That the 1999 Nigerian Constitution is incurably defective is no longer news. There have, therefore, been many attempts to remedy it through amendments. The latest effort is being superintended by the 9th National Assembly. How successful they will be will depend on just how exquisitely they can put new wine in old wineskin. Meanwhile the lawmakers in both the Senate and House of Representatives have continued to tantalise the public with amendments that appear welcome, feasible and even significant. But the process is just starting; it still has a long way to go after harmonisation. How the amendments will fare at the states is also anybody’s guess.

The National Assembly has done well to drive the Electoral Act amendment to its final destination. It is doubtless imperfect, but it is a good beginning. In that same can-do spirit, the lawmakers are giving the constitutional amendment process their best push. Should they succeed, and there is no reason for them not to, they will be lauded far above their self-abnegating decision to please the presidency at any cost. They deny the accusation of being subordinate to the executive arm, and are doing their best to prove their independence by pushing through fairly radical amendments. It is unknown how persuasive they are in convincing everyone of their legislative independence. Yet, even if they succeed in their latest constitutional effort, that success would be qualified, obviously circumscribed by the nature and limitations of the constitution they are seeking to amend.

Nigerians would do well to moderate their expectations. At the end of the process, no one is sure that the initial euphoria that has greeted the amendments so far would be sustained. There is no doubt a little something for nearly everyone, like separating the office of the Attorney General from that of the Minister of Justice, and granting autonomy to state legislature and judiciary. It is not clear how local government autonomy, which they are recommending, will work. But the fundamental challenge thrown by the constitution has not been touched. Women, for instance, are up in arms about affirmative action to demand for special seats at national and state levels, including in the legislature and executive cabinets, but they have not justified to the legislature why in an open system in which there are only largely self-imposed limitations, including cultural and religious strictures, they must need to hold certain groups down in order for women to be better positioned or represented. Overall, there are some 68 or so amendments expected to be worked and voted upon. Not all will pass, and not everyone will be pleased. Perhaps, as time goes on, more amendments will be proposed and passed.

However, there is nothing to be done now or in the near future regarding amending the constitution that will transform the controversial document into a lasting, stabilising and cohesive grundnorm. It has foundational problem. Until that foundation is comprehensively rebuilt, whatever is built upon the existing document will only last for a while. But once the foundation is right, the competition for the presidency would be modulated, gender equity would become less controversial, and the basis for ethnic and religious interrelationship would be addressed and agreed upon. Despite all the hue and cry, and regardless of the purported federal nature of the constitution, the country has clearly not agreed the basis for unity.

What is even worse is that in tinkering with the constitution, with the frightful prospect of a worse tear occurring as the country mends its torn constitutional garment with unshrunk cloth, nothing significant has been said about one of the major issues undermining both the constitution and the country as a whole. That issue is the cost of governance. The problem is that without restructuring the country, preferring instead to only mend the existing one, it is nigh impossible to reduce the cost of governance and free funds for development. The present cost is prohibitive. It cannot be sustained. It must be admitted that women need to agitate for better environment for their gender to thrive politically and even economically, and had they joined hands with others to press for a significant reduction in the cost of governance in favour of, say, education and health sectors, the society would be better served, while the affirmative action issue would be regarded as foresighted and altruistic.

Rather than tinkering with the constitution, it would have been far better and more sensible and visionary to advocate a new one. But neither this set of lawmakers nor the executive arm will countenance the constitutional change necessary to assure the stability and progress of Nigeria. They won’t hear of it, they won’t do it, and they will always argue that there is no legal or political basis to carry out the kind of fundamental changes sufficient to guarantee peaceful coexistence in the country. In their myopia, the law enforcement agencies are already guaranteeing that, regardless of the intolerable social and economic pressures.

Read Also: Adamu Adamu’s bad day at the office

Education minister Adamu versus NANS

Last week’s impromptu meeting between the Education minister, Adamu Adamu, and representatives of the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) led by their president Asefon Sunday didn’t go well at all. Bad but subtle temper suffused the discussions. Neither side behaved nobly. Many analysts have pointed out that it was time students grew up and upped their unionism tactics. They are right. Not only must students’ union leaders refine their methods, students themselves must change their mindset in electing their representatives. At the impromptu meeting, Mr Asefon exhibited commitment and passion, and there was no doubt, despite his struggle with eloquence and misrepresentation of facts, that he knew what the students desired of their government.

The meeting, however, ended abruptly without achieving anything because the minister lacked the emotional capability to deal with the tantrums of the students’ union leader. Mr Asefon misrepresented the minister, and even spoke without the decorum and wisdom expected of him; but by peevishly responding in less dignified manner to the students’ provocations, the minister exhibited the common and condescending approach of Nigerian leaders to citizens’ queries and demands. It is not enough that the students were wrong; it is important that ministers and leaders must be right as well as conduct themselves as servants of the people. They are not the people’s masters, as they are often portrayed by government.

Mallam Adamu was wrong to have walked out on the students, even though reports suggest that he returned later in the night to meet with the students to remedy the faux pas. The students as well as most Nigerians would interpret the minister’s reaction as rude and his manner insufferable. Did the students speak disrespectfully to the minister? Did they twist facts relating to the minister’s family or children? There are suggestions they did, perhaps unknowingly. But a better approach would have been for the minister to correct the misrepresentations and gently and maturely rebuke the students’ manners. There are a thousand and more ways to handle the students, most of whom at the meeting were not too old to be his children. Mallam Adamu forgot he was in public office, and that a far nobler spirit of leadership and service was required of him.

If the minister had had the presence of mind to appreciate the sufferings of the students forced to endure repeated ASUU strike, if he knew the cost to parents of keeping their children in school beyond the school calendar, if he knew how disruptive the interruptions to academic calendar has become, he would be more amenable to their pains and cries. Their irreverence and mistaken conclusions would not have mattered at all. Now, everyone sees the minister as a callous man serving a government that is indifferent to educational issues.