The Nation Newspaper

Tag: 1999 Constitution

  • Nigeria’s problem not about 1999 Constitution, says IBM Haruna

    Nigeria’s problem not about 1999 Constitution, says IBM Haruna

    A former Chairman of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), retired Maj.-Gen. I.B.M. Haruna, has said the problems Nigeria is facing are not solely about the 1999 Constitution.

    Haruna, who was also a member of the Constitutional Conference between 1988 and 1989, said this in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) yesterday in Abuja.

    He noted that the problems confronting the country were not necessarily created by the constitution “enacted or decreed in 1999”.

    The retired military officer, who was a member of the 1994 National Constitutional Conference Commission, said that while the constitution is not perfect, it, however, makes provisions for addressing the current challenges.

    Among the provisions, he said, is the principle of separation of powers among the three organs of government.

    “The problems that face us fundamentally and constitutionally are just evolving,” he said.

    Haruna cited the current Nigerian population, which he put at over 200 million, comprising about 400 ethnic groups, among which are the dominant ones and the minorities.

    According to him, the ethnic nationalities “are all seeking their rightful place and constitutionally stipulated roles within the Federal Republic”.

    He added: “But through processes and growth as well as the progressive development of social, political and economic processes, we will make changes. Therefore, the constitution is not static.

    “However, certain fundamentals have been provided for it in the structure, the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers, and things like that.

    “Each one has to play its role as conceived and provided for within the constitution and the laws of the federation.”

    Read Also: Constitution Review: Southwest govs back state police, resource control, others

    Haruna stressed that, irrespective of the nation’s challenges, Nigerians should prioritise what they want and how to go about it.

    “We’ve decided on federalism; this is imperfect. We’ve decided on electoral bodies and the laws that govern them. The performance and implementation of the electoral law is also not perfect.

    “We’ve equally decided on certain instruments of modern mechanisms or equipment for use during elections. It is all toward providing or making sure that elections are free, fair, and dependable.

    “But we know, from where we started, that ballot boxes were being snatched, and we have also experimented with Option A4, with people queueing behind their candidates,” he said.

    Haruna said there was no guarantee that those systems would not be faulty, particularly in an atmosphere where corruption and cheating prevailed.

    The retired military officer noted that while there was no commitment to perfecting the procedures and processes, there was the guarantee that the rule of law and regulations would be followed.

    He expressed concerns about the challenges being faced by some institutions in the country, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the judiciary, and political parties.

    Haruna averred that the situation could have been better if those institutions had been put in proper shape.

    “Of course, we see how elections in other places and countries are being carried out, and the time during which results are announced.

    “Take India, for example, with over a billion population; they can conduct elections and announce the results within the specified time,” he said.

  • Much ado about Section 305

    Much ado about Section 305

    IT IS A section of the Constitution not frequently used, except the need arises. Whenever it is used, it causes a quake in the land. The country has been quaking since President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State on March 18 after invoking the almighty Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The imposition of emergency rule is not the problem, the din is over his suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, the deputy, Prof Ngozi Odu, and the House of Assembly.

    To critics, the President has no powers under the Constitution to suspend a governor or any elected person for that matter. According to them, Section 305 only confers him with power to declare a state of emergency in the federation or any part thereof, if need be; no more, no less. Citing the legal maxim: expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning the express inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another, they have been using this Latin phrase to buttress their argument that the President is precluded from suspending those democratic institutions.

    Interestingly in this instance, the principle can be applied both ways. Why? Section 305 says nothing about the retention, suspension or removal of democratic institutions during an emergency. So, the President can do whatever he likes with democratic institutions during an emergency. Call it omnibus power, if you like; for that is what it is. A look at the section shows that these discretionary powers allow the President to do and undo, though critics will not agree. The section reads:

    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof 

     Subsection 3 states the conditions under which the President can declare a state of emergency, viz:

    (a) when the Federation is at war;

    Read Also: Revisiting polytechnic education in Nigeria (2)

    (b) when the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war;

    (c) when there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security

    (d)  When there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger

    Section 305 has six subsections, with (1) and (3) standing out because of their key provisions which touch on what the President has done in Rivers. Subsection three has seven elements (a-g), with c and d stating unequivocally in their texts that the President can take extraordinary measures to ensure peace and order and good governance at all times. The Constitution vests the President with enormous powers as the custodian, so to say, of the Federation, who though not an autocrat, can unilaterally exercise certain powers for the smooth running of the country and public safety.

    In one word, a state of emergency is a necessity, though it is perceived as an aberration by some people because it deviates from the norm of doing things. Under a state of emergency, things are not normal. It is because of this abnormality that the President is granted the power to take extraordinary measures to set things right until they become normal again. Those against his suspension of Fubara and others cannot say that things are normal in Rivers. Abnormal times demand abnormal remedy and this is what the President has done in Rivers.

