The Nation Newspaper

Tag: 1999 Constitution

  • Double registration: Kogi APC demands Gov Bello’s resignation

    Double registration: Kogi APC demands Gov Bello’s resