THE NEED TO REPEAL THE LAND USE ACT 1978

POSITION PAPER ON THE NEED FOR THE REPEAL OF THE LAND USE ACT 1978.

Introduction:
Human society the world over is heavily dependent on land and its resources. It is not an overstatement to say that without land there would be no human existence. This is because it is from land that man gets items very essential for his survival such as food, fuel, clothing, shelter, medication and others.

According to Omotola J. Learned Professor of Law;
“Every person requires land for his support, preservation and self actualization within the general ideals of the society. Land is the foundation of shelter, food and employment. Man lives on land during his life and upon his demise, his remains are kept in it permanently. Even where the remains are cremated, the ashes eventually settle on land. It is therefore crucial to the existence of the individual and the society. It is inseparable from the concept of the society. Man has been aptly described as a land animal.”

Consequently, it is apparent that the life of man and that of the society revolve around land and its resources. Thus, it is pertinent that man’s fulfilment of his potentials in life depends to a great extent on his relationship with land. International recognition of the relevance of land to the life of man can be gleaned from the proceedings at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlement (Habitat II) 1996 where many countries committed themselves to:
“promoting optimal use of productive land in urban and rural areas and protecting fragile ecosystems and environmentally vulnerable areas from the negative impacts of human settlements".

It is this importance of land to man and the society that influenced the state intrusion into property legislation in order to ensure adequate and efficient land management technique for the benefits of the greatest number of the members of the society. This point is further underscored in the words of Banire M. A. in his Book titled “Land Management in Nigeria: Towards a new legal framework”, that;
“virtually every form of investment or development by government and private entities is dependent upon land in one way or another. It is now generally accepted that poor land administration can impede economic development and social welfare”.
Therefore no nation can fold its arms and allow its land use management to fall in disarray as “no nation handles the issue of land management within its borders with levity.” It is this nexus between land and economic prosperity of an individual and a nation that probably informed the constitutional provision respecting the inviolability of private property rights in various jurisdictions around the world.

In Nigeria, the provision of Section 43 of the Constitution provides that no right or interest in movable or immovable property shall be compulsorily acquired anywhere in Nigeria without the payment of adequate compensation.
Thus while the constitution recognizes the importance of land to personal economic growth by preserving individual property rights; it also recognizes the eminent domain status of the state to take private property upon the payment of adequate compensation to the victim. It is therefore imperative that the state should endeavour to strike an equitable balance between private property rights and state rights to compulsorily acquire private lands for public good. This balancing posture is to ensure that land, the scarce and limited resources of the nation is put to an optimal judicious use. This balancing ratio needs to be reviewed from time to time and in line with the socio-economic reality of the nation.

The Advent of the Land Use Act:
The Land Use Act, 1978 was ostensibly enacted to address the importance of land to Nigerians and therefore provide viable management options to land administration in Nigeria. The Act was promulgated as Land Use Decree in 1978 by the then military government under General Olusegun Obasanjo. In a bid to retain the law in the statute books even after he had left office, the Obasanjo-led Supreme Military Council made the Land Use Decree an integral part of the Constitution which he handed over to the Alhaji Shehu Shagari-led federal government.

Section 1 of the Act vested all land comprised in the territory of each state (except land vested in the federal government or its agencies) solely in the governor of the state, who would ordinarily hold such land in trust for the people and be responsible for allocation of land in all urban areas to individuals resident in the state and to organizations for residential, agriculture, commercial and other purposes, while similar powers with respect to non urban areas are conferred on local governments.

Regrettably several obstacles, probably not foreseen by formulators of the law, invariably cropped up during its implementation. These obstacles, including tenure complexities, limited access to land by federal and local governments as well as foreigners, non-implementation of land ceiling, insecurity of certificate of occupancy, inhibiting consent provisions, high cost of land transactions and non-enforcement of development permission among others.

In a nutshell, the main fault of the Land Use Act of 1978 was Section 1 of the Act Which transferred title and ownership of land from individuals and communities to the governors who hold the land in trust but many of whom have been known to have abused the power and privileges conferred on them by the Act. It also made acquisition of land by individuals and corporate bodies for commercial and economic development purposes extremely difficult.

Despite all the cries and agitations for review of the Act, the federal government before now obstinately refused to embark upon such review exercise. To further exacerbate the situation, the federal government further placed the Act under the 1999 Constitution thus making it extra difficult to review and amend it because any such review and amendment will have to go through the same process as stipulated for the review and amendment of the Constitution itself under section 9 of the said Constitution.