    For the avoidance of doubt, Section 305 did not say that the President can suspend democratic institutions in times of emergency; neither did it say that the President cannot suspend those institutions during emergency. To go on a voyage of discovery in search of constitutional provisions on how a governor can be removed from office is what it is: a Mungo Park journey. Those provisions now being bandied by lawyers and laymen to suit their positions can only hold sway when things are normal. The provisions do not address an emergency situation as we have it in Rivers today.

    From my own understanding of Section 305, the President can suspend democratic institutions as the provision vide subsection 3 (c) and (d) allows him to take extraordinary measures to restore peace and order as well as avert an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof. Did he suspend the democratic institutions in Rivers to avert a clear and present danger to peace and security?

    The answer is YES. Did he act unconstitutionally by so doing? The answer is NO. I may be wrong, but I am ready to take a bet on my position until the Supreme Court which I pray will, one day, have an opportunity to address this issue frontally, speaks. Until then, all opinions by lawyers and others, including yours sincerely, remain just that: personal viewpoints

    Come to think of it, how can a governor keep his seat when he is part of the problem in a state where there is a state of emergency? Framers of the Constitution never envisaged that the chief executive officer of a state who is expected to promote public peace and good will become the chief troublemaker someday. Hence, 305 is not specific on how to deal with such unfathomable case.

    This lack of specificity should, however, not be misconstrued as tying the President’s hands to take necessary remedial actions. Otherwise, the section would not have spoken of extraordinary measures which give the President wide powers to do and undo during an emergency.

  • 1999 Constitution and the future of Nigeria

    1999 Constitution and the future of Nigeria

    By Ponle Sueez Akande

    SIR: Assuming the reader knows the constitutional history of Nigeria; and appreciates, also, that the 1999 constitution is essentially unitary; then he or she would appreciate that agitations for devolution of powers, from the national government to the subnational government or the constituent or  federating units, would continue without break; until devolution is achieved.

    What many may not appreciate is that there may not be restructuring to true federation or devolution of powers before year 2028. Furthermore, there may not be restructuring to true federation of Nigeria before the year 2031. In these eventualities, how would the present situation of gross insecurity, mass unemployment, mass poverty, gross infrastructure deficits, mass illiteracy, corruption, capital flight, inflation, grossly poor level of industrialization and over dependence on grossly inadequate foreign earnings from exportation of crude oil and gas, with escalating foreign debts have become, reduced or worsen?

    Governance is social science, though more conjectural than as physical science or natural science is; and is, indisputably, relatively empirical; guided, as such, by principles and facts.

    The contravention or transgression of scientific principles are of inescapable, undesirable consequences. The formulation or design of a constitution of any country must be based on the historical and present social, economic and political facts of life in that country that is the cultural facts,  culture being conceived as the totality of all the facts of life of a country. And Nigeria, not being mono-cultural, but heterogeneous, cannot – scientifically – have an essentially unitary constitution. It must have a confederal or federal constitution.

    Read Also; JAMB: 577 blind candidates to write 2024 UTME

    Accordingly with its peculiarities, Nigeria  must have a confederal or federal constitution, accepted by all or most ethnic groups of the country. This is the ratio decidendi – rationale – for a people’s constitution of Nigeria, the restoration or achievement of a truly federal or confederal constitution of Nigeria. Ethnic plurality of a nation-state calls for, or necessitates, plurality of ethnic or constituent constitutions, with substantial devolution or constituent reservation of some crucial powers, thereby.

    Ethnic groups, societies or communities, with different sets of facts of life in the socio-economic sectors must be governed by different sets of policies in their respective areas or jurisdictions.

    Education, industrialization, urban and regional planning, judiciary, jurisprudence, laws, labour and employment, security and policing, agriculture, banking and finance, lands, transport, water, health, environment, commerce and trade, public administrations, public finance, mining, energy, electric power, engineering, technology, communications, etc. are all interdependent; and different sets of integrated policies in these sections are only respectively appropriate for different ethnic groups. Only matters of external affairs, defense, money and central banking, and a few others, must be centrally legislated upon in a multi-ethnic nation-state such as Nigeria. It is the transgression of the fundamental principle or law of social-science that is the root-cause of the developmental retrogression or degradation of Nigeria. This transgression is the imposition of the unitarian 1999 constitution as amended.

    Without restructuring or devolution of powers in Nigeria, before the year 2027, then  or thereafter, there may be a breakdown; or the total foreign debt of Nigeria would have become an amount in the region of two hundred [200] billion US dollars, by 2027. This is very dangerous functionally.

    But, how can we achieve restructuring Nigeria, with devolution powers, before year 2027? How does President Tinubu formulate the respective draft constitution or executive bills? With substantive devolution powers, do we still reasonably retain the present 36-state structure, with the inherent diseconomies of scale of almost every state in Nigeria?

