Bills to halt declaration of spouse’s assets scales second reading in Reps
The House of Representatives on Tuesday, May 21, passed for second reading a bill seeking to delete the provisions requiring public servants to declare the assets of their spouse while declaring their assets.
The bill also seeks to delete section 23(7) of the Code of Conduct Act saying the provision contravenes the provisions of the Constitution which gives the President power of Prerogative of Mercy.
Also, the House passed for second reading a bill seeking to amend the provisions of the Police Act 2020 to review years of service of police officers to ensure the retention of experienced officers in the force.
While the bill to amend the Code of Conduct Act was sponsored by Olawale Raji (APC, Lagos), the bill to amend the police act was sponsored by the Speaker of the House, Abbas Tajudeen, and Chairman House Committee on Police Affairs, Abubakar Makki Yalleman.
Leading the debate on his bill, Raji said the Code of Conduct Act requires every public officer to declare the assets of the spouse, pointing out that this is not in line with the principles of fairness.
He argued that anybody who declares the assets of the spouse can be liable to prosecution if the information so declared is found to be false.
He also argued that the 1999 constitution gives the President the power to grant amnesty to anybody under the prerogative of mercy policy, adding that section 23(7) conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution.
According to him, the Constitution States that any law that conflicts with the Constitution is null null void.
Minority Leader of the House said the provision requiring the declaration of assets of the spouse was made in good faith and aimed at addressing the situation where public officers hide stolen assets in the name of their spouse.
He said what should be of concern to the members should be the age limit which should be reduced from 21 to 18.
Also, leading the debate on the bill to amend the police act, Abubakar Yalleman said the amendment is necessary given the need to apply the experience of officers who have been trained and have served for a considerable of years.
He said such experience is needed especially in this time of insecurity when experienced police officers are needed to help tackle insecurity in the country.
At the time of this report, The Nation could not lay a hand on the amendment being sought to determine the age limit the amendment is seeking.
