AN ASSESSMENT OF OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE, 2015-2019

CHAPTER ONE 

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

The parliament or legislature is one of the organs of government empowered with checking the activities and actions of the executive organ of government because governance begins with lawmaking which is its responsibility. This duty of the legislature is called parliamentary or legislative oversight over the executive which implies parliamentary supervision of executive actions. Legislative oversight helps to entrench an effective and productive governance culture and to constantly provide the check needed to ensure executives comply with extant laws. Because of this, Verney (1969) concluded that the watchdog function of a legislative assembly is perhaps more important to it than that of lawmaking. This is more so, as government Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) exist according to the letters of specific laws enacted by the legislature empowering their existence. Thus, a constant need to continually ensure their existence follow laws passed by the legislature.

The Legislature‟s oversight role is significant because it shines the spotlight of public attention on many critical issues, which enables lawmakers and the general public to make informed judgments about executive performance. Specifically, legislative oversight serves to protect the policymaking role of the National Assembly within the context of the constitutional system of checks and balances imposed by the principle of separation of powers. The most common method by which the legislature conducts oversight is through the committee structure. In developed and emerging democracies, oversight is generally considered a committee activity.

Committees represent a small fracture of the membership of the whole house assigned to carry out a task in the most detailed fashion than would the parent body. The power of oversight in most jurisdictions is conferred by the constitutions and the rules guiding the legislative house. To illustrate, in the US Congress, the conduct of oversight has become the most decentralized as works conducted in Members‟ offices, or in their district or state offices, can result in findings of bureaucratic behaviour and policy implementation (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2020). Discoveries from such studies, in turn, can lead to the adjustment of agency policies and procedures and changes in public law. Also, the House and Senate can establish select or special committees to probe issues and agencies, promote public understanding of national concerns, and coordinate oversight of issues that span the jurisdiction of more than one standing committee. Of the agencies in the US Congress, three directly assist it in support of its oversight function: Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Indeed, this may have prompted various scholarly claims of the developed nature of the US Congress Committee system hence, indicative of its stature as a transformative legislature (Johnson, 2005).

In the Nigerian National Assembly, the 1999 Constitution as amended enables it to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste in the execution or administration of laws within its legislative competence and the disbursement and administration of funds appropriated by the Acts (Section 88 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [CFRN], 1999, as altered). The constitution further grants it the power to regulate its procedure (Section 60) and appoint committees for any purpose it deems fit (Section 62 (1)). To this end, the National Assembly as the representatives of the people is expected to follow up its legislation to make sure that they are obeyed. Like in the United States Congress, the National Assembly is expected to carry out all its functions with the support of institutions such as the National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS) and the National Assembly Budget and Research Office (NABRO), not much can be desired in the performance of oversight by legislators in collective (committee) or individual capacities. Given this reason, this study sought to evaluate the performance of oversight in the 8th National Assembly.

​​​​​​​Statement of Research Problem

Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [CFRN] 1999 (as altered) describes the role of the arms of government premised on the principle of separation of powers. The legislature represents the interests of the citizens through lawmaking and the exercise of oversight functions on the activities of the other two arms of government i.e. the executive and the judiciary. Hence, the legislative powers are vested in the National Assembly comprising a Senate and a House of Representatives (CFRN, Section 4(1), 1999, as amended). Drawing from this, Sections 88 allows each House of the National Assembly through its resolution to direct an investigation or cause an investigation to be directed into matters it has powers make laws, the conduct of affairs of any person, MDA, etc., charged with the duty of administering laws or moneys appropriated, while Section 89 empowers it to obtain pieces of evidence required to discharge the burden laid on it by the provisions of Section 88. However, the exercise of oversight in the National Assembly involves the responsibility of legislative committees that undertake the review, in-depth study, and evaluation of the activities of the government (Asimiyu, 2018). These committees, draw legitimacy from Section 62 of the CFRN 1999 (as altered) with clearly defined mandate and functions in the standing orders of the respective houses.

In particular, the mandate of the Senate Committee on Defence as spelled out in Rule 95(1) of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 (as amended) include the Payment, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and Privileges of members of the Army; Defence Headquarters; Ammunition Depots, Forts, Arsenal Reservations and Establishments; Barrack projects; Military application of nuclear energy; Disarmament; Army Cadets; Resettlement Scheme for serving officers of the Army; war graves monuments; and memorabilia; peacekeeping operations; and the consideration of Annual budget estimates (Committee on Defence Sessional Report, Senate, 2020). Despite the constitutional backing, the Committees of the National Assembly in general and the Senate Committee on Defence in specific, are still constrained in the performance of their oversight mandate. Thus, Fashagba (2009a) listed inadequate funding, lack of cooperation from Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), executive interference, among others, as challenges militating against the effectiveness of legislative committees. These challenges notwithstanding, legislative committees remain a critical success factor in the performance of legislatures especially in the light of the powers vested in lawmakers as agents by the citizens-who are the principals. Given this, this study assessed the performance of the oversight activities of the 8th Senate Committee on Defence in the administration of the Defence Sector.