    What if the required two-third majority of the whole members of the National Assembly is not secured? Or what if the required two-third majority of the 36 state assemblies is not secured? This prospect is very dangerous.

    Nigeria urgently requires ingenious social engineering, for take-off and acceleration of the process of industrialization of the country. Nigeria is at the stage of bad pre-conditions for take-off of industrialization. The five successive stages of industrialization are: pre-conditions for take-off, take-off, transition to industrial maturity, industrial maturity, and search for quality.

    Nigeria cannot achieve take-off of industrialization with the dysfunctionality of the current urban and regional development, and the respective constitutional incapacitation of the constituent states of Nigeria without achieving the urgent imperative of restructuring to a six-region, truly federal structure, instead of, or super-imposed upon, the present 36-state structure of Nigeria.

    • Ponle Sueez Akande, akandeponle01@gmail

  • Revisiting amendments to 1999 Constitution

    Revisiting amendments to 1999 Constitution

    The stage is set for constitutional amendment with the formal inauguration of the constitution review committees of both chambers of the National Assembly. The House of Representatives Committee on Constitutional Amendment has called for memoranda from Nigerians. TONY AKOWE reports.

    Since the commencement of the present democratic dispensation, constitutional amendments have become part of the legislative business of every passing Assembly. Many of such amendments have ended in the trash can as they never saw the light of day. While some of them never made it out of the National Assembly, some others were killed by state Assemblies. Many others that made it out of the states failed to get Presidential assent. With this in mind, the 9th National Assembly set out to have what it called a holistic review of the constitution, adopting the model of bill-by-bill amendment introduced by the 8th Assembly. It came up with what many stakeholders regarded as the most comprehensive Constitution review in the history of the exercise. While the constitution review committees in the 9th Assembly (both the House of Representatives and the Senate) recommended about 66 bills to the parliament for adoption, it passed and transmitted 44 bills to state Houses of Assembly for concurrence following the provisions of the constitution, Section 9 (2). The section provides that an Act to alter the provisions of the Constitution can be passed only when it is supported by 2/3 majority of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and approved by the 24 State Houses of Assembly.

    However, concurrence with those bills has always been a matter of concern raising fears in some quarters, including the National Assembly that they may have carried yet another futile exercise. Several other Assemblies tried to amend the constitution without any major success, but the 9th Assembly can boast of making some reasonable headway in the amendment process, but the majority of the amendments failed to get Presidential assent. Unlike in the past, state Assemblies voted for autonomy for state legislature and state judiciaries, while sticking to the old tradition of refusing autonomy to the local government. By implications, however, 35 bills had the endorsement of the required two-thirds of the states to become part of the constitution. The National Assembly subsequently transmitted the 24 bills to the President for his assent. The President signed 16 of the bills, leaving a balance of 19 unsigned.    

    Read Also; Six ways to pass WAEC exams well

    Again, the National Assembly has commenced the process of amending the constitution with the constitution of committees to carry out the exercise. One striking thing about the new process is the assurance by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Abbas Tajudeen that all previous amendments that either failed to sail through the parliament, or sailed through, but failed to get concurrence from the states, or sailed through concurrence, but failed Presidential assents will be brought back. Among such bills are those that deal with gender inclusion and additional seats for women in parliament. Particularly, the bill on additional seats for women sought to create over 100 additional seats for women in both the state and National Assembly. At the last count, over 45 bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives for constitutional amendments.

    One bill that may attract lots of interest across the country during the review exercise is the bill sponsored by Minority Leader of the House, Kingsley Chinda and 59 other members seeking to take the country back to parliamentary democracy. They advocate a transition from the current presidential system to a parliamentary system at all levels. When passed and signed into law, the proposed alterations will significantly impact the national political landscape. The governance system of the First Republic was based on the parliamentary system of government. Abdulsamad Dasuki who spoke the minds of the sponsors said: “For six years while it was in operation, the system worked for the country. The collapse of the First Republic and the long stretch of military rule culminated in the adoption of a new system of government, theoretically fashioned after the presidential system of the United States but in practice imbibed the uttermost attributes of military rule.

    “Over the years, the imperfections of the Presidential System of Government have become glaring to all, despite several alterations to the constitution to address the shortcomings of a system that has denied the nation the opportunity to attain its full potential. Among these imperfections are the high cost of governance, leaving fewer resources for crucial areas like infrastructure, education, and healthcare, consequently hindering the nation’s development progress, and the excessive powers vested in the members of the executive, who are appointees and not directly accountable to the people.”

