The House of Representatives may have engaged in a misinformation campaign regarding the outcome of the debate on the Samoa Agreement. On Tuesday, July 9, 2024, the lower chamber of the National Assembly discussed the Agreement amid allegations of the inclusion of an “LGBTQ+ clause” in the document.
The Samoa Agreement serves as the legal framework for the European Union’s relations with 79 countries, including 48 African, 16 Caribbean, and 15 Pacific nations. PREMIUM TIMES reported that the House resolved that the executive should suspend the Agreement’s implementation and directed its committees to investigate the alleged “controversial and grey areas.”
This resolution followed a motion jointly moved by Aliyu Madaki (NNPP, Kano) and 88 others. However, shortly after the resolution, the House spokesperson, Akin Rotimi (APC, Ekiti), issued a statement asserting that the House did not call for the suspension of the Agreement’s implementation.
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 read in part.
However, this appears to be a misinformation campaign by the House, as 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.
Following a long and heated debate, during which some lawmakers called for the withdrawal of the Agreement, the House adopted the three resolutions on the motion without any amendments. PREMIUM TIMES observed that no amendments were moved by any lawmakers on the floor of the House. When the presiding officer, Deputy Speaker Ben Kalu, put the motion to a voice vote, some lawmakers shouted “amendment!” but he ignored the call. “There was no amendment,” Mr. Kalu responded as he ruled on the decision.
Thus, 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.
Strangely, the plenary proceedings produced by the Office of the Speaker presented a record of events contradicting Mr. Rotimi’s statement. According to the proceedings, the House ruled that the federal government should completely withdraw from the Agreement. A member, Ghali Mustapha, allegedly moved for an amendment calling on the federal government to withdraw from the Samoa Agreement and reject it entirely. “The motion was voted on and adopted as amended,” the proceedings read in part.
However, this is also 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. Procedurally, amendments must be seconded and put to a question.
If the House is uncomfortable with the resolution, the proper course of action is to move a motion of rescission on the floor. The lower chamber has rescinded decisions in the past. For example, 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 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, which was adopted.
Instead of going through the rescission process, the House seems to be spreading misinformation. The leadership of the House may be concerned about the potential outcome of recommitting the motion to rescission, as some members opposed to the Agreement may see it as an attempt to undermine their stance, which they communicated through the voice vote.
The controversy over the Agreement stemmed from reports claiming it contained clauses on the protection of LGBTQ+ rights. These reports lacked specific evidence, and the publishers admitted 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 newspaper said in a statement.
The Nigerian government has countered the claim, stating that Nigeria has “existing legislation against same-sex relationships.” The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) also debunked the “LGBTQ+ clause.” In a statement, its President, Yakubu Maikyau, said the association had reviewed the Agreement before the Nigerian government signed it and found no provision requiring Nigeria to accept or recognise LGBTQ+ rights.
Despite this, the House allowed a motion based on a report that the author admitted had lapses. Several lawmakers debated the motion with the same false narrative without referencing the Agreement’s content. When Majority Leader Julius Ihonvbere tried to clarify the Agreement, he was shouted down by colleagues. “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. 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.
Constitutional lawyer Jiti Ogunye told PREMIUM TIMES that 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.
