AN argument by a member of the House of Representatives showed shallow thinking. According to a report, another member, Haruna Dederi, had observed that a quorum was not formed on the floor as members debated a motion on drug abuse on October 3. Dederi had noted that a quorum of 120 members was not formed in the 360-member lower federal legislature.
Then the member who displayed shallow thinking presented his shallow argument. The report said: “But Minority Leader Ndudi Elumelu said a quorum cannot be determined by the number of members in the Chamber. According to him, “some members have come, signed in the chamber and left for committee assignments and oversight.”
Question: Is a quorum determined by the number of members present, or the number of members who had “signed in the chamber” but were absent? The answer is obvious. But it isn’t obvious to Elumelu and other lawmakers who think like him.
The Speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila, had to straighten the crooked thinking. He is reported to have “noted that the usual excuse to continue plenary when the quorum is not formed is wrong,” adding that the legislators should obey the rules of the House. Specifically, he highlighted Order 4 Rule 2, which says the quorum of the House shall be one-third of all the members of the House.
Gbajabiamila said: “If the intention was that people should come at 10am, sign and go; then, we’re kidding ourselves. We cannot be conducting sitting with 10 members. Hon. Elemelu, I hereby rule you out of order.” The Speaker’s words were in order. The rule of the House regarding a quorum means that when there is no quorum, there is no proper gathering.
Then the Speaker, instead of being firm, yielded to the same shallowness he had opposed. He added: “On the issue of committee work, I’m inclined to agree with that. That’s important and part of sitting of the House. But just to play safe and for future, move for suspension of the rule so we can continue.”
Suspending the rule suggests bending the rule, even breaking the rule. This explains why the question of a quorum remains a question. This explains why some lawmakers think a quorum includes members “who signed in the chamber” but are not in attendance.
When there is no quorum, it likely affects the quality of debates in the House. When there is no quorum, what happens is a travesty of the legislative process. Indeed, without a quorum, the elected representatives demonstrate that they don’t understand why they were elected.