    Another bill seeks to decentralize the policing system in the country and allow a constitutional provision for the creation of states. Even though the bill on state police was introduced in the last constitution review exercise, it never made it out of the committee stage as members opposed the bill on the ground that state governors are likely to use it as a political weapon against opponents. The then President Mohammadu Buhari also opposed the idea. So, it was not surprising to many when the bill failed to sail through the committee stage. But with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and state governors agreeing on the need to have state police because of the rising insecurity in the country, this bill is likely to get an overwhelming voice in parliament. A peep into the structure of the bill shows that it is almost patterned alongside the National Judicial Council, with the Head of the state police being recommended for appointment or removal by the Police Service Commission.

    Similarly, the bill seeking a constitutional role for traditional rulers failed to make it out of the Assembly during the last exercise. But the Abbas-led House has continued to speak of the need to give the traditional institution a constitutional voice. To restate its respect for the institution, the House created a standing committee on traditional institutions and the committee, working with other stakeholders, including the Speaker himself is expected to push the initiative. This is so because the Speaker is a member of the traditional institution of the Dan Iyan Zazzau, a high-profile traditional title reserved for princes of the Zazzau Emirate.

    One of the bills not signed by former President Buhari which may find its way back to the Assembly is the bill that seeks to enforce legislative summon both at the state and Federal level. Over the years, the legislature has become a mere appendage of the government in power, with officials of the executive arm refusing to honour summon from the legislative despite the constitutional power granted it to do so. Section 89 of the constitution grants the lawmakers the power of investigation and the power to issue a warrant to compel any person to attend. They, however, sought to delete and replace the existing paragraph D, subsection 1 to now read “to issue a warrant to compel the attendance of any person who after having been summoned to attend, fails, refuses or neglects to do so and does not excuse such failure, refusal or neglect to the satisfaction of the House or the committee in question”.

    It also sought to insert a new subsection. 3 which states that “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, any person who having been summoned to attend, fails, refuses or neglect to do so, and does not excuse such failure, refusal or neglect to the satisfaction of the House or Committee in question, commits an offence and liable on conviction to such punishment as shall be proscribed by an act of the National Assembly”. The bill sought the same amendment for the states as contained in Section 129 of the Constitution.

    The bill that sought to compel the president to prepare and submit the annual budget to the National Assembly not later than 90 days before the end of the financial year did not receive presidential sent and may find its back to the assembly. The bill which specifies the period within which the president and governor of a state shall present the appropriation bill seeks to alter Section 81(1) by replacing it with a new subsection which states that “the President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly, not later than ninety days before December 31 of every year, estimate of the revenues and expenditure of the federation for the next financial year”. The section also makes it mandatory for the annual budget to be passed by the lawmakers before the end of every year.  It is believed that this will remove the impediments associated with past delays in either presenting the annual budget or delaying its passage.

    Another bill sent for presidential assent, but failed and will be reintroduced is the bill which seeks to amend the constitution to empower the National and State Houses of Assembly to summon the President and state governors to answer questions on issues on which the lawmakers have power to make laws on. The bill sought to amend Sections 67 and 108 of the constitution by inserting a new subsection 4 in each section. The new section reads: “Nothing in this section shall preclude the National Assembly from summoning the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to attend a joint session of the National Assembly to answer questions on national security or any issue whatsoever over which the National Assembly has the power to make laws.

    “Before the proposed amendment, subsection 1 of the section only allows the president to attend any joint meetings of the National Assembly or any meeting of either House of the National Assembly, either to deliver an address on national affairs including fiscal measures or to make such statement on the policy of the government as he considers to be of national importance”.

    Over the years, Nigerians have always canvassed for the separation of the separation of the Office of the Accountant General for the Federation from the Office of the Accountant General for the Federal Government. Despite the clamour, the former president did not sign the alteration. If signed, the law would have made provision for the appointment of an Accountant-General of the Federation, separate from the Accountant-General of the Federal Government whose appointment will be subject to confirmation by the Senate and will be responsible for the administration and management of the Federation Account and can only be removed by the president acting on the recommendation of a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

    In the same vein, legal practitioners have sought the separation of the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation from the Office of the Minister of Justice. They have argued that while the Minister of Justice can be a political appointee, the position of the Attorney-General should not be subjected to appointment.  The bill sought to create a new section 150 and 174 for the federal and 195 and 211 for the states. When passed the new Section 150 will provide for the appointment of a Minister of Justice who shall be a legal practitioner, Section 174 provides for the establishment of the office of Attorney-General for the Federation and the appointment of an Attorney-General based on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.

    The Attorney-General, according to the proposal, shall be independent and not subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority. It however did not provide any specific function for the Minister of Justice, while the Attorney-General is to take control of all legal proceedings of the government. The bill which has not seen the light of day gives broad powers to the Attorney-General to be so appointed and can only be removed from office by the president upon a resolution supported by a third majority of the Senate praying that he be so removed for inability to perform the function of his office or for misconduct, negligence of duty or incompetence.