Eso JSC in the celebrated case of Nkwocha v. Governor of Anambra State [1984] 6 SC 362 at 404, has this to say:
“The tenor of that Act as a single piece of legislation is the nationalization of all lands in the country by the vesting of its ownership in the state leaving the private individuals with an interest in land which is a mere right of occupancy”.
Obaseki JSC expressed the same sentiment when he posited that:
“It is an understatement to say that this Decree or Act abrogated the right of ownership of land hitherto enjoyed by all Nigerians.”

In the academic circle this opinion finds expression in the works of Umezulike where he posited among other things that Section 1 of the Act hints at only one radical possibility, namely the expropriation or nationalization of land.

Before the Act, control over land was vested in families, clans, villages and communities in Southern Nigeria. Under the traditional or customary agrarian land tenure system, individuals did not have complete control over the land and the sale of land was hardly possible. Individual occupants of land were identified by the right they hold rather than by actual possession of land. In Northern Nigeria, the ownership and control of land was vested in the State government under the Land Tenure Law of 1962. However, the methods of agricultural organisation and production were similar to the system prevailing in the South.

But the Act was to abolish all these as it vested all lands in a state in the governor and in the hands of a few people who are well connected with government, while depriving the small-scale farmers of land; causing delays in securing Certificate of Occupancy from government. Lofty as its intentions were, however, it was a matter of time before the Act became a piece of dysfunctional legislation.
Thus with the governor being vested with the radical title to all lands in the state, all other interest in land became an estate less than freehold. It then means that no person can hold a fee simple, fee tail or even a life estate in land in any state in Nigeria. The best interest accruable under the Act could be likened to a lease. It is no doubt that the Land Use Act has fundamentally and drastically changed the landscape of property law rights and interest in Nigeria. But has it been able to rationally and efficiently address the issues and problems that led to its promulgation positively and adequately? The Act has generated and will continue to generate further discourse in view of its indigent drafting, inchoate and unclear nature of the right derivable under it, and the extent to which the law affects private property rights of the citizens.

Most of the state governors in whose care the “people’s land” is entrusted by the Act have demonstrably failed to make the land easily accessible to the people for their “use and common benefit”. Instead, some people in government have merely upstaged the local land speculators and assumed that same pernicious role as most governors and officials in charge of land dispensary have suddenly become multiple landowners by virtue of their offices.

Effects of the Act on Land Acquisition for Developmental/Agricultural Purposes:
The Act obnoxiously concentrated too much power in the hands of state governors, who often exploit this for economic and political reasons to the detriment of other stakeholders, including even the federal and local governments as well as individuals who might require lands for industrial and agricultural developments. Sections 21 and 22 prescribe the requirement of a governor’s consent for the alienation of customary and statutory rights of occupancy, the procurement of which is however characterized by long and frustrating delays. For this reason, most holders of right of occupancy evade the consent provisions, leading to multiplicity of imperfect titles.

In this respect, the position of the governor as the person in whom the land is vested can be likened to the position of the crown in England, where ownership of land is vested in the crown with the subjects owing only an interest in the land, which interest is defeasible. Thus like a fee simple holder in England a deemed grantee who had freehold land prior to the Act, though subject to the limitations expressed in section 34 and 36 as to quantum of interest he may have, continue to hold an indeterminable interest in the property subject only to the state right of compulsory take over of his property for overriding public purposes and limited right of alienation. Such deemed grantee will only lose this fundamental allodial right where he applies for the issuance of certificate of occupancy from the Governor, thus making his interest determinable, as he will not be granted any tenure beyond 99 years.

Over time, the Act has remained a sore point in Nigerians quest to acquire land for building in most urban areas, and a major hindrance in real estate development and transaction in the country. Under the Act, the overwhelming powers granted the governors over land have been blamed for the country’s seemingly insurmountable housing problems. Most of the time, the Certificate of Occupancy (C-of-O) which confers ownership of land on individuals are given to the highest bidder instead of those that actually need the land. In some states, obtaining a certificate of occupancy has become a Herculean task these days. Some state governments have even given and cancelled certificates of occupancy on flimsy excuses.

Professionals, private property developers and the organised private sector have always fingered the law as the greatest disincentive to real estate development and the growth of the real sector of the nation’s economy as it limits access to land for development purposes. One of the most contentious sections of the Act has to do with the Governor’s consent and the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy ( C of O ) which is required as collateral for obtaining loans from financial houses.
At the moment, Nigeria has a housing deficit burden of 17 million units hanging down its neck which requires about N35 trillion (about $27 billion) to fund. According to World Bank estimates, Nigeria needs to produce about 720,000 housing units for the next 20 years to be able to close the housing gap in the country. Available statistics show that since its inception in 1973 up to 2006, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) has built only 30,000 housing units. When this housing output in the last 33 years is juxtaposed with the present huge housing need a gloomy picture of the critical housing condition in the country is apparent.

The United Arab Emirate (UAE) is today a world tourism destination simply because of changes it made in its land rules. In 2002, UAE liberalised its land rules, granting foreigners the right to acquire and develop land in the country. Today, the story is what we see as Masdar City in Abu Dhabi; Burj Dubai and Burj Al-Arab, both in Dubai. It is believed that Nigeria with its rich and abundant natural endowment can surpass UAE’s records if only there could be the political will to review the country’s moribund Land Use Act.

Some states in the Federation are not helping matters in the way they go about land charges in their domain. In Lagos State for instance, land is gold and has therefore become the exclusive preserve of the rich who can pay the millions that land values attract. The story is not different in Ogun State, or in Abuja. Recently, the FCTA announced a 150-percent increase in its land charges. Apart from the improvement in home ownership, which increased access to land would engender, other economic activities such as agriculture, industries and tourism will benefit from the review or amendment of the Act, especially at a time like this when revenue from oil has plummeted following falling prices in the world oil market.

The effect of the Act in the Niger Delta:
As earlier noted land is the most vital ingredient of national socioeconomic development of a nation. Land is wealth no matter its nature or conditions. No land is ever without its purpose. This is because on it depends every economic activity. How a community or country utilizes land determines the level and kind of economic development that takes place in that community or country. Ever since the promulgation of the Act, there has been countless litigation in courts both on hitherto customary ownership and the new methods of land acquisition that have set individuals, communities and the state against one another. This conflict is most manifest in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria where the people there are vociferously claiming ownership of lands and all the mineral resources inherent in them.

Let me quickly remind you that, the Niger Delta region has a population of 27 million people, covering an area of 70,000 square kilometers, with 5000 communities, 50 ethnic groups and 250 dialects. The region is not only rich in oil and gas, but also well endowed with other natural resources like water, timber and other forest resources, wild life and sharp sand. It is the third largest wetland in the world, following after the Amazon basin in Latin America. The Niger Delta is endowed with various species of aquatic organisms. Sadly though the significant feature of the Niger Delta is the general state of underdevelopment, not only by world standards but also in relation to many parts of Nigeria itself.

The poverty of this region, whilst being the source of the majority of Nigeria’s wealth, is the contradiction that poses one of the key challenges of our emerging democracy. Stakeholders who seek the evolution of democratic and stable governance in Nigeria must regard the resolution of the Niger Delta contradiction as a key building block. The Niger Delta was recognized as a region for a special development initiative and attention in the Independence Constitution of 1960. The Pre-Independence Constitution also recognized a special right of the region to oil and gas resources ownership. Thus, 50% of royalty deriving from the Oil and Gas exploitation was paid to the Oil Producing Regions or States.

But by the provision of the Land Use Decree of 1978, the inhabitants of the oil producing communities were turned into squatters in their own ancestral homes, as land where oil is explored, produced, transported and stored were decreed to belong to the state long after political independence in 1960. The existence and application of the Land Use Act of 1978 have directly or indirectly contributed to the present state of neglect, under-development and the insecurity of the region. In all appearances, the root cause of the crisis in the Niger Delta remains the denial of the peoples’ right to land and its content, which the above piece of legislation have concentrated on the state. Naturally, the recipe for peace in the enclave is fundamentally the return of the rights of the people to land and its contents as it was under the pre-colonial period.

The Proposed Amendment of the Act by the Present Administration:
It is perhaps against this backdrop that the Yar’Adua administration came up with the idea of land reforms that is intended to make land available and accessible to the people, and by so doing increase home-ownership level. It is therefore heart-warming that President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua has considered it imperative to call for a fairly comprehensive review of the Act by sending 14 Amendment clauses (titled Land Use Act (Amendment) Act 2009 or the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 2009) to the National Assembly for this purpose.

For now, it is believed under the President Yar’Adua’s proposal, the amendment would enable farmers to use land as collateral for loans for commercial farming and invariably lead to a boost in agriculture and the economy. Speaking with the media, Special Adviser to the President on Media, Mr. Segun Adeniyi, said that the amendment “is to restrict the requirement for governor’s consent in land transactions to assignments only. The amendments therefore will render such consent unnecessary for mortgages, subleases and other land transfers in order to make transactions in land less cumbersome and facilitate economic growth.”
The presentation of the bill to the National Assembly marks the commencement of the implementation of the Yar’Adua Administration’s strategic agenda to overcome some of the major legal and logistical constraints to capital accumulation in Nigeria. Its passage it is believed would make land a much more easily convertible asset that can be used with less hindrance to raise capital for ventures in other areas of the economy. Specifically, the bill proposes to amend the Land Use Act by restricting the requirement of the Governor’s consent in land transactions to assignment only. The proposed amendments relate to sections 5,7,15,21,22,23 and 28 of the existing Act.

Conclusion/suggestion:
It is noteworthy that since the Act came into being this is the first time such amendment is being proposed. I also note that this amendment is coming exactly thirty one years after the Act came into existence. However, lofty as this proposed amendment may seem, it is obvious that the amendment, with due respect, did not address the crux of the matter, to wit: the overbearing control exercised by the Governors over land in the states as well as the ownership of land and its inherent resources by individuals and communities. The President’s draft bill did not propose any amendment to Section 1 of the Act, which vested all lands comprised in a state on the governor. There is no doubt therefore, that the Act with particularly reference to Section 1, has become anachronistic and moribund and is long due for appropriate review, amendment or outright repeal.

Before the President’s Bill there have been strident calls for the review of the Land Use Act. Eminent jurists and experts were speculating that government would organise conferences to examine the Land Use Act as it affects development purposes in various parts of the country. But this is just conjectural as this Bill has shown. This amendment does not capture the expectation of Nigerians as it failed to address some conflicts and contradictions that the Land Use Act has thrown up. By section 315(5) of the 1999 Constitution, the process of amendment of this Act is so tedious and cumbersome, requiring the concurrence of 2/3 majority of the National Assembly as well as resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than 2/3 of all the States as laid down by section 9 of the Constitution for the amendment of the Constitution. To go through this rigour and not meet the expectations of Nigerians is quite an effort in futility.

The deficiencies of the Land Use Act were aptly summarized by Justice Augustine Nnamani who, as Attorney General was responsible for drafting of the Act and its incorporation into the Constitution. He said; “in the course of these years, it has become clear that due to its implementation ... the objectives for which the Land Use Act was promulgated have largely remained unfulfilled; indeed, they have been distorted, abused and seriously undermined.”

Land is usually taken to include not only the physical soil, but also everything beneath it (minerals and water) and everything extending up to the sky above it. The 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria like the 1960 Constitution recognizes and stipulates that all interests in mineral resources belong to the owner of the land and water resources contained therein. This Act has remained an instrument for the alienation of the peoples of the Niger Delta from their natural oil and land resources and other sources of livelihood.

On compensation to those whose lands were taken for development activities, it seems that no amount of compensation can assuage the feelings of an average Nigerian to whom land has profound cultural and social-political values and spiritual aspects. To the subsistence farmer, land is the basis of his survival; it is to him life giving. Thus to take land away from him for a public purpose, with which he cannot identify with, without prompt payment of adequate compensation or resettlement, is to ask for trouble.

Again the Act, has not eliminated speculation in land; it has only driven it underground or fuelled it and concentrates both economic and political powers in the hands of governors, military elites and “rubber barons” who use it to dispossess their political opponents and/or peasant farmers through large-scale acquisition of land for commercial agriculture, paying only for un-exhausted improvement, stipulated by the Act.

Furthermore, the allocation of land under the operation of the Act was hardly made to the low-income earners ‘No government has yet earmarked a percentage of land available for allocation to this category of Nigerians as a deliberate policy. Nor has there been allocation of a percentage of land available for allocation to the community or family that previously owned the land now acquired by government’.
With all these contradictions against the Land Use Act, the expectations in many quarters are that The Land Use Act ought to have been amended to capture these agitations or out rightly repealed. To only seek to remove governor’s consent with regards to alienation of land actually goes to no issue in assuaging the contradictions that the Act has engendered.

The pains of land disputes and conflicts remain gruesome and indelible in the memories of the victims and the collective consciousness of Nigerians. It is, therefore, the position of this paper in consonance with the powerful pronouncements of Eso JSC and Obaseki JSC in Nkwocha v. Governor of Anambra State, supra, that the Land Use Act is nothing but a nationalization instrument which took away the right of ownership and management of land from the citizens and vested it in the state. In fact, the tenor and essence of the Act as could be gleaned from the readings of its provisions is that it has succeeded in turning landlords into tenants over their lands and impoverishing citizens as it sought to remove the economic and wealth creation attributes of land.

