AYODELE ADEGBUYI examines the challenges of actualising the amendment of the 1999 Constitution at the ongoing National Conference, and how this could pitch it against the National Assembly
For students of political science, this is certainly an interesting time. The National Conference being put in place by President Goodluck Jonathan, has been making far reaching decisions concerning what in its opinion, should be the ground norm, the basis upon which Nigeria should be governed. On the other hand, the National Assembly, whose responsibility it is to alter/amend the constitution has almost finished the amendment process considered by many as mere scratching the issues on the surface.
Now, the conference as parts of its recommendations is pushing for the creation of an additional state in the South East to put them at par with other zones of the federation, except the North East with seven. This exercise was jettisoned by the National Assembly owing to the cumbersome nature of the process for bringing about creation of a state as enshrined in the constitution. Besides, the NASS reckoned that it would be difficult to reach a political consensus on creation of a state in the south east alone when there are over 50 requests for state creation. Without doubt, the decision is right in the interest of fair-play and justice. But the big question: how will the state be created?
As if answering this question, the 30-member committee further submitted that without prejudice to states constituting the federating unit, those that wish to merge may do so in accordance with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria subject to three conditions, namely: that a majority of the two-thirds of all members in each of the Houses of Assembly of each of the states, in which such merger is proposed, support the merger by resolution. That a referendum is conducted in each of the states proposing to merge with 75 per cent of the eligible voters in each of those states approving of the merger; and that each House of the National Assembly, by resolution passed by a simple majority of membership of each of the Houses, approve of the merger. Who brings about this clearly defined process?
Other far reaching decisions of the conference include the abolition of local government as the third tier of government. In the reasoning of the conference, the creation of local governments as third tier has brought about structural imbalance.
The states have not also allowed the councils perform optimally. By this recommendation, state could create as many local government councils as they can cater for. But the National Assembly was unable to do this because, those who want the status quo to remain are in the majority. There would certainly be more far reaching decisions by the conference, but what becomes of them?
This question is begging for an answer because, early this month, the Senate played a dangerous card on the future of the country by trying to frustrate President Goodluck Jonathan’s attempt to get the recommendations of the National Conference included in the ongoing constitution amendment at the National Assembly. Jonathan sought this through in “A Bill for an Act to further alter the provisions of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and for other matters connected therewith.”
The bill was withdrawn by Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu when it became obvious that it would be killed. The bill proposes how Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution could be altered to make the Executive introduce new amendments in the Constitution. But, claiming that Jonathan had ulterior motives, senators truncated the passage of the bill during the initial debate. What is more, lawmakers from the lower chamber have repeatedly said that the conference was not created by any law. For instance, Albert Sam Tsokwa in an interview recently said on the conference: “The power of National Assembly to legislate is donated by the constitution. Whether we like it or not, we have a constitution. Even those who say that the constitution is not a product of Nigerians, still when it suits them, cite a section of the constitution.
“ Even the advocates of Sovereign National Conference, members of the ongoing conference, where it suits them, they still made reference to the constitution they love to hate. If the constitution is not valid, why have they taken two to three weeks to debate the president’s speech? What makes the president? It is the constitution. So we reject the constitution with the left and embrace it with the right hand. Now under the constitution, Mr President has the power to convey a conference which he has rightly done. Whatever the President intend to do with the outcome of what the conference may resolve, it is entirely the business, the prerogative and duty of the President.
“It is neither here nor there for you or me to say. As it is, there is no law that put the conference in place. If there were laws that put it in place there would have been provisions that at certain stage, this is what must happen. So the sole authority over the conference is Mr President.”
On the amendment of the 1999 constitution, the lawmaker said this is clear. He said:
“ If you want to amend me(constitution), this is what you should do. And this is the person that will amend me. That person is the National Assembly. So it has taken steps following the rules and the guidelines provided by the constitution through which it can be amended. The constitution has not said, in the course of amending me, if there is a national conference, stop amending me until the result of the national conference comes.
“So we will continue with the process of amending the constitution. If at the end of the day, Mr President submits a bill which he has a constitutional right to do, the National Assembly is under duty to consider all bills submitted by Mr President, not just him, but by individuals and taken decision on them.”
Ibrahim El-Sudi, another lawmaker from Taraba did not hide his resentment for the convocation of National Conference. According to him, it is superfluous, unnecessary and ill timed, maintaining that section 9 of the 1999 constitution already vested the power to amend the constitution on the National Assembly.
“What is the need for a conference whose report would be brought before the National Assembly,” he queried.
From the foregoing, the voyage of the National conference toward fashioning a brand new, far reaching and acceptable people constitution may yet be an exercise in futility. If so, how does Nigeria correct its faulty foundation? To many people, it needs to be corrected through the resolutions to be reached at the National Conference, which would also be subjected to a referendum, after which the President will then modify them into an executive bill and laid it before the National Assembly. To them, this is a practical approach to solving the multifarious ills plaguing this tottering political edifice called Nigeria. Then who will prevail on the National Assembly not to let this opportunity slip off?
