PHAP Parliament reinstated the PRO.The Electoral Committee Members were sworn into Office by the house
By: Boluwatife Oyedemi
The calm atmosphere was short lived as Napasite Segun sparked the first major debate of the day,drawing attention to what he described as widespread non-compliance with the parliamentary dress code beginning with the speaker himself.While the observation generated reactions among the members,chief justice Joel appealed for leniency citing the ongoing Final Year Brethren (FYB) week and justification for the member’s appearance.
As deliberations continued,Honorable Esther subsequently moved a motion for the adoption of the minute of the previous sitting though but was corrected on the parliamentary procedures for presenting the motion.Justice Joel thereafter properly moved the motion for the adoption of the minute at exactly 4:16pm which was seconded by the Deputy Speaker before the house adopted the minute.
The debate thereafter took a constitutional turn as Napasite Toheeb questioned the indefinite suspension of the department’s Public Relations Officer (PRO) over inadequate funding.He sort clarification on whether the department would remain without a PRO for the rest of the session because of financial constraints.Lending his voice to the discussion,Napasite Segun explained that although funds has initially been approved for the PRO duties,the officer in charge reportedly declined to carry out his responsibilities because the department owed him some amount of money.He added that the PRO was eventually reimbursed partially for the expenses he had personally incurred while discharged his duties.
The issue of documentation soon generated another round of debate as Napasite Segun argued that the absence of printed copies should not have prevented the General Secretary from presenting the names of the proposed Electoral Committee members. He maintained that such a requirement was not backed by the Constitution but was merely the Speaker’s personal conviction. According to him, the names could have been conveniently read from a mobile phone rather than delaying proceedings while the General Secretary wrote them out. Responding to the concern, the Speaker explained that he preferred hard copies because they served as official records, adding that anything could happen to his mobile phone.
While members awaited the General Secretary’s readiness to present the Electoral Committee list, Honourable Toheeb suggested that the House proceed to Any Other Business (AOB) to ensure that the sitting continued without unnecessary delay.
Proceedings under AOB commenced with the chairman ofAIPAS,Napasite Abdulrahman, presenting the committee’s report. The Speaker, however, observed that the AIPAS Chairman appeared to be presenting reports on behalf of all offices, noting that such responsibility should rest with the respective office holders.
Justice Joel also drew attention to what he described as a typographical error in the report, where “Expenses Sheet” had been written as “Expenses Shit,” questioning whether it was merely an oversight, as the department certainly did not incur such an expense.
Napasite Toheeb further observed that despite contributing financially to AIPAS, his name was omitted from the revenue list. He questioned the basis for the omission, asking whether his contribution was considered too insignificant to deserve recognition. Justice Joel added that Napasite Segun had earlier pointed out another error in the committee’s report, expressing hope that all identified lapses would be corrected before the next parliamentary sitting.
Napasite Theophilus addressed the issue of the Honourables’ mode of dressing and also suggested that each office should have a budget to enable office holders to carry out their responsibilities effectively.
The President was absent and was represented by the General Secretary, who was expected to address the issue of the electoral Committee. However, she stated that the President had not briefed her on the matter and that she was only hearing about it for the first time during the sitting.
Napasite Toheeb pointed out that the electoral Committee had been ratified in the previous session and urged that this year’s committee should also be constituted and made effective. Honourable Esther added that the previous electoral Committee had failed in its responsibility because the Executive did not submit any report.
Justice Joel observed a recurring trend in Parliament where documents meant to be presented before the House were often unavailable in hard copy and were instead read from mobile phones. Napasite Toheeb also noted that the AIPAS report and the ratification document for the electoral Committee were unavailable without any justifiable reason. Justice Joel suggested that such reports should be printed and kept in the NAPAS parlour to ensure accessibility for all members.
The General Secretary proceeded to announce the names of the Electoral Committee members but was corrected that she should only call their names and not assign positions until they had been sworn in.Napasite Segun argued that it appeared the Executive had already appointed members into specific positions. He further noted that after the House had waited several minutes for the General Secretary to write out the names, she was still holding the paper herself.
The General Secretary attempted to respond to Napasite Segun’s observation, but the Speaker instructed her to continue with the presentation instead. Napasite Segun insisted that she should be allowed to explain because members of the House were becoming confused. After prolonged arguments, the General Secretary explained that assigning positions had not been part of her instruction and described it as a slip of the tongue. This explanation generated further debate, with Honourable Toheeb suggesting that she apologise to the House for the mistake.
The Vice President defended the General Secretary, explaining that the names submitted had no positions attached to them and that she had already admitted the error was hers. The Director of Sports stated that the House had not given the General Secretary enough opportunity to explain herself and remarked that anyone in her position would likely have reacted similarly. Napasite Segun demanded an apology from the Director of Sports for making comparisons regarding his mental capability.
Citing Sections 49 and 50 of the NAPAS Constitution, Honourable Chioma stated that Napasite Segun had been raising too many points of order and was using them merely as an avenue to make his voice heard.
The Electoral Committee list was eventually presented. And they are,
1)ISRAEL TAIWO (CHAIRMAN) part 4
2)OSHINAIKE AYOMIDE (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN) part 4
3)ALAWAYE IYANUOLUWA JEMIMA part 2
4)ADENIYI TIMILEHIN part 1
5)TAIWO ADESEWA PRAISE part 3
6)TAJUDEEN FATIHA part 2
However, Honourable Toheeb observed that the committee should consist of two representatives from each class, except Part I, which should have only one representative. He noted that there was only one representative from Parts III . The General Secretary responded that the Executive could not compel students to volunteer. Honourable Toheeb then asked whether the committee members had been appointed or nominated, stating that he could not recall any call for nominations. At 5:35 p.m., Honourable Toheeb nominated Odesola Elizabeth as a member of the Electoral Committee.
Afterwards,the candidates were formally sworn into office by the speaker.
The electoral committee with the speaker
Honourable Rachael suggested that even if the PRO could not produce graphics, he should at least send out messages, urging the House to show him mercy. Honourable Toheeb argued that people had different financial capacities and that the fact that the previous PRO personally financed official duties did not mean the current PRO could do the same. He questioned the decision to suspend the PRO simply because he could not personally fund the production of graphics.
Honourable Chioma suggested that the PRO be reinstated so he could resume his official responsibilities, one of which was presenting the newly constituted executives of Public Voice to the House as required by the Constitution. Justice Joel and Honourable Toheeb supported the suggestion. The Deputy Speaker moved the motion for the reinstatement of the PRO, Honourable Rachael seconded it, and the Speaker approved the motion.
Honourable Rachael explained why she had been absent during the previous sitting.
Justice Joel subsequently raised a constitutional matter concerning the PRO’s role as the head of Public Voice.
Napasite Segun pointed out that before the last constitutional amendment, Public Voice had operated as an independent agency. However, following the amendment, it was placed under the PRO, who now served only as its ceremonial head. He argued that Public Voice should not be suspended and that, even if such action became necessary, it should not exceed a few hours because, without the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), there would effectively be no Public Voice.
Finally, Honourable Chioma moved the motion for the adjournment of the sitting, Honourable Tosin seconded the motion, and the sitting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.
Closing prayer was led by the President of the Department.
Comments
Post a Comment