This conclusion is founded on the fact that under the Act individual rights and interests in land is curtailed and limited only to right of occupancy and the fact that a bare and undeveloped land under the Act bears no economic value as no compensation is paid for its acquisition by the state. Consequently, the repeal of the Land Use Act 1978, is therefore imperative or where that becomes difficult to achieve, the Act should without delay be expunged from the Constitution in order to permit its easy review or repeal whenever the need arises.

This conclusion is further buttressed by Professor Patrick Oshio recently, while delivering a lecture entitled “Perfecting the Imperfections in Nigerian Legislation”, at the University of Benin. The learned professor, also called for the repeal of the Act, saying that it cannot provide land for agriculture. He rather preferred the adoption of the British Agriculture Act of 1947 which, he said, harmonized government policy of encouraging agriculture, saying that the British Agriculture Act also made direct provisions on agricultural development, adding that this was the type of action and thrust which Nigeria desperately needed at this period.

I do not only share this viewpoint with the learned Professor, but I also feel challenged to cause a restoration of Nigerian people’s rights to ownership of land and its content as it was under the pre-colonial period.

SOURCES OF LEGISLATION

SOURCES OF LEGISLATION

Private Members:
Sources of ideas for legislation are unlimited and proposed drafts of bills originate in many diverse quarters. Primary among these is the idea and draft conceived by a Member. This may emanate from the election campaign during which the Member had promised, if elected, to introduce legislation on a particular subject. The Member may have also become aware after taking office of the need for amendment to or repeal of an existing law or the enactment of a statute in an entirely new field. In addition, the Member’s constituents, either as individuals or through citizen groups, may avail themselves of the right to petition and transmit their proposals to the Member.

Interest Groups/Associations:
These include professional associations, Labour Unions, Medical Associations, Teachers Unions as well as Chambers of Commerce. Their primary concern is to protect the interest of their members. Many excellent laws have originated in this way, some of these organizations, because of their vital concern with various areas of legislation, have considerable knowledge regarding the laws affecting their interests and hire the services of legislative draftspersons for this purpose. If favourably impressed by the idea being propounded by the interest group or association, a Member may introduce or sponsor the proposal in the form in which it has been submitted or may redraft it.

The Executive Arm:
The bulk of the Laws of the Federation emanated from the executive arm of government. The executive is the most fertile source of legislative proposals. This takes the form of a letter from the President himself, transmitting a draft of the proposed bill to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is the responsibility of the Senate Majority Leader or the House Majority Leader to introduce legislative proposals to either House of the National Assembly. Changes to the bill are made in the course of further legislative actions on the Bill by both Houses of the National Assembly. Usually Ministers determine the scope, content and extent of a draft proposal while the details are the responsibility of civil servants to work out. Series of consultations and deliberations take place in the course of preparing a draft proposal to the National Assembly and upon approval of the final draft by the President’s cabinet, the final copy is then forwarded to the Presiding Officers of the National Assembly for legislative action.

The Judiciary:
The Judiciary seldom sends bills to the National Assembly for passage into law, nevertheless in deserving cases the Chief Justice of the Federation forwards such bills under a covering letter signed by him to the President of the Senate and House of Representatives.
The Judiciary strictly speaking and going by the doctrine of separation of powers do not originate laws their primary duty is to interpret laws made by the legislature. However in the cause of interpretation of the law, the judiciary do at times make some pronouncements which alters the provisions of the law or sometimes renders nugatory a particular piece of legislation. This is known as case law and by the doctrine of stare decisis all inferior courts are bound to follow the decisions of superior courts. An example is the Public Order Act which the Court of Appeal held in the case of IGP v. ANPP that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, until that position is over turned by the Supreme Court, that law stands suspended. Again in Attorney General Federation v. Attorney General Abia State (2002) 16 WRN 1 the Supreme Court held that any imposition on the Federation Account not specifically provided for in Section 162 of the Constitution is null and void. Consequently the provision of Section 1 (d) of the Allocation of Revenue (Federation Accounts etc.) Act Cap 16 imposing charges on the Federation Account not provided for in Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution was declared invalid. The legislature may in situations like these amend the provisions of an existing law to reflect the court’s pronouncement or amend the law to over ride the court’s pronouncement thereby giving rise to a new legislation.

