Essay: The Role of National Assembly in Conflict Resolution:

The legislature has added the responsibility of conflict mediation and resolution to its numerous functions. The legislature has established an enviable record of performance in this area. For instance, since 1999 the legislature has positively intervened and settled several government’ labor disputes, be it over minimum wage, ASUU demands for better conditions of service in the Universities or most recently, the fuel subsidy strike. The timing of the removal of subsidy from petroleum products by the Executive was most inauspicious. It came at a time when majority of Nigerians were in their various villages and communities for the Christmas and New Year festivities. They were trapped and stranded as they could not afford the huge escalation in fuel price which moved from N65 to N140 per litre of petrol in the average Nigerian community. No one anticipated such sudden sharp increase as Nigerians had planned the budget for their trips based on existing cost parameters and indices. People were thus thrown into unavoidable economic turmoil and even reduced to the level of destitution and beggary. As the representatives of the people, The National Assembly were inundated with barrage of calls and protestations from our constituents all over the country on their worsening economic situation occasioned by the subsidy removal. Confronted with such a terrible situation, the House of Representatives had to convene an emergency session on a Sunday, 8th January, 2012 (the first of its kind in our legislative history). This culminated in the decision of the House to set up the Hon. Farouk Law and led Ad-Hoc Committee on the Investigation and Monitoring of the Fuel Subsidy regime. To address the urgent matter of the impending strike, the National Assembly set up the Patrick Ikhariale Committee to reach out to Labor and arrest the situation. The findings of the Committee have since revealed that the huge funds being misapplied by a privileged few in our society in the name of oil subsidy could have been better and wisely deployed in funding the national budget to provide critical infrastructure and tackle mass poverty.
In a brusque manner that caught everybody, including members of the National Assembly Unawares, the Federal Government, on New Year’s Day announced its decision to stop with immediate effect the subsidy on petroleum products. The immediate implication of this awkward New Year gist was the sudden rise in the price of premium Motor Spirit PMS, popularly called petrol here, from N65 to between N141 and N150, a sour taste in the mouth of most citizens. Naturally, the obviously unpopular decision immediately set off a whiff of national anger, with the leadership of organized labor represented by the Nigeria Labor Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC), vowing to shut down the country by January 9 if the federal government failed to retrace its step. It was not as if labor was totally opposed to the deregulation of the petroleum down-stream sector, but its anger appeared to have stemmed from the fact that the government would take such critical decision when consultations’ on the modalities and timing of its implementation were still on going. Even some lawmakers expressed indignation over what they called the tactical sideling of the National Assembly in ‘the far-reaching economic decision when the 2012 budget is still under consideration’, a decision, which, one senator said ‘runs against the gains of inclusive and representative democracy’ (Oladesu, et. al, 2011).
As the one week ultimatum labor gave the government to rescind its decision lapsed without the latter budging the nation woke up on Monday January 9 to a crippling national strike as government offices throughout the nation were deserted and private businesses grounded in most cities of the federation. Street protests were also held across the country, as labor and its civil society allies vowed never to retreat until government brought back the price of petrol to its former N65 per liters.
The nation’s economy was literally put on hold while the strike was on. Schools, petrol stations, banks and markets were shut down in compliance of the order. In some major cities across the polity, there were disruptions of movement by anti-subsidy removal agitators who set bonfires on the roads. In most streets in the metropolis, idle youths were seen playing football, while in some areas hoodlums exploited the strike and had a field day. Small trading that went on was only visible in some neighborhood streets.
Organized labor has insisted that government must go to the former pump price of N65 per litre of fuel before the current deregulated price of N141 per litre of petrol. The House of Representatives on its emergency sitting on Sunday (8th January, 2012) urged government to reverse itself and return to former price of N65 per litre of petrol so that it will go into dialogue with labor (Olukayode and Kujenya, 2012:2).
The Lower Chamber resolved too that labor should shelve its current call for strike so as to negotiate with government. Regrettably, neither government nor labor heeded the House’s call. Labor hailed the House’s decision and urged the Senate to do the same. Not even the launching on Sunday of the 1600 mass transit buses by President Good luck Jonathan and the various appeals by government’s agents could make labor to call off the protest. Not even the purported 25 percent cut in salaries of political officeholders can make Nigerians see reasons with their embattled President who decided to wage so many battles against the populace all in one swoop without considering their consequences
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE REOLUTION (ADR)
The idea of Alternative Dispute resolution (ADR) is about the search for, and application of, ‘non-conventional’ peaceful methods of setting disputes and resolving conflict situations using the least expensive methods, and in ways that satisfy the parties, as well as ways that preserve relationships after a settlement might have been reached. ADR is specially meant to serve as an alternative to the official conventional means of settling disputes, mainly through litigation and the courts, but with preference for non-violence.
