NPHR SITTING: MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE IN THE HOUSE

Victoria Adeusi

'…being an Honourable member is voluntarily, so we should be considerate when giving punishment’ this was the response of Honourable Mary from 300 level constituency when the issue of #2000 fine was raised for lateness and absence from meeting without permission

On the 22nd of November 2024, the legislative arm of NAPS had their 3rd sitting. A number of things were discussed, the social director gave report on the picnic held last semester to which some comments were made such as absence of items purchased with the incurred expenses that the social director reported and also unavailability of receipts as evidence of purchased goods, the social director responded to this stating that ‘there are receipts for everything purchased’. Hon. Raphael also commented that the document was not headed nor signed, so to this, the house asked the social director to make the necessary adjustments and present a proper documents later.

After going through all the items on the agenda, moving on to the AOB, the Speaker of the house raised the issue of lateness and absence from sitting which had been raised from onset of the sitting by Hon. Raphael, who asked if anyone gave a notice prior to the sitting. Hon Raphael moved a motion to fine any member that doesn’t give a prior notice of lateness or absence from meeting 24 hours to sitting a sum of #2000, the deputy Speaker further stated that the constitution should  be modified and the fine should be added but Hon. Raphael responded that there is a process to that.

In the midst of  this, Hon. Mary responded that the house should consider the situation of the country and also the fact that the work is voluntarily while imposing punishments, a number of Honourable members reacted to this and stated that the fact that it is voluntarily doesn’t mean it should be taken for granted, to this Hon. Raphael adjusted his motion and said a fine of #2500 should be given instead. Hon Sandra moved a counter motion  of #1000 which doubles after 24 hours of failure of payment. A vote was conducted and Hon. Sandra motion had the highest vote. Furthermore, a congressman, Mr. Peter noticed an Honourable member was not properly dressed  and asked if such is now allowed in the house, a lot of back and forth occurred at this point. Hon. Raphael commented that the constitution is ambiguous as the formal dressing required was not clearly stated saying that the word ‘cap’ on native could mean any cap and the word ‘shoe’ could mean any shoe including sneakers, some Honourable members countered his opinion. Hon. Sandra stated that Hon. Raphael always try to make matters suit himself and that’s why he stated that the constitution is ambiguous, to this statement, Hon. Raphael demanded an apology and fined himself #10000 for not dressing properly because the ‘shoe’ he used was not a proper shoe on the English dressing. No one seconded the motion and the speaker of the house further resolved the matter stating that the standard for the dressing will be made known to all to avoid misunderstanding. Hon. Oyinkansola from 100 constitution also apologize on behalf of her constituency member who caught the attention of Congressman, Mr. Peter, for not dressing properly to the sitting. A congressman, Mr. Samuel from 400 level constituency made a comment that the standard of the house is falling stating that this is not the same House that he knew.