​​​​​​​Research Questions

The study provided answers to the following questions:

1. To what extent did the Senate Committee on Defence carry out any oversight activities within the period under study?

2. How did the Senate Committee on Defence perform its oversight function in the 8th Assembly?

3. What were the factors that affected the performance of the Senate Committee on Defence during the period under review?

4. In what ways can the performance of oversight by the Senate Committee on Defence be improved?

​​​​​​​Research Objectives

The broad objective of this study is to assess the performance of oversight of the National

thAssembly with a focus on the activities of the 8 Senate Committee on Defence. The specific objectives are to

1. examine the extent to which the Senate Committee on Defence carried out its oversight function within the period under study;

2. assess the performance of oversight function by the Senate Committee on Defence in the 8th Assembly;

3. identify the challenges that have affected the Committee in the discharge of its functions; and

4. recommend ways that will improve the committee in the performance of its oversight functions.

Scope of the Study

First, the study covers the National Assembly because the subject of interrogation is within the legislative competence of the Federal legislature being the National Assembly. Also, scholars of legislative studies refer to subnational legislatures especially in Nigeria as an appendage of the executive (Fashagba, 2009; Arowolo, 2010), as such, an examination of the performance of legislative oversight within the context of subnational government may not yield the desired research outcome. The study is delimited to the Senate Committee on Defence in the National Assembly within the period 2015-2019. These, covering both the scopes of time and analysis were chosen because of the overwhelming importance of the Defence sector in the face of numerous security challenges bedeviling the country (British Broadcasting Corporation, [BBC], 2017, Mayth 8th ), and the attendant acrimonious relationship that existed between the executive and legislative arms at the time (Punch Nigeria, 2016, June 20 ). Analytically, the study is delimited to measuring committee performance due to the prime place of legislative committees as anchorage for legislative duties. In this light, it can be argued that the nonperformance of the Senate Committee on Defence could rub off on the legislative output of the Senate on Defence-related matters.

​​​​​​​Significance of the Study

Despite the vast material available on the role of committees in the conduct of oversight, there is still a dearth on the very importance of Defence-related committees. Though research exists on the related concept of the committee system in organizing the legislature, these are just related and not the same concepts as this study demonstrates. This suggests the need for a body of literature that will evoke discussion within the academia and policy circles on the equally important topic of oversight performance by the 8th Senate Committee on Defence given mounting security concerns in the country. Therefore, this research hopes to fill that gap.

To students, the study is invaluable material for consultation for their academic endeavours. The study is material to all security officers and policymakers who seek to have a better understanding of the role of the legislature in modern democracies as well as those of committees in enhancing accountability in governance. The study may also give policymakers insights into the problems encountered by legislative committees in the conduct of oversight. To the public, the study would help them to understand the concepts of oversight and accountability in governance. This research will contribute immensely to knowledge already existing in the area of oversight in Nigeria as it will serve as a springboard for further researches in this area, as well as contribute to the body of literature.

​​​​​​​Definition of Key Concepts

Oversight: According to Nwagwu (2014), the legislative oversight function is the mechanism through which the people in government are kept under watch. Operationally, oversight is a means for holding the executive accountable for its actions and for ensuring that it implements policies following the laws and budget passed by the legislature.

Oversight of the Security Sector: To the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance [DCAF] (2021), oversight of the security sector refers to the role the democratically-elected branch of the legislature plays in oversight and monitoring of security sector policies and practices.

8th Senate Committee on Defence: The Defence Committee Sessional Report, Senate (2020), describes the Senate Committee on Defence the Standing Committee of the Senate reconstituted at its sitting on Tuesday 3rd November 2015, according to Section 62 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.

​​​​​​​Organization of the Study

This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter one contains the general introduction which consists of the background to the study, statement of the research problem, research questions and objectives, significance of the study, the scope of the study, and the outline of the research. Chapter two provides a thorough review of the literature bordering on the variables being studied and the theoretical framework. Also, chapter three focuses on a comprehensive statement of the research methodology as well as the limitations to the methodology. Besides, chapter four will provide the presentation of data and discussion of results. Finally, chapter five provides a summary of the study, recommendations, contributions of the research to the body of knowledge, and conclusions based on the findings from this study.