Nigeria Content Online

The Enugu State
House of Assembly has, for a second time, rejected the amendment of
some sections of the 1999 Constitution as proposed by the National
Assembly.

Ruling on the
motion, the Speaker, Eugene Odoh, advised his colleagues at the
National Assembly to heed the rule of law irrespective of the interests
they might be canvassing.

According to him, there is no justification for the inclusion of the electoral timetable in the Constitution.

“Such a provision
should remain in the electoral act because human factors may
necessitate a change in any date,’’ the Speaker said.

Also, Mr. Odoh
reminded his colleagues that a few weeks ago, a Federal High Court in
Lagos declared the first constitutional amendment as “null and void’’,
since the president did not give assent to the amendments.

“We shall
communicate to the National Assembly our total rejection of the
amendment but if any court of competent jurisdiction states otherwise,
we will abide by it

“No court has
given any stay of proceedings in respect of the Federal High Court
judgment and since human nature is flexible and dynamic, it may not be
proper to put such timetable in the constitution,’’ he said.

Moving the motion,
Johnny Obidinma, the Leader of the House, urged his colleagues to
reject the provisions of the amendments as contained in clauses 1 to 11.

Paul Anikwe,
(PDP-Ezeagu), suggested that provisions of the 1999 Constitution should
be used to conduct the 2011 general elections, since the judgment of
the Lagos High Court had not been vacated.

Cletus Enebe,
(PDP-Awgu North) said that provisions of the second constitutional
amendment would promote constitutional crisis as section 132 (2) of the
1999 Constitution made provisions for days within which elections
should be conducted.

Legislators present
during the proceedings, unanimously voiced a rejection of the Act to
alter the Constitution (First Alteration).

In another
development, Abel Chukwu, Chairman, Joint Committee on Works, MDGs and
Judiciary, presented a report of the public hearing held on the Public
Procurement Bill and Regulatory Authorities.

He noted that many
of the contributors objected to a governor being chairman of the bureau
because there could be other state matters that might require attention
of a chief executive and could thus delay public procurement.

Debate on the
report for possible passage was deferred to a later date to be
determined by the Rules and Business Committee of the House.

NAN