who now disparage, distract and outrightly abuse a sitting governor with reckless abandon is equally expected. As for Wike, the man believes the governor is his lackey, therefore, tongue-lashing, and outrightly threatening to give the governor sleepless nights are privileges he believes are within his right. But most worrisome, is the fact that Wike doesn’t make empty threats. In other words, backtracking on getting the governor out of office, either by hook or crook isn’t just an option.
The truth is, some of the articles in the eight-point resolution stealthily stripped the governor of the powers and aura of his office;thus exposing him to the ridicule we see today. For instance, article three directed the governor to reinstate former members of the state executive council,who had earlier resigned their appointments from the state cabinet. Truth be told, such directive to a sitting governor, in the very least, leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Perhaps, it would have been a different kettle of fish had the governor whimsically sacked the commissioners because he suspected their allegiance lay with the FCT minister. But here, these supposed honourable men and women resigned their appointments on their own volition, citing “personal grounds”.
One would have expected Your Excellency toresolve the issue a little differently given your groundedness in public and private administration; knowing that trust and mutual respect took flight the moment those commissioners handed in their resignation letters. In other words, people with obvious reservations against each other cannot truly work as a team.
The constitution expressly confers the powers to appoint commissioners on the governor of a state. It follows therefore that commissioners owe their loyalty to the governor who appoints them. While in the saddle, Wike was unequivocal in demanding a hundred percent loyalty from his commissioners. And that was what he got during his eight-year reign. Granted that the commissioners in question were all nominated by the FCT minister as we now know; the question is, was it also within his right to direct their resignation at will, and then re-direct their reinstatement because the plot to remove the governor failed?
If you ask me, requesting Wike, the nominator, to nominate fresh persons in their stead would have created more semblance of statecraft, seriousness in governance and, more importantly, saved the governor’s face. It also would have gone a long way to demonstrate that some things are beyond trifles. Put differently, the notion that a crisis of that magnitude could be resolved absent collateral damage rest on a faulty premise.
Again, article six of the eight-point resolution apparently puts the governor in a catch 22 situation. Directing the governor to re-present the state Appropriation Bill that has already been passed and signed into law to Hon. Martins Amaewhule and his co-travelers, in my humble opinion, was another sore point in the document. I doubt it was a fitting consideration for a failed impeachment that shouldn’t have happened in the first place; not after the courts have already made pronouncements on the issues.
Your Excellency, I honestly believe you didn’t intend the current stalemate between the executive and the legislative arms of government in Rivers State. Nevertheless, that is the reality on ground, as the governor, on one hand, governs the state with an infiltrated state civil service; and Martins Amaehule with his ‘Assembly’ members, working at cross-purposes with the governor, dish out all the anti-executive bills they can imagine. A case in point is the latest piece of legislation coming from the ‘Assembly’. Again, one wonders,what Assembly worth its salt, wouldseekto elongate the tenure of the current local government chairmen and councilors; knowing they were elected and sworn into office for a three-year term that expires in June? The question is, do we now enact our laws retroactively?
Now, to the crux of the matter, Wike is a man with a history of political violence. His politics thrives in an atmosphere of strife and rancour. It cannot be over emphasized that he presently seeks to overheat the Rivers polity, and possibly make the state ungovernable. He is hell bent on accomplishing the intendment of a failed impeachment. His penchant for violence explains why Rivers State under his reign wore the appalling badge of a conquered territory. The state hasn’t exploded yet, given its current tenuous peace of the graveyard,is because, Gov. Siminalaye Fubara has refused to swallow Wike’s bait. In fact, his refusal to join issues with the man he calls master, and probably heat up the polity explains why restive Wike wants 2027 switch place with 2024 in the Nigeria political calendar.
Already, his vicious supporters are on the prowl, momentarily rehearsing vandalism and arson of public and private properties, with no qualms, even in broad day light. Sadly, the license to take laws into their hands springs from standing on Wike’s mandate. This much is evident in a video that has gone viral on the cyberspace. One would have dismissedthe ongoing rampageas the man’s political trademark, except that wily Wike claims to be standing on your mandate, even though he has been most cautious in defecting to his supposedly ‘cancerous’ APC.
Your Excellency, is it not curious that Wike and his supporters are the only band daily chanting “On your mandate we shall stand, Jagaban”, one year after you had contested and won the February 25, 2023 presidential election?
Of utmost concern is the disturbing silence of the Police, the DSS and other security agencies in the face of Wike’s supporters running amok. Rather, than live up to their constitutional billing, they seem to unwittingly nudge the people to resort to self-help. And while they continue in their ostrichism, the fire is being steadily stoked by the man who thinks Rivers State is his sole enterprise, and to balm his bruised ego could unleash the unimaginable.
It is however reassuring that Your Excellency is no stranger to Rivers politics and its combustive nature. As Dr. Peter Odili’s contemporary as governors, you were well abreast of what transpired in the state from 1999-2007. You were also a major player in the Amaechi-Wike debacle while the former was the occupant of Brick House. In fact, you were purported to have saved Amaechi’s skin from the Jonathans, when, in cahoots with Wike, they unleashed the federal might.