    The bill that seeks to compel the president to attend a joint session of the National Assembly to deliver a State of the Nation address also failed. The bill sought to alter Section 67 by creating a new subsection 1(a) and Section 108 by creating a new subsection 2(a) dealing with the states. The new subsection reads: “The president shall attend a joint session of the National Assembly on any legislative day between 1st of April and 30th of June every year to deliver an address in respect of the state of the nation”.

    The president also did not sign the bill which seeks to make the Senate President (both serving and former) and Speaker of the House of Representatives (both serving and former) members of the National Council of States. The bill sought to alter part one of the third schedule to the constitution. The bill which sought to alter the provisions on the registration of political parties in the country failed to get Presidential assent. At present, the law provides that for a political party to be registered, it must have offices in all states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The amendment being proposed which failed to see the light of day sought to alter Sections 222 and 223.

    For any party to be registered, the proposal is to ensure that “it has verifiable, equipped and staffed offices in at least two-thirds of all the states of the federation and the FCT, as may be determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission. The names and addresses of national officers and members of the association shall be registered with the Independent National Electoral Commission. The list of such members shall be accompanied by an affidavit of any existing political party and The association shall have at least three per cent of registered voters who are its members and who are not members of any other association or political party in at least two third of the states of the federation and the federal capital territory”

    Other bills that were not signed include a bill which sought to make free, compulsory and basic education a fundamental right of all citizens under Chapter IV of the Constitution; a bill to expand the Interpretation of Judicial Office; allow states to own and operate airports; devolution of powers (Fingerprints, identification and criminal records); power to enforce compliance of remittance of accruals into the Federation Account and review of the revenue allocation formula; independence of certain bodies; removal of transitional law-making powers of the executive; domestication of treaties and authorization of expenditure.

  • Reps to present amended 1999 Constitution to Tinubu for assent in August 2025

    Reps to present amended 1999 Constitution to Tinubu for assent in August 2025

    Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu (APC, Abia) said on Thursday, February 29, that the first draft of the amended 1999 Constitution will be ready by August 2024, saying the House is expected to adopt the final copy of the document in May 2025.

    Kalu, who heads the House Constitution Review Committee, said at a press conference that a clean copy of the resolutions of the National Assembly is expected to be available for concurrence by the state Assembly between May 29 and June 13, 2025.

    The Deputy Speaker, who outlined the committee’s road map for the Constitution review, said the House will embark on a zonal hearing to collate views of Nigerians in October 2024.

    He added that the views collated by the House will be harmonised with the Senate Committee at a technical retreat scheduled for between February 27 and 28, 2025

    He said further that the Harmonised document from the retreat will be presented before the House in March 2025, while members will vote on the bills agreed on at that committee level by the 22nd of May, 2025.

    Read Also: Senate passes NDIC Act amendment Bill for second reading

    Kalu emphasised that the House set a December 2025 deadline for completion of its assignment so that issues being debated will not be tainted with political consideration and delays.

    He also announced the appointment of consultants that will assist the committee in carrying out its assignment.

    He said the House is working towards presenting the amended Constitution to the President for his assent by August 2025, to give home ample time to study the amendments.

    Kalu said memoranda was being expected from Executive and Judicial bodies, State Governments, Women Groups, Academics, Civil Society Organizations, Labour Unions, Professional bodies, Ethnic Nationalities, Nigerians in the Diaspora, Diplomats and the general public.

    He said memoranda was expected from Nigerians in the area of the Federal Structure and Power Devolution, Local Government Autonomy, Public Revenue, Fiscal Federation, and Revenue Allocation of Nigerian Police and Nigerian Security Architecture and Comprehensive Judicial Reforms.

    They are also expecting memoranda on Electoral Reforms to strengthen INEC to deliver transparent, credible, free and fair elections, Socio-economic and cultural rights as contained in Chapter 2 of the constitution, Traditional Institutions, Issues of Gender, Strengthening the Independence of oversight institutions and agencies created by the constitution or according to an Act of the National Assembly.

    It also includes Residency and Indigene Provisions, Immunity, the National Assembly Process of state creation and State access to mining and other matters that will promote good governance and the welfare of all persons in our country on the principles of freedom, Equality, and Justice.

  • Why 1999 Constitution must be reviewed, by Robert Clarke

    Why 1999 Constitution must be reviewed, by Robert Clarke

    Robert Clarke, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) has demanded a revision of the 1999 Constitution, claiming it is the root of all of the country’s issues.

    Clarke said this in an interview on Arise Television on Tuesday, December 19.

    He said: “The 1999 constitution is the cornerstone of our problems. In every area of political line, especially in the area of election, when the constitution restricts those who can come and be voted for. 

    “…or who can vote for, something must be wrong with that constitution. The problem today is not what the president says.

    Regarding the Rivers issue, the senior lawyer stated that President Bola Tinubu is not entitled to a constitutional say in the matter.

