By Peter Willie
The recent attempt by one Dr Pam to downplay the historic and heroic legislative efforts by Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba on the issue of Cross River State’s littoral rights and the Bakassi Peninsula fallout is not only misleading but also symptomatic of either a deliberate revision of parliamentary history or a poor grasp of legislative procedure concealed behind verbose technicalities.
Let it be stated for the records, there was indeed a Senate resolution following a properly moved and seconded motion on the floor of the Nigerian Senate. The submission made by Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba was not an isolated commentary or rhetorical lamentation. It was part of a structured legislative intervention that culminated in a motion moved by Senator Abdul Ningi and duly seconded by Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba. The motion was debated, subjected to a voice vote, and was adopted as a Senate resolution all in line with the Standing Orders of the Senate.
The suggestion that there was no motion, no seconding, no debate, and no vote is incorrect and legally careless. While it is accurate that Senate Resolutions are not binding law, they remain valid expressions of legislative position and institutional concern. In fact, resolutions often trigger executive and ministerial actions from investigative panels to policy reviews and are used routinely in oversight and intergovernmental relations. To argue that they are meaningless unless codified into law is to display total lack of appreciation of how parliaments operate. This was not the only intervention by Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba on this matter. He and Senator Bassey Ewa Henshaw had co-sponsored a number of motions on Bakassi in the previous Senate.
Furthermore, Dr. Pam’s interpretation of Orders 51 through 54 of the Standing Orders appears selective and convenient. The Standing Orders do not invalidate a resolution because it was not accompanied by a bill or committee referral. Not all motions are intended to become law. Some, like the one under discussion, are declarative in nature, meant to bring national attention to constitutional and geopolitical injuries precisely what was achieved in the Bakassi matter.
More so, the emphasis on constitutional process (Section 8 of the 1999 Constitution) regarding boundary alteration is irrelevant here. No motion was seeking to alter the status of a State. What was sought and passed was a resolution urging the executive and relevant agencies to re-examine and redress the maritime deprivation of Cross River State, particularly in relation to the economic impact on derivation and littoral classification.
To dismiss this effort as “governmental empathy without enforceable consequence” is to trivialize an important legislative milestone and the patriotic efforts the Distinguished Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba who characteristically fought for justice at a time when many preferred silence.
Let it also be noted that ignorance cloaked in legalese or grammar is no substitute for institutional memory. Rather than weaponize grammar to distort facts, Dr. Pam should consult the Senate Hansards and votes and proceedings for an accurate account of proceedings. The Senate resolution did happen. It may not have achieved immediate reversal, but it provided a formal legislative record, a platform for future advocacy, litigation, and policy correction.
In conclusion, the matter at hand is too sensitive for armchair pretence to constitutionalism. The people of Cross River deserve more than intellectual posturing, they deserve truth, justice, and a full recovery of their rights, whether through legislative reaffirmation, executive engagement, or judicial review.
Dr. Pam’s thesis is nothing but a needless and dishonest distraction to Cross Riverians at this time and a reckless exercise in verbosity and pseudo-intellectualism. Dr. Pam, whoever he may be should disclose his full identity so that he can be properly engaged. African’s have surnames.
*Peter Willie, a former legislative Aide writes from Abuja
