Category News

The House of Representatives reversed its position on two bills that had just passed its second reading in a stunning U-turn.

These bills sought to reform the death penalty and remove high-ranking officials’ immunity, including those of the Vice President, governors, and deputy governors.

House Leader, Prof. Julius Ihonvbere (Edo), made the disclosure during a plenary session on Thursday.

Both bills, which were included in the 42 proposed legislations that were discussed in the plenary, passed through a second reading process on Wednesday, according to Persecondnews.

In contrast to Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, the decision to the bills was made in order for a more in-depth discussion among lawmakers, according to Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the plenary session.

He stated, “We regret to the bill sponsors, but this is to allow the House to hold a second discussion given the seriousness of the subject matters.”

In an effort to combat corruption, end impunity, and promote accountability among public officials, the House on Wednesday passed a bill that sought to strip public officials of immunity. It also went through a second reading.

Additionally, 39 bills requiring constitutional amendments passed successfully during the second reading process.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria’s Constitution, 1999, has a bill to amend the Constitution to allow the president to exercise his immunity, remove the vice president’s immunity, and their deputies, in order to combat corruption, end impunity, and promote accountability in public office.

The bill to change the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to set aside the minister of justice of a state from the commissioner for justice of a state, is also slated for second reading.

The Bill to amend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to give citizenship to Nigerian spouses, and to establish the minimum number of women and youths eligible to hold positions in a particular office, is another notable bill.

Just one day after rejecting a similar proposal, the Senate rejected a proposal to rename the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) headquarters in Abuja in honor of late Prof. Humphrey Nwosu, a former head of the defunct National Electoral Commission (NEC).

Sen. Enyinnaya Abaribe re-sponsored the motion on Thursday, just as lawmakers on Wednesday rejected it.

Nwosu presided over the infamously annulled presidential election on June 12, 1993, which was hailed as the freest and fairest in Nigeria.

In recognition of his contribution to Nigeria’s democratic development, Abaribe demanded that Nwosu receive posthumous national honors on Thursday during the plenary session.

The proposal again sparked heated debates among lawmakers, exposing deep rifts regarding Nwosu’s impact on history.

Sen. Osita Ngwu acknowledged that the military regime under which he ran his business limited his ability to release the election results.

He claimed that “there was no way he would have made the announcement with a gun in his head.” That does not alter the fact that some of us regard him as a hero.

Sen. Austin Akobundu vehemently opposed Nwosu’s dismissal of contributions, calling it unfair and arguing that his contributions were merited recognition in Nigeria’s Hall of Fame.

Sen. Jimoh Ibrahim and a number of other senators vehemently opposed the idea, questioning the logic of honoring a person who didn’t release the election results, with Ibrahim emphatically saying that “nothing should be named after him.”

Sen. Cyril Fasuyi argued in his address that history only acknowledges accomplishments and not attempts, reiterating that “history does not reward efforts, but only results.”

I oppose naming INEC’s headquarters after him, as long as he did not announce the outcome, whether or not under duress.

Sen. Afolabi Salisu reacted with caution, saying Nwosu had no courage to speak out, while Sen. Sunday Karimi criticized him for his silence, suggesting that honoring him would harm MKO Abiola’s legacy.

He remarked, “Any attempt to do anything after one minute silence is considered to be a legacy of Abiola.”

The majority of senators ultimately rejected the motion via voice votes after much discussion.

In the end, the senators decided to observe a one-minute silence and express condolences to Nwosu’s family.

According to Persecondnews, Babangida appointed Humphrey Nwosu to the National Electoral Commission in 1989, and he continued to do so until 1993.

He introduced the popularly acclaimed “Option A4” Voting System and Modified Open Ballot System while leading the June 12, 1993 presidential election.

Before being ordered to stop by the military regime, he released many of the election results despite facing opposition.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) lawsuit brought by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited against the Federal High Court in Abuja has been ordered to hear on May 8th.

Justice Omotosho set the date after the parties’ written arguments were accepted and rejected.

Following an increase in the service costs for DStv and GOtv, the court had previously restrained the Commission from pursuing “any administrative steps” against the plaintiff.

The restraining order was a response to a formal request made by MultiChoice to the court to protect itself from the FCCPC’s planned sanction for the price increases of DStv and GOtv.

The court granted the plaintiff’s request for an extension of time during the proceeding to regularize its procedures, and it also granted her request to renounce its interlocutory injunction application, which had already been overturned.

Through its lead counsel, MultiChoice asserted that the key issue is “whether the defendant has the right to control the price at which the plaintiff offers its services to the public.”

READ MORE: Zenith Bank Posts N1tn Profit After Tax For FY 2024.

The senior attorney argued that the Act establishing the FCCPC did not give the Commission the authority to regulate prices or stop anyone, including the plaintiff, from raising its prices, while acknowledging the Commission’s regulatory authority.

Onigbanjo added that the Tribunal had previously litigated whether the defendant had any authority to control the price of goods and services in the nation, aside from the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s President.

The attorney for the plaintiff also argued that even the president, who has the authority to regulate prices, maintains that “his government does not believe in price control” but that prices are influenced by market forces of demands and supplies.

The plaintiff added that if the FCCPC lacks authority to regulate prices, where does he have authority to stop the plaintiff from raising prices?

After that, MultiChoice charged the Commission with discrimination, claiming that no one else raised a complaint about the Commission’s continued increase in prices in line with the country’s economic conditions and inflation, claiming only the plaintiff.

Therefore, he demanded that the court grant the defendants’ requests for all remedies.

Lead counsel for the defendant, Professor Joe Agbugu, SAN, urged the court to first address the cause of action, which is the increase in the cost of DStv and GOtv, while adopting his counteraffidavit in opposition to the lawsuit.

Agbugu made it known that the Commission had written to the plaintiff on February 25th following its price increase announcement effective March 1, 2025.

The senior attorney claimed that it was inappropriate and suggested March 6 because MultiChoice was scheduled to appear before the Commission on February 27. Then, we said, “They should hold on with the price increase in the interim.”

Agbugu added that, as at the time the action commenced, there was no issue with price regulation or fixing.

Additionally, he claimed that the FCCPC had the authority to “regulate” excessive pricing and to “regulate” consumer-transfers and the passing of costs.

Agbugu claimed that the plaintiff “occurs a dominant position in television and entertainment,” not because of price regulation, but because the Commission has the authority to look into prices that are deemed to be abusive and abusive.

They fled to be investigated over their planned action, according to the Commission, who is not going to advise you to use price A or B but instead decides that the price is exploitative.

The Commission’s job is to protect the consumer, not to fix prices; the issue is whether the price is exorbitant.

The defendant’s attorney responded to the claim of discrimination by arguing that “abuse of dominant position qualified them to be targeted for exorbitant pricing.”

Agbugu then demanded that the lawsuit be dismissed and dismissed because it violated the Commission’s main goal, which is to protect consumers.

He further stated that the plaintiff’s lawsuit should be dropped and that an investigation should be conducted there.