Omtatah Responds to Ahmednasir in Scathing Letter

Busia Senator and presidential hopeful Okiya Omtatah has finally replied to calls to apologise from Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdulahi over remarks he made in the Senate about the importation of 500,000 tonnes of duty-free rice.
In a letter dated August 25, Omtatah refused to apologise, claiming that he would not bow to the lawyers’ threats as they were baseless and in contrast with constitutional baselines.
“With due respect, your demands are not only devoid of legal merit but represent a fundamental misunderstanding of Parliamentary privilege, Constitutional oversight and the doctrine of separation of powers,” the letter read in part.
“At the outset, I categorically state that I stand by every word in my request for a statement from the Senate regarding the approval of the duty-free waivers for the rice imports. I made the request in the public interest and will continue to perform my duties as a Senator to ensure transparency and accountability in governance.”
Ahmednasir had written to the Senator, seeking a withdrawal of the statement he had made on July 9 on the floor of the House, seeking answers on the due process employed in allocating the importation quota to a private corporation, which the lawyer termed as his client.
He further claimed that Omtatah’s claims assassinated his client’s reputation and were made without any factual basis.
As such, he threatened that if the Senator did not retract his words in seven days, he would take legal action against him in a letter dated July 31.
In his remarks, Omtatah had claimed that the importation of the said rice did not follow due process and that it was going to hurt the local farmers whose rice was rotting in the stores for lack of market.
In the lengthy response to Ahmednasir, he further outlined several reasons why he was entitled to his remarks, maintaining that there was nothing wrong with what he said.
For instance, he invoked Article 117 of the Constitution and the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, which insulates Members of Parliament from civil or criminal proceedings in respect to anything said on the floor of either House.
Additionally, he mentioned the Defamation Act, 1970, which he said provides absolute privileges for fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings to support the prior Act.
Omtatah even pointed out a previous ruling involving him in 2020, in which the Appellate Court had affirmed that Parliamentary privilege was paramount.
In a nutshell, Omtatah redirected Ahmednasir, stating, “You state without proof that your client never received the quota. That is welcome news. I am certain the Senate Committee will be glad to hear it. That is the proper channel for your client to place its position.”
The vocal Senate in his unapologetic letter vowed to keep airing matters that affect the public openly and seeking statements from the various committees whenever they come up.