PROCEDURES FOR THE PASSAGE OF A BILL IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

WHAT IS A BILL?
A bill may come as an idea from any member of the National Assembly, the general public, interest group, and the three arms of government, viz; Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary.
However, according to The New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language International Edition, the word “Bill” is defined as the draft of a law, while the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines a Bill as a written suggestion for a new law that is presented to a country’s Parliament so that its members can discuss it. Perhaps the most concise definition of a Bill is provided by the Dictionary.com which defines a Bill as a draft of a proposed law presented for approval to a legislative body.
Section 58 (1) of the 1999 Constitution provides that:
The power of the National Assembly to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and, except as otherwise provided by sub-section (5) of this section, assented to by the president.

The foregoing section confers on both chambers of the National Assembly the power to make laws through the instrumentality of Bills. Furthermore the law making process is subject to Legislative procedure which is guided by Standing Rules/Order of the each chamber of the National Assembly made pursuant to section 60 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which further empowers the National Assembly to regulate its own procedure. The said section empowers the National Assembly to adopt procedures through orders or rules of the House to conduct its own affairs.

TYPES OF BILLS:
There are two main categories of bills: public bills and private bills. While public bills deal with questions of national interest, the purpose of private bills is to grant powers, special rights or exemptions to a person or persons, including corporations.

Public Bills
Public bills may be initiated by a Minister, in which case they are referred to as “government bills”. They may also be initiated by private Members, in which case they are called “private Members’ bills”.

Executive Bills:
An Executive or government bill is the text of a legislative initiative that the government submits to Parliament to be approved, and possibly amended, before becoming law. Such bills relate to a matter of public interest and may include financial provisions. The bulk of the bills passed by the National Assembly since 1999 are Executive bills. These include the Appropriation Acts, the NDDC Act, The ICPC Act etc.

Private Member Bills:
A private Member’s bill is the text of a legislative initiative that is submitted to Parliament by a Member of the Parliament who is not a Minister, to be approved, and possibly amended, before becoming law. Most bills of this type originate in the Senate, and the House of Representatives but regrettably an insignificant number of them end up as laws.

Private Bills:
The purpose of a private bill is to exempt a person or group of persons, including a corporate person, from the application of a statute or grant a special power or status to a person or group of persons. Bills seeking charters of organisations fall under this category. In the United Kingdom such bills may not be introduced by a Minister, and must be founded on a petition signed by the persons who are interested in promoting it. The distinction between a public bill and a private bill is primarily a function of the purpose of the bill. Bills that seem to be both public and private in nature are referred to as hybrid bills. While British parliamentary practice allows this type of bill, that is not the case in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian parliamentary procedure requires that all bills be classified as either public bills or private bills. When a single bill contains both private bill and public bill considerations, it is dealt with as a public bill.

PROCEDURES FOR PASSAGE OF A BILL
The two chambers of the National Assembly each has its rules as said earlier which regulates its procedure. The Rules state the procedure and stages which every Bill must go through to become a law.

Forwarding a Bill
According to the rules of both chambers, every Bill shall be forwarded to the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives under a covering letter personally signed by the sponsor(s) of such Bill and sent to the Rules and Business Committees of the two chambers for scheduling for the first and subsequent readings. It is also the duty of the Rules and Business Committees of both chambers to cause such Bills to be gazetted for the records of the House and for the public to see the details. In most cases all Executive bills go through the legislative procedure concurrently. Bills normally go through three readings in line with the rules of procedure of both chambers. For instance, (find the relevant Senate Rule) 2007 provides:

Every bill shall receive three readings previous to its passage, which readings shall be in three different days, unless the Senate unanimously directs otherwise and the Senate President shall give notice at each reading whether it is first, second or third.
First Reading
At the first reading, the clerk of each chamber shall be called upon by the Presiding Officer to read the short title of the Bill. The Presiding officer is expected at this stage to read the short title to the Bill and declare that the Bill have been read the first time. At this stage there is no debate or comment by members whatsoever. The reading is done to simply inform members that the Bill has been introduced and received. After the first reading the Committee on Rules in each chamber shall schedule the bill for second reading.

Second Reading:
Unlike the first reading which is just an introduction attracting no debate or comment, during the second reading, the Senate and the House are expected to debate the merits and general principles of the Bill after the majority leader had moved a motion “That the Bill be now read a second time” as it is the practice, the motion that the Bill be read a second time must be seconded by another member. If the Bill is a Private Member Bill, the sponsor will move the motion himself. If a bill has more than one sponsor, the lead-sponsor moves the motion.

