Samoa Agreement: House of Reps misinforms Nigerians about its resolution

The House of Representatives may have embarked on a misinformation campaign regarding the outcome of the debate on the Samoa Agreement.

The lower chamber of the National Assembly discussed the Agreement on Tuesday following the alleged inclusion of “The LGBTQ+ clause in the document.

The Samoa Agreement is the legal framework for the European Union’s relations with 79 countries. This includes 48 African, 16 Caribbean, and 15 Pacific countries.

PREMIUM TIMES reported that the House resolved that the executive should suspend the implementation of the Agreement and directed its committees to investigate the alleged “controversial and grey areas”.

That resolution followed a motion jointly moved by Aliyu Madaki (NNPP, Kano) and 88 others on Tuesday.

However, hours after the resolution, the House, through its spokesperson, Akin Rotimi (APC, Ekiti), issued a statement, saying the House did not call for the suspension of the implementation of the Agreement.

In the statement, Mr Rotimi claimed that the “media erroneously” reported the outcome of the debate on the Samoa Agreement.

“It is important to clarify that the House of Representatives did not resolve to call for the suspension of the Agreement nor the suspension of its implementation, as has been erroneously reported by some media houses. Instead, the House resolved to thoroughly scrutinise the Samoa Partnership Agreement for all contentious clauses through legislative hearings,” the statement reads in part.

However, this is a blatant misinformation campaign by the House because they adopted a prayer urging the government to suspend the Agreement.

“Call on the federal government to suspend the implementation of the Samoa Agreement until all controversial clauses are clearly defined to ensure they do not violate any law in Nigeria,” Mr Madaki had prayed in his motion.

After a long and heated debate during which some lawmakers even called for the withdrawal of the Agreement, the House adopted the three resolutions on the motion without any amendments.

PREMIUM TIMES closely followed the debate and observed that no amendment was moved by any of the lawmakers on the floor of the House. Some lawmakers even shouted “amendment!” when the presiding officer, Deputy Speaker Ben Kalu, put the motion to a voice vote, but he ignored the call.

“There was no amendment,” Mr Kalu responded as he ruled on the decision.

Therefore, it is surprising that Mr Rotimi is claiming that the media “erroneously” reported the suspension part when, indeed, the House asked the federal government to suspend the implementation of the Agreement.

Spokesperson and Speaker’s Office presenting contradictory accounts of the event

Strangely enough, the plenary proceedings produced by the Office of the Speaker presented a record of events that contradict Mr Rotimi’s statement.

In the proceedings released, the Speaker’s office claimed that the House ruled that the federal government should completely withdraw from the Agreement.

According to the document, a member, Ghali Mustapha, moved for an amendment.

“Ghali Mustapha proposed an amendment calling on the federal government to withdraw from the Samoa Agreement and reject it in totality.

“The motion was voted on and adopted as amended,” the proceedings read in part.

However, this is equally false. Mr Mustapha did not move an amendment; he only contributed. The presiding officer even asked if that was an amendment, and he answered no.

In addition, procedurally, amendments must be seconded and put into question.

What the House should do if uncomfortable with the resolution

The resolution of the House can only be changed through a proper motion of rescission moved on the floor.

If the House is unsatisfied with its resolution or the lawmakers feel that they have erred in procedure, they should move a motion to review their previous resolution.

In the past, the lower chamber rescinded decisions. For instance, in February, the House resolved to probe the utilisation of funds from the Federal Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) by states and LGAs in 2023.

When the House realised that it lacked such power, the Chairman of its Committee on Rules and Business, Francis Waive, moved a motion urging the House to rescind its decision. The motion was adopted.

Instead of the House going through the rescission process, it is going through the route of misinformation.

The leadership of the House may be worried about the potential outcome of recommitting the motion to rescission. Some members opposed to the Agreement may see it as an attempt to undermine their stance, which they have communicated through the voice vote.

How the House officialised falsehood with the debate on the motion

The controversy over the Agreement stemmed from a report by states which claimed that it contained some clauses on the protection of the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

The report did not provide specific evidence to substantiate the claim, and the publishers agreed that the report had some lapses and promised to review and take appropriate measures.

“We have followed with attention what these government officials said and left unsaid, and we will publish that in full for the records. We have also acknowledged lapses in our reporting on this particular matter, pointed out to us by professional colleagues, and we will review and take appropriate measures,” the statement released by the newspaper said.

The Nigerian government has equally countered the claim, stating that Nigeria has “existing legislation against same-sex relationships.”

Aside from the government, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) debunked the “LGBTQ+ clause.”

In a statement, its President, Yakubu Maikyau, said the association had the privilege of reviewing the Agreement before the Nigerian government signed it.

Mr Maikyau said there is no provision in the Samoa Agreement requiring Nigeria to accept or recognise LGBT rights.

Despite all this, the House allowed a motion premised on a report that the author admitted had lapses, and even several lawmakers ignorantly debated the motion with the same false narrative without referencing the copy of the Agreement.

When the Majority Leader, Julius Ihonvbere, tried to educate his colleagues on the Agreement, he was shouted down by his colleagues.

Mr Ihonvbere, a professor, even challenged his colleagues to provide a specific portion of the Agreement that talks about LGBTQ+.

“I think the public has been misled on this. Let me state that there is no portion of the Agreement that is on LGBTQ+. If you have it, bring it here.

“In fact, three ministers have come out, including the Minister of Information and Budget and Planning, to say that there is nothing like that in the Agreement and that it was never mentioned. It was never mentioned, and there is nothing like lesbian rights in the Agreement. If you have the Agreement, bring it out here. There is nothing like that,” he said.

How the House could have avoided the error

A constitutional lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, told PREMIUM TIMES that the lawmakers should have waited for the treaty to be presented to the National Assembly in line with Section 12 of the constitution.

“No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly,” Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution reads.

Furthermore, Order 15 Rule 1 of the Standing Orders of the House provided the process and procedure for ratifying treaties.

Mr Ogunye said the lawmakers should have demanded that President Bola Tinubu present the Agreement to the House for ratification instead of the political stunt on the floor of the House.

“The lawmakers are being prejudicial on the matter because they should have waited for the treaty to be presented in line with Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution.

“Politicians are now making these kinds of statements. It smacks of political prejudice. The uninformed opposition to that Agreement is not on ideological or economic grounds—it is not on patriotic or sovereignty grounds rather, it is on LGBTQ grounds.

“The House should have waited for the formal submission of that treaty rather than politicking the matter and fouling the stream of the argument,” Mr Ogunye said.