    He said: “The constitutional role of the President in all these fracas, there should have been none. The only time the constitution allowed the federal government to put its mouth was during the First Republic.

    “All that we are running after today is power and money. Those two elements, where do you get them in Nigeria? They are only from politics.

    “If you count down governors who have served in Nigeria since 2000, ask them to come show us their bank account, you will be shocked.

    Read Also: Unquotable Robert Clarke; Unhelpful hysteria

    “We have to ask ourselves, is politics in Nigeria only meant for politicians? Why can’t people like us contest an election without joining a political party? Why do we need a political party? This is the problem we have in Nigeria today.”

    Clarke said the three areas in the constitution that need amendment are: Local government; election; who can belong to a party and why should a party be the dominant factor in elections in Nigeria.

    He said: “Once you do the three areas in Nigeria today, I can assure you, you won’t hear about any court cases. This country will move forward.”

  • APC, Presidency plotting to vacate 1999 Constitution, PDP alleges

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has accused the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Presidency of plotting to vacate the nation’s constitution.

    According to the main opposition party, President Muhammadu Buhari’s private ten-day trip to London without transiting power to the Vice President, as required by the constitution, was an act of dereliction.

    A statement on Monday by the spokesman for the PDP, Kola Ologbondiyan, said the development has confirmed the opposition party’s position Buhari and the APC are not interested in governance but seek to vacate constitutional order to foist an authoritarian system on the country.

    “Such dereliction of office can only come from leaders, who do not have respect for the people they governed but always muscling their way to power through intimidation, harassment as well as official manipulations, as witnessed in the rigging of the February 23 presidential election by the APC.

    “Moreover, Mr. President’s abandonment of governance, particularly at this critical time when our nation is facing grave security and economic challenges, signposts the level of impunity and recklessness that will characterise our nation in the next four years, if the stolen presidential mandate is not retrieved from the APC.

    “What else, beside an authoritarian propensity, can explain why the Buhari Presidency relegated our Constitutional Order by declaring the application of Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which directs that the President transmits power whenever he is travelling out of the country on vacation, as a mere ‘convention’,” the party said.

    The PDP noted that authoritarian tendencies are usually characterised by absolute lack of trust for other government functionaries, which it said, could likely explain the failure to transmit power to the Vice President.

    It added that such proclivity can also lead to a sequestering of institutions of government, if not checked.

  • Senate moves to unbundle Police

    …Bill scale first reading

     

    The Senate Thursday took steps to unbundle the Police as a Bill aimed at amending Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, (as amended), which deals with the Force establishment, scaled first reading.

    The Bill was listed against the name of the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, who is also chairman, Senate ad-hoc committee on review of the constitution.

    The proposed constitutional amendment is entitled: “Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Alteration) Bill, 2018 (SB.694) First Reading.

    After the adoption of the first reading of the Bill, Ekweremadu explained: “The Committee on Review of the 1999 Constitution has fulfilled its mandate. Now the Bill has been taken for the first time. I am sure that as soon as possible, we will take the Second Reading and probably send it to public hearing through the committee so that we fast-track it as directed by the Senate.”

    The plan to amend the Section 214 of the Constitution to accommodate the creation of State Police and Community policing was proposed last week by Ekweremadu.

    The amendment is essentially aimed at creating state and community police to complement the efforts of the Nigeria Police.

    It is generally believed that the Police as presently constituted have proven to be ineffective, especially in the face of daunting security challenges in parts of the country.

    Senator Solomon Adeola (Lagos State) formally moved the motion last week, when the Senate considered a motion on recent killings in Plateau and other states.

    The Constitution Review Committee was mandated to submit a copy of the bill within two weeks.

    Senate President Bukola Saraki promised that the bill will be given speedy consideration to enable President Muhammadu Buhari assent it before the expiration of the administration.

    Findings showed that the Bill seeks to establish The Federal Police and State Police, while also creating the National Police Service Commission, National Police Council and State Police Service Commission for the states.

    The Federal Police, according to the Bill, shall “be responsible for the maintenance of public security, preservation of public order and security of persons and property throughout the federation”, and “provide state policing for any state that is unable to operate a State Police until such a time that a State Police is established by the House of Assembly of that state”.

    The Bill proposes the appointment of the Commissioner of Police of a state by the governor on the advice of the National Police Service Commission and subject to confirmation of the House of Assembly, while the term of office of the Commissioner of Police shall be for a period of five years only or until he attains a retirement age prescribed by law, whichever is earlier.

    “The governor or such other Commissioner of the Government of the State as he may authorise in that behalf may give to the Commissioner of Police such lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order as he may consider necessary, and the Commissioner of Police shall comply with those directions or cause them to be complied with.

