Hey fellow politicalanders. I really want to know the difference(s) between the SENATE and HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVE and their functions. Though I've done some research on google but I just get more confused. Someone once told me that they practically perform the same function and is more of a waste of public resources. Please just like that Rivers state collating officer,I need more light abeg.

Olsoo:
Hey fellow politicalanders. I really want to know the difference(s) between the SENATE and HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVE and their functions. Though I've done some research on google but I just get more confused. Someone once told me that they practically perform the same function and is more of a waste of public resources. Please just like that Rivers state collating officer,I need more light abeg.

Indeed, practically most of their functions are the same. One big exception I know is that Ministers and other presidential nominees are ONLY confirmed by the Senate and not the House. In terms of composition, all States have equal number of Senators -3 per State and 1 for Abuja FCT to make 109. The House has 360 members but the number varies. If I am not mistaken, Bayelsa has far less than 10 while Kano State should have like 20, more or less not very sure. Each house member represents a federal constituency, delineated on the basis (theoretically or in principle) on the basis of population. For instance, while a member may represent ONLY one LGA being the federal constituency like Obio Akpor Federal constituency in Rivers State is just one LGA (Obio Akpor), which is heavily populated, another constituency can be made up of 2 or even 3 LGAs. But this is Naija, the constituencies needed to have been reviewed to reflect current population and realities but was opposed by the last National Assembly and some political powers due to politics! Truly, we need only one lawmaking body but our constituition provides for bicameral legislature. So we have two chambers -Senate and House with these people having legislative aides, assistants etc and a lot of hangers-on to be settled. Real waste of public funds in my view. They only seat in plenary 3 days a week -Tuesday to Friday; they often go on recess like they have today after fighting! They will rest till 21st June and collect their pay. Some of them can fly into Abuja on Tuesday morning because sitting starts 10am and they can take off after seating on Thursdays. Sometimes they have other committee meetings and public hearings on plenary days or Mondays/Fridays. Many of them never contribute Bills, Motions or Resolutions. Some are permanent bench warmers or spectators, others just manage to second motions and others come and mark attendance/do other things. It’s typical for some to owe Banks even when they get heavily paid. So much to say....

zik4ever:

Indeed, practically most of their functions are the same. So much to say....

Thanks alot zik. One more question tho.
I heard sometimes the HOR passes a bill into law and the senate may reject the same bill when proposed in the NASS. Question is: What then happens to that kind of law? The kind that the HOR passes but the NASS doesn't?

Olsoo:

Thanks alot zik. One more question tho.
I heard sometimes the HOR passes a bill into law and the senate may reject the same bill when proposed in the NASS. Question is: What then happens to that kind of law? The kind that the HOR passes but the NASS doesn't?

Yes it’s true. The House can pass a bill and Senate reject it. Senate can pass a Bill and House reject it. Both chambers need to concur (agree) on a bill before it is passed. If they pass different versions of the same bill, they will set up a committee (conference committee) to harmonise it. They will take the harmonised version back to their respective chambers to ratify it. The harmonised version so passed will be sent to the Executive (The Presidency). If the President signs it, it becomes an Act of the National Assembly.
If as you asked, either chamber outrightly rejects a bill passed by another, that bill has failed. For example, the House passed the PIB but because the Senate didn’t pass it or concur, it has died naturally!

zik4ever:

Yes it’s true. The House can pass a bill and Senate reject it. Senate can pass a Bill and House reject it. Both chambers need to concur (agree) on a bill before it is passed. If they pass different versions of the same bill, they will set up a committee (conference committee) to harmonise it. They will take the harmonised version back to their respective chambers to ratify it. The harmonised version so passed will be sent to the Executive (The Presidency). If the President signs it, it becomes an Act of the National Assembly.
If as you asked, either chamber outrightly rejects a bill passed by another, that bill has failed. For example, the House passed the PIB but because the Senate didn’t pass it or concur, it has died naturally!

Thanks alot bro

Is it possible that both house of rep can pass a bill and the president refuses to sign such law into bill.....in dat case what can both senate and house do to force the president to sign such bill?

The aim of House of Reps and Senate is to give additional "checks and balances"

The intent of the founders of this system was to make sure that all legislation would be carefully considered, taking both the short and long-term effects into account.

House of Rep members are elected by and represent smaller limited groups of citizens living in smaller geographically defined districts within each state.

Whereas Senators, on the other hand, represent a larger, widergroup of voters of their state.

When the House of Reps considers a bill or law, individual members tend to base their votes primarily on how the bill might impact the people of their own local district, while Senators are meant to consider how the bill would impact the entire nation as a whole.

This is just as the Founders of this system intended. By setting the constitutionally-required
minimum age for Senators higher than that of members of the House , the Founders hoped Senators would be more likely to consider the long-term effects of legislation and practice a more mature, thoughtful and deeply deliberative approach in their deliberations.

That's why most Senators are more experienced in government. e.g former governors, ministers etc

The idea is that the Senate is meant to be more cautious, cool minded and less likely to be tempted to vote rashly or according to the short-term passions of public opinion but look long term.

For example, here in Nigeria the majority of the physical fighting, chaos, shouting aggressively, jumping of fence etc...has taken place in the House of Reps chambers not the Senate.....to show you the less self control and order

In the US major bills are often debated and voted on by the House of Reps in a single day, while the Senate can take weeks to carefully deliberate on the same bill.

Necessary checks and balance. Worth it in the long run I believe