The Rules of both Houses of the National Assembly are that during the debate at this stage the motion for the second reading of any bill, a Member can propose an amendment without notice to the question “That the Bill be now read a second time” by leaving out the word “now” and replacing it with “upon this day …months” It can be three months, six months etc. An amendment may also be moved leaving out all the words after the word “That” so as to add the words stating the object and motive on which the Member is predicating his/her opposition to the motion. However, such words must be restricted to the principles of the bill and not extend to the details of the bill which is something for another stage in the progression of the bill.
When the debate on the motion for the second reading is concluded and amendments disposed of, the chair is expected to put the question on the second reading: “That this bill be now read a second time” Once this question is agreed to, the Clerk shall read the long title to the bill” This is the rule in both chambers of the National Assembly and is applied to every Bill.

Committee Stage:
Section 62 of the Constitution empowers the Senate and the House of Representatives to set up and maintain special, ad hoc or standing Committees with clearly spelt out jurisdictional competences and may delegate any functions it thinks fit to such Committees. Therefore when a bill has been read a second time, it is committed to a Standing Committee of that House, unless the House on motions made and agreed to commits it to the Committee of the whole House. The rule is that such a motion shall not require notice but must be made immediately after the bill is read a second time and must be proposed by the Leader of the House. The President and Speaker have the discretional power to allocate a particular Committee and their decision is final.

But where a Bill falls within the jurisdictional competence of more than one committee, such a Bill is usually referred to the Committee having dominant jurisdiction while the other committees involved shall be constituted into sub-committees to consider the bill and report to the main committee on sections of the bill touching on their jurisdictions.

For instance, the rules of the Senate with regard to the scope of amendments in Committee provide:

Any Committee to which a bill is committed shall have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit, provided that every amendment shall be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates; but if any such amendments shall not be within the title of the bill, they shall amend the title accordingly, and shall report the same specially to the House.

However, nothing in the rules of either House of the National Assembly empowers a Committee to decide whether a Bill shall be passed into law or to decide any matter which is the within the legislative competence of either House of the National Assembly, the power of the Committee only extends to making recommendations which may be adopted or negatived by the whole House.

Sometimes a Committee a bill is referred to is given a specific time within which to report to the House. Where the Committee is not able to finish its work within the time specified, it can come back to the House to ask for extension of time. But a committee upon consideration of the bill with amendments (if any) it proposes shall be placed on the House calendar for consideration on a date determined by the committee on Rules in each chamber.

Public Hearing:

Committee Of The Whole:
Committee of the Whole as the name implies is the Committee of all the entire members of the House. According to the rules of both Houses, the chairmanship of the Committee of the whole is the Deputy Senate President or the Deputy Speaker, mutatis mutandis. When the House has a non-controversial bill, the Committee of the whole may take it up immediately, but where the bill for consideration is a controversial Bill, sufficient time is given for Members to prepare and present their contributions. It is during the Committee session that the technical details of a Bill is properly considered by the House.
There are two ways a bill can be considered by the Committee of whole:
1. Where a bill as a result of a decision of the House after its second reading is assigned to the committee of the whole House to treat the bill rather than a standing or special committee.
2. The second situation is where a Bill, after second reading, is passed to a standing or special Committee for consideration.
The procedure is that a motion is proposed by the Majority Leader of the House for the House to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, the motion is then seconded by another member and voted upon. If the motion is agreed to, the House then resolves to Committee of the Whole. This is followed by the presentation of the Committee’s report by the relevant Committee Chairman or the deputy or any member of the Committee if both the Chair and Deputy are absent. Thereafter the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will call up the clauses of the Bill one after the other and if there are no amendments proposed by members or amendments proposed have been disposed of, the Chairman shall proceed to put the question: “That the clause or clauses as amended do stand part of the Bill” Once the proceedings have been concluded at the Committee of whole, the Chairman, according to the rules puts to the House the question: “That I do report the bill (or the bill as amended) to the House”. The question shall be decided without amendment or debate.
Insertion of New Clauses:

The Report Stage:
This is the stage where the report of the decision of the Committee of the Whole will be made. The Leader of the House moves the motion “That the Chairman do report the bill” and the question is decided without amendment or debate.

Third Reading:
The third reading follows the reporting of the bill from the Committee of the Whole. At this stage, minor amendments may still be proposed if any and disposed of, after which the bill shall be ordered to be read the Third Time forthwith, or upon such a day as may be set or appointed. If the amendment is a serious or fundamental amendment requiring further legislative action, a motion for re-committal may be proposed and if agreed to, the Bill may not be read the third time until the motion for re-committal is disposed of.