You saw Rivers State went upin flame from 2013-2019, all for Wike to succeed his Ikwerre brother as governor in a multi-ethnic state. You were also witnessto how thepolitically induced inferno incredibly extinguished itself as soon as Wike’s vaulting ambition was achieved. But while the carnage last, Rivers people lost their lives in their hundreds.
As governor, and for eight years, Wike ruled like a demigod, and the state, his footstool. He literally vetoed the constitution on Citizens’ Rights, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Procurement, and Social Justice. In fact, one of the lion-hearted among us aptly tagged the Wike-era as the years of the Rivers of Blood.
Your Excellency, there is no better way to say Rivers State is presently sitting on a keg of gunpowder, while drifting daily towards the precipice. And if something is not done urgently to avert a repetition of its recent ugly past, tomorrow may be too late.
I have personally bemoaned the lot of the Rivers man since the dawn of the fourth republic in my book: The Rivers Season of Insanity. I would spare you the details therein. However, it may interest Your Excellency to know that as a Rivers man; I have tremendous respect for you, just as I envy what you have made of Lagos State. I’m therefore genuinely bothered that Rivers State may just be the odd state out as you are set to replicate the Lagos wonder across the federation. Rivers State can only andtruly share in the Renewed Hope, if Wike is restrained from plunging it into another round of bloodletting.
Much as it is the truth, I hate to reiterate, that in all her abundance, Rivers State can only boast of the loudest and most vaulting chief executives ever, since 1999. The allure to graduate from Brick House to Aso Villa has become an elixir, which those we elect to govern have not been able to extricate themselves from. And to make a bad situation worse, it remains the only state in Nigeria that flaunts an obnoxious injunction that insulates her past and serving governors from the ethics of good governance, such as transparency, accountability and probity.
I have no doubt in my mind that you already saw through Wike and his antics. And it is only a matter of time before you reined him in. My concern however, is that it shouldn’t happen only after he must have thrust the state into another round of massacre. Need I say, that going by his claim, what Wike delivered in last year’s election were Rivers votes, not his votes.
Ask the Jonathans if their alliance with Wike was worth the trouble, given the benefit of hindsight, and your guess will be as good as mine.
In a nutshell,Your Excellency, Rivers State has had more than her fair share of bloodletting since 1999. It is against this backdrop that I most fervently pray that the blood of Dr. Marshall Harry, Chief A. K Dikkibo, Hon. Monday Ndor, Hon. Charles Nsiegbe, Amb. Ignatius Ajuru, Hon. Monday Eleanya, Barr. Ken Aswuete and several other victims of assassination be allowed to water the peace initiative and advocacy of the incumbent governor.
Finally, Your Excellency, in view of the above, it is my humble submission that the eight-point resolution be revisited with the hope that it guarantees sustainable peace and harmony in the Rivers polity.
“The time is always right to do what is right.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Thank you for time and consideration.
Yours Respectfully,
Caleb Emmanuel Fubara
Fubara hails from Opobo Town
Background
On Thursday, February 15, 2024 at its 109th Legislative sitting, the House passed into Law, the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The Bill repealed the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law, No. 3 of 2006 and further amended the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission Law of 1999. The Bill was sent to the Governor for his assent and after the statutory 30 days, the House re-passed the Bill into Law on 22nd March, 2024.
The Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission was established by the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission Law of 1999. Section 2 provides:
“The Commission shall comprise a Chairman and four other members who shall in the opinion of the Speaker be persons of unquestionable integrity.
“The Chairman and members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Rivers State House of Assembly acting on the advice and recommendation of the House Committee of Selection and shall in making the appointment be guided by the geographical spread and diversity of the people of Rivers State.”
The above section was repealed by the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law No 3, 2006. In Sections 2 and 3, the Amendment Law provides that:
S. 2 “Section 2 of the Principal Law is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following subsection:
“(1) The Commission shall comprise a Chairman and 4 (four) other members.
S. 3 “Section 2(2) of the Principal Law is amended by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection:
“(2) The Chairman and members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Governor subject to the confirmation by the House of Assembly and shall in making the appointment be guided by the geographical spread and diversity of the people of Rivers State.”
The import of the 2024 Amendment Bill passed into Law by the House is that the Governor will no longer have the power to appoint the Chairman and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission and the power of appointment shall be vested in the House of Assembly.
Legal Issues
The first issue to consider is the Constitutional power of the Governor. Section 5(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides that the executive powers of the State shall be vested in the Governor of that State.” Further, Section 176(2) provides that: “The Governor of a State shall be the Chief Executive of that State.”
