DRAMA in Senate as David Mark Tackles 11 Defected Senators

The hopes of Senator Bukola Saraki and 10 other Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) senators to defect from the PDP to the All Progressives Congress (APC) faded away one more time on February 11, 2014, Tuesday. 

 At the resumption of plenary of the Senate in Abuja, Senate President David Mark, who has been accused of stalling the reading of the letters of defection of the 11 aggrieved lawmakers, ruled the legislators out of order. It was apparent that the open declaration of the PDP lawmakers for the APC rattled Mark. 

 Each of the defectors raised Point of Order to announce their defection to the opposition party. Proceedings on the floor of the Senate were held up for over one hour as the defectors rose to insist on the enforcement of their privilege to associate freely. Mark, however, relied on Senate Order 53(3) to rule the defectors out of Order. For Mark, the matter of defection of the Senators is in court and no reference shall be made to it according to Senate rule. Senator Saraki who led the group of defectors raised Order 14(a) which deals with privileges. Order 14 (a) says: “Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the Senate collectively and the members of the Senate individually conferred by the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act Cap 208 Laws of the Federation 1990 and other statutes, or by practice, precedent usage and custom. (b) “Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken up immediately.” Saraki listed the names of PDP Senators who wrote the Senate to announce their defection to the APC. 

Mark told Saraki that the matter he raised is currently pending in court and the Senate shall not make reference to it. Mark noted that “privilege does not apply here because you were the person who went to court.” Saraki responded that “Presently, under Privilege I have informed the Senate that I have defected from the PDP to the APC and the matter in court is not about defection but the declaration of my seat vacant.” Mark said that his interpretation of the issue in court is not that of declaration of seat vacant.