    “Provided that where the Commissioner of Police feels that any order given under this subsection is unlawful or contradicts general policing standards or practice, he may request that the matter be referred to the State Police Service Commission for review and the decision of the State Police Service Commission shall be final, the Bill proposes.

    Also, whereas a Commissioner of Police of a state may be removed on the grounds of misconduct, serious breach of policing standards, conviction by a court of law or tribunal, indictment by a judicial body or tribunal for corruption, participation in political activities, among others, such removal must be approved by two-thirds majority of the State House of Assembly.

    It goes on to propose that an “Act of the National Assembly may prescribe a bi-annual certification review of the activities of State Police by the National Police Service Commission to ensure they meet up with approved national standards and guidelines of policing and their operations do not undermine national integrity, promote ethnic, tribal or sectional agenda or marginalise any segment of the society within the state”.

    Also, the National Police Service Commission shall comprise representatives of the National Human Rights Commission, Public Complaints Commission, Labour, Nigeria Bar Association, Nigeria Union of Journalists, and the Attorney-General of each state, in addition to six retired police officers not below the rank of Assistant Inspector-General of Police as well as Chairman to be confirmed by the Senate.

    In the same vein, the State Police Service Commission shall comprise a representative of the Federal Government appointed by the National Police Service Commission, two members to be appointed by the National Human Rights Commission who must be indigenes of the respective states, a representative of the Public Complaints Commission, one representative of the Labour appointed by the Chairman of the state chapter, a representative of the NBA, and a representative of the NUJ. Others are three retired police officers to be appointed by the Governor from each senatorial district and the Commission Chairman whom must all be confirmed by the State House of Assembly.

    The Bill further provides that the State Police Service Commission shall be responsible for, among others, recommending the appointment of a Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, and Assistant Commissioner of Police to the National Police Service Commission in addition to appointment, discipline, and removal of members of the state police below the rank of the Assistant Commissioner of Police.

    The National Police Service Commission, on the other hand, shall be responsible for the appointment of persons to offices (other than the office of the Inspector-General of Police) in the Federal Police Service; and exercising disciplinary control over members of the Federal Police; recommending to the Governor of a State the appointment of the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioners of Police of State Police.

    It will also be responsible for recommending to the governor the discipline and removal of the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police of State Police as well as supervising the activities of Federal and State Police and prescribing standards for all police forces in the country in training, criminal intelligence data bases, forensic laboratories and render assistance to the State Police in areas as may be requested by such State Police.

  • Senate’s resolutions on Abiola illegal, says lawyer

    A popular Bayelsa-based journalist, Somina Johnbull, Monday, declared the recent resolutions of the Senate on late Chief MKO Abiola as illegal and unconstitutional.

    The Senate in reactions to the honour bestowed on Abiola by the Federal Government reached resolutions calling for the declaration of the results of the June 12th election and payment of all allowances and entitlements to the families of Abiola and the Alhaji Kingibe.

    But Johnbull after dissecting the provisions of the constitution as it related to the resolution said the Senate erred.

    He said the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is the only body saddled with the responsibility of conducting elections and its mandate does not extend to elections that were held prior to 1999.

    The lawyer said only the National Electoral Commission (NEC) had the right to declare the results of the 1993 election since it was the body that conducted it.

    But he said NEC having been dissolved could no longer declare the results adding that its functions could not be exercised by proxy.

    He said: “It is the law that election results can only be declared by the agency charged with the responsibility of conducting the election. In Nigeria, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is only charged with the responsibility of conducting elections under the 1999 Constitution.

    “The mandate of INEC does not extend to election conducted prior to 1999.

    “Secondly, the body that conducted the 1993 elections is National Electoral Commission (NEC). It is only that body that can declare the results of that election. It cannot be done by proxy. However, that body is now defunct and deemed non-existent.

    Read Also:Posthumous Award: PDP supports Abiola’s honour

    “Asking for the declaration of the results is akin to drawing a square circle”.

    Johnbull added that it was also a constitutional suicide to demand the payment of entitlements of Abiola and Kingibe to their families.

    Explaining his position, he said: “The second resolution passed by the Senate was that all allowances and entitlements of Chief MKO Abiola and Kingibe, as President-elect and Vice-President-elect, should be paid to their families.

    “With respect, salaries and allowances are entitlements for actual occupation of the office, and not prospective grants. Since Chief MKO Abiola was not sworn-in, how could he then be entitled to receive or be paid salaries and allowances, for an office, he did not occupy either de facto or de jure.

    “The resolution of the Senate is brazenly illegal and ought to be disregarded”.

    But he insisted that the recognition of Abiola and conferment of the highest national honour of GCFR to him, Kingibe and late Chief Gani Fawehinmi were legal and constitutional.

    Explaining further he said: “I am not a politician and would leave the political discourse for politicians. I am a lawyer and my intervention would be solely from a legal prism.