The conflict resolution and transformation spectrum consists of a range of options employable for non-violent management of conflict. These can be classified into two, namely the voluntary processes, and the involuntary processes. The voluntary processes are those in which parties have some control over the outcome. They include fact finding, in-depth research and case studies, facilitation, negotiation, conciliation, mediation and brokerage. The involuntary processes on the other hand, are more often than not, outside the control of the parties to the conflicted. Even though they may be non-violent, the third parties who broker the process may sometimes hand down outcomes, which the parties have to accept either in principle or in law. These options include arbitration, adjudication and law enforcement (otherwise called crisis management) using the coercive apparatus of state. These diplomatic processes involve the use of discussions, fact-finding methods and bargaining to prevent the escalation of conflicts. Differences are resolved either directly by the contending parties themselves or with the discreet assistance of third parties. In such discussions or bargaining emphasis is on facts; the issue of law does not intrude. Of all the procedures used to settle differences or manage conflicts, the most common and often the most effective is negotiation which ADR represents. To negotiate is to bargain; it is to confer for the purpose of reaching mutual agreement or understanding. The procedure consists basically of discussions between the interested parties. Such peaceful confrontation of the parties affords them an opportunity to present their own accounts and views of the facts of the dispute, to understand the different positions maintained by the parties and to reconcile divergent opinions. Negotiation does not involve any third party, at least when there is no difficulty in the two parties confronting each other. In this sense, it differs slightly from all the other forms of conflict management (Shaw, 1977)
However, the pre-requisite conditions for negotiation apply to all other diplomatic mechanisms of conflict management. The principles underlying successful negotiation also guide effective mediation and conciliation. The skills of a negotiator are germane too for a mediator and a conciliator. The idea is to have people with institutional memories who can intervene during periods of national crisis. And so when it became imperative for the Senate to intervene we had to approach it from the point of view of maturity, the point of view of national interest and making sure that we gave our country, safeguard our unity so that we can have an atmosphere of peace. And that was why we had to initiate the dialogue between the labor and the federal government. Information also emerged how the Office of the Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly Matters helped in ensuring that both Chambers of the National Assembly worked together with the Presidency to resolve the crisis. Besides being seen at most venues of the talks, especially the ones held at the Presidential Villa, the Presidential Liaison Officer to the National Assembly was visibly shutting between Senator David Mark and Hon. Aminu Tambuwal’s Apo Legislative Quarters homes.
Investigation showed that the first role of the Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly Matters, Senator Joy Emodi was to ensure both chambers of the as to the approach to be adopted in resolving the crisis. In such an important national matter, it would have been taken for granted that he leadership of both Chambers would consult on the approach and date if they had to reconvene, but it was clear from their approaches and the controversial Sunday session by the House that no consultations might have taken place. Emodi known as the ‘Joy of the Senate’ in her heydays in the Red Chamber, was said to have deployed the goodwill and respect she enjoys among the senators and House members and among their leadership to deploy her superb lobbying acumen towards an amicable resolution of the subsidy face-off. Giving insights into their influence in the National Assembly, a source said: The good thing about Emodi was that besides being in the good book of the leadership of the Senate who were her former colleagues in the Upper Chamber, she also had sound relationship with both the House Leadership and other power brokers in the House of Representative for instance she worked with Speaker and the Deputy Speaker during the Constitution amendment processes in the 6th National Assembly while she also worked very closely with Hon. Farouk Lawan, who was her counterpart Chairman of the Committee on Education in the House(Eme,et.al,2012).
Shortly after labor called off the strike and street protests, Emodi had acknowledged in unmistakable terms the role of the National Assembly, especially its leadership in resolving the subsidy crisis. In an interview with news men, the Presidential adviser noted that the resolution of the subsidy dispute had ‘further crystallized the essence of the existing cordial working relationship between the executive and legislative arms of the Federal Government.
REFERENCE
Eme, I. (2014). The Role of National Assembly in Conflict Resolution: A Case of Anti-Subsidy Strikes of 2012. Global Journal of Human Social Science.
Oladesu, O., Olaoye-Osinkolu, Olugbamila, A., Olaniyi, B., and Omokhunu, G. (2011). Fuel Subsidy: Employers arm Government to Avert Crisis. The Nation, pp. 1-2.
Olukayode, T. and Kkujenya, J. (2012, January Thursday 5). New Year, New Pains as Fuel Price Hike Bites. The Nation, pp. 6-7.