This follows that the Governor is the Chief Executive Officer of the State Government and by the powers vested on him, is responsible for making appointments into various executive bodies, subject to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and other statutes. All Commissions and other parastatals are executive bodies under the control of the Governor. The House of Assembly Service Commission is an executive body and as such, the Chairman and members can only be appointed by the Governor. The House of Assembly has no powers to make any appointment into an executive body as no statutory body is under the control of the legislature. The Rivers State House of Assembly should not mistake the presence of the building of the Service Commission in its premises as conferring powers on the House to appoint the Chairman and members of the Commission.
The second issue to consider is the Constitutional alteration of 2023. In that alteration, the Third Schedule was amended to include State Houses of Assembly Service Commissions, which invariably follows that a State House of Assembly Commission is one of State bodies established by section 197 of the 1999 Constitution. Let’s be reminded that Section 198 of the 1999 Constitution gives the Governor the power of appointment into various executive bodies, subject to confirmation by a resolution of the House of Assembly of a State. The job of the Rivers State House of Assembly ends with the confirmation of the appointees.
The alteration to the Third Schedule, paragraph 1A provides that the composition, tenure, structure, finance, functions, powers, and other proceedings of the Commission shall be as prescribed by a law of the House of Assembly of the State. Notice that the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission is not listed. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the power to appoint the Chairman and members of the House of Assembly Service Commission lies with the Governor, as is the case with the other bodies listed under Section 197 of the 1999 Constitution.
There is nothing in the Alteration that, by any stretch of imagination, can be inferred to confer the power of appointing the Chairman and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission on the Rivers State House of Assembly, notwithstanding the fact that the law creating the Commission was enacted by the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Thirdly, is the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission and its staff under the control of the State Government? To answer this question, we will take our voyage to Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution. That section gives the definition of a Public Service of a State to mean: “the service of the state in any capacity in respect of the government of the state and includes service as: clerk or other staff of the House of Assembly; member of staff of the High Court, the Sharia Court of Appeal, the Customary Court of Appeal or other courts established for a state by the Constitution or by a law of a House of Assembly; member or staff of any Commission or authority established for the state by this Constitution or by a law of a House of Assembly; staff of any Local Government Council; staff of any statutory corporation established by a law of a House of Assembly; staff of any educational institution established or financed principally by a government of a State; and staff of any company or enterprise in which the government of a State or its agency holds controlling shares or interest.
The purport of this section is that the Assembly Service Commission is not an appendage of the legislature but under the control of the State Government. Even at the national level, the members of the National Assembly Service Commission are appointed by the President in collaboration with the National Assembly.
Fourthly, what is the position of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission Law vis-à-vis the National Assembly Service Commission Act? Section 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution provides: “If any Law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of inconsistency, be void.”
Further, in A.G Bendel v AG Federation & 22 Ors (1982) 3 NCLRI, the Supreme Court held per Fatayi Williams CJN (as he then was) “neither a State nor an individual can contract out of the provisions of the Constitution. The reason for this is that a contract to do a thing which cannot be done without a violation of the Law is void.”
The fifth issue is: “can a statute revive a repealed statute?” In the case of Idehen v University of Benin, Suit No FHC/B/CS/120/2001, delivered on 19th December, 2001, the court held that:
“Contrary to the contention of the University, the effect of a repealing statute is to erase the repealed statute from the statute book. When a statute is repealed, it ceases to exist and no longer forms part of the laws of the land. In other words, the effect of the repeal is to render the repealed statute dead and non-existent in law. Like a dead person, it cannot be revived.”
The court also held in Onagoruwa v IGP (1991) 75 N.W.L.R (pt. 193) 593 that in law, a non-existent statute is dead and cannot be saved or salvaged by the court.
In Madumere v Onuoha (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) Pg 422, the Court of Appeal held that:
“the effect of repealing a statute is to obliterate it completely from the records of the Parliament as if it had never been passed. Such a law is to be regarded legally as a law that never existed…This means in effect that when a statute is repealed, it ceases to be an existing law under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
For the purpose of reviving your memory, the provision giving the Governor the power to appoint the Chairman and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission under the repealed 2006 Law provides in its opening paragraph:
“3. Section 2(2) of the Principal Law is amended by repealing section 2 and substituting the following section…” (emphasis mine).
Further, Section 6(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act provides:
“(1) The repeal of an enactment shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time when the repeal takes effect.”
Please note that Section 318(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “The Interpretation Act shall apply for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of this Constitution.”
It follows from the above that the House cannot repeal Sections 2 and 3 of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law No 3, 2006 to revive the already repealed provisions of the 1999 Law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Rivers State House of Assembly lacks the powers, legal or otherwise, to remove the power of appointment of the Chairman and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission from the Governor and vest that power on themselves. The provision in the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law, 2024 seeking to vest that power on the House is in clear contravention of the 1999 Constitution, and therefore, a nullity in the eyes of the Law. See the case of MacFoy v UAC (1961) 3 All ER 1169 where the court held that you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand.
In that case, Lord Denning stated: “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes more convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”
Rt Hon Ehie is Chief of Staff, Government House, Port Harcourt.
By: Edison Ehie