    “The conferment of National Awards in Nigeria is statutorily provided for by law. Which is the National Honours Act of 1963, which is an existing law and therefore applicable by virtue of Section 316 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    “The National Awards Act is a short piece of legislation, containing three sections. Section 1 of the Act, establishes the award of titles of honour, Section 2 creates offences and Section 3 is the short title of the Act.

    “The National Awards Act provides for Warrants to be issued. These Warrants are subsidiary legislation and are made by the President (See Section 1(4) of the Act) and are in the mould of subsidiary legislation.

    “Pursuant to the above, five warrants have been made namely; the Honours Warrant, Honours (Armed Forces) Warrant, Honours (Police) Warrant, Honours (Prison Services) Warrant and Honours (Fire Services) Warrant”.

    He added: “The Honours Warrant was issued on the 1st of October, 1963 and creates two Orders of Dignity and four ranks. The Orders are Order of the Federal Republic and the Order of the Niger. While the ranks are; Grand Commander (which is the highest); Commander; Officer and Member of the Order”.

    He said it is the prerogative of the President to confer the rank on any person and the only limitation is that the rank be conferred on a Nigerian citizen as foreign nationals can only receive the rank in honorary capacity.

    He said there was no limitation that the rank could only be conferred on living persons.

    He said: “This is so because, being a rank of honour, there is nothing which precludes distinguished Nigerians, who in the opinion of the President are deserving of the honour, whether living or deceased.

    “This is more so as the conferment of the award is solely at the discretion of the President and cannot be reviewed by any person or authority.

    “Taking it further, no person can even question the suitability of an awardee as it is the President, who decides same. A known thief can be conferred and a man of heroics can be excluded. It is all the pleasure of the President. This is as far as the Honours Warrant is concerned.

    “The Honours (Armed Forces) Warrant was issued on the 20th of September, 1965. It covers members of the Armed Forces and what is conferred thereunder are not titles but medals.

    “The argument that it is only soldiers that ought to be honoured posthumously is under the Honours (Armed Forces) Warrant which is different and distinct from the Honours Warrant. What these deceased soldiers are conferred with are medals, not honours such as GCFR, GCON and the likes.

    “The attempt to conflate the provisions of the Honours (Armed Forces) Warrant and the Honours Warrant is misleading.

    “Chief MKO Abiola and Gani Fawehinmi, SAN were bestowed awards under the Honours Warrant. They were not issued with medals, which would have made the provisions of the Honours (Armed Forces) Warrant, applicable.

    “Based on the above, the action of President Buhari in conferring the awards is legal and beyond reproach”.

  • Not-Too-Young-To-Run: Why we didn’t reduce age qualification – Ekweremadu

    Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, on Friday explained that the 35 years age qualification for the Senate was retained to correct the initial disparity in the 1999 Constitution between the age qualification for the Senate and that of the President, which used to be 40 years, but now reduced to 35 years.

    Ekweremadu, who is also the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitution Review, said that the National Assembly reasoned that going by the provisions of Section 146 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the President of the Senate could hold the office of the President for a period not exceeding three months should the offices of the President and Vice President be vacant at the same time for any reason.

    This is contained in a statement by the Special Adviser (Media) to the Deputy Senate President, Uche Anichukwu.

    President Muhammadu Buhari signed the “Not-Too-Young-To Run” Bill into law on Thursday.

    Ekweremadu said: “Section 146 (1) provides that the Vice-President shall hold the office of President if the office of President becomes vacant by reason of death or resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or the removal of the President from office for any other reason in accordance with section 143 of the Constitution.

    Read Also: Secondus, Ekweremadu laud Ekiti PDP primary

    “However, Section 146 (2) further provides that where any vacancy occurs in the circumstances mentioned in Sub-section 1 during a period when the office of Vice-President is also vacant, the President of the Senate shall hold the office of President for a period of not more than three months, during which there shall be an election of a new President, who shall hold office for the unexpired term of office of the last holder of the office’.

    “So, since the President of the Senate, a Senator, could become an Acting President by happenstance, it is only right that the qualification for both offices are the same”.

    On the non-reduction of the age qualification for the office of the Governor, Ekweremadu explained that the majority opinion was that 35 years should be ideal for now to enable the would-be governors acquire the requisite experience to pilot the affairs of a State.

    “However, the Not-Too-Young-To-Run amendment is just one giant step forward. It is not the end of the road, but just the beginning of the road. It is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

    “I believe that anyone, who is 18 years old and qualified to vote should also be qualified to stand for an election. This is our ultimate target and I believe we will get there. So, it is work in progress because constitution amendment is a continuum.

    “However, in the meantime, I urge the youth to mobilise into the political parties in their numbers to begin to influence party decisions, push for direct primary elections, internal democracy, level playing ground, and other reforms that will complement the provisions of the current millage achieved by way of the Not-Too-Young-To-Run amendment”, he added.