What happens on the third reading is that the Leader of the House moves that the Bill be read the third time. The question is then put without any debate and if agreed to, the presiding officer shall call upon the clerk to read the long Title of the Bill. After the presiding officer has read the long title of the Bill, he shall declare the Bill read the third time and passed.

Clean Copy
After the third reading of a bill a copy of the bill as passed called the “clean copy” signed by the Clerk of the House and countersigned by the Presiding Officer of that House is forwarded by the Clerk of the House to the Clerk of the corresponding House requesting the concurrence of that other House. Where the other House concurs with the version of the bill sent to it. The Clerk of the corresponding House retains the bill and sends a message to the originating House that the corresponding House has agreed to the Bill without amendment.

Where however the corresponding House fails to concur with the originating House, the corresponding House in turn seeks the concurrence of the originating House and if the originating House does not concur to the corresponding House’s amendments, the corresponding House now requisitions a conference of both House to reconcile the differences.

Conference Committee:
A conference committee is an ad hoc joint committee of a bicameral legislature, which is appointed by, and consists of, members of both chambers to resolve disagreements on a particular bill. While such committees are common in the United States Congress and other U.S. legislatures, they are no longer in use in the Parliament of the United Kingdom or most other bicameral Westminster system parliaments. In the U.S. Congress, the conference committee is usually composed of the senior members of the standing committees of each House that originally considered the legislation.
The National Assembly like the US Congress still makes use of Conference Committees to reconcile differences in the versions of the bill passed by both Houses. The House seised with the consideration of a Bill normally requisitions a Conference in order to resolve the differences and recommend agreements on the contentious areas of the bill.
The Conference Committee members(conferees) are normally selected by the Presiding Officers of each House of the National Assembly pursuant to the Rules of the respective Houses. The conferees (also known as managers), must reach agreement on the clauses of the bill, before the bill can be passed. The duty of Conference Committee on any bill is to deliberate only on areas of disagreement between the House and the Senate. The Conference Committee is expected to embody their recommendations in a “Conference Report” reflecting the compromise between the versions of the bill passed by both Houses, it has no power to insert in its report any matter not committed to it by either House or strike out from the bill any matter agreed to by the House or Senate.

The Conference Report is subsequently sent to each House for further legislative action. The Conference Report must be adopted by both chambers without any amendment, if not adopted as presented, the bill must go back to conference and new conferees appointed. Dissenting views are not entertained in a Conference Report. The Rules and Business Committee of each chamber schedules the Conference Report for Presentation and places it on the Order Paper for that day. Upon presentation of a Report a motion to accept or reject it can be proposed, if the motion to accept the report is negatived, the Report is considered rejected. However if the motion to accept is agreed to, then debate on the Report will commence. Recommendations and amendments may be voted on separately.

Where both Houses adopts a conference report, each House have to pass the bill again incorporating all conference amendments adopted by the Houses since a bill cannot have two separate versions. Where the two Houses could not arrive at a compromise another conference committee is requisitioned to reconsider the differences.

Conference meetings are normally open to the general public unless by a resolution of the conference the meeting for the day is closed to the public.

ASSENT AND ENROLMENT OF BILLS

Presidential Assent/veto:
After the passage of the Bill by both Houses of the National Assembly a copy of the Bill is prepared for the President’s Assent.

Section 58(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides:
“Where a bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall within thirty days thereof signify that he assents or that he withholds assent”

Overriding Presidential Veto:
Subsection 5 of the same section provides:
“Where the President withholds his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by two-thirds majority, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required”

Enrolment:
The process of enrolment actually starts from the time the National Assembly has concluded legislative action on a Bill as discussed above. The Clean copy of that Bill embodying all the amendments agreed to by both Houses of the National Assembly is certified by the Clerk to the National Assembly and endorsed for the for the Assent of the President.

Section 2 of the Acts Authentication Act provides that:
The Clerk to the National Assembly shall forthwith after enactment, prepare a copy of each Bill as passed by both Houses of the National Assembly embodying all amendments agreed to, and shall endorse on the Bill and sign a certificate that the copy has been prepared as prescribed and it is a true copy of that Bill.

Subsequently, the Clerk to the National Assembly forwards the Bill and the Schedule thereto in duplicate to the President for his Assent. The President signs the Bill into law if there are no objections. A copy of the Bill with the Schedule thereto are returned to the Clerk who causes the Bill to be printed by the Government Printer in triplicate on vellum or parchment paper of enduring quality. The Clerk retains one copy for the records of the National Assembly, forwards one copy to the President and the third copy is forwarded to the Chief Justice of Nigeria for enrolment in the Supreme Court as an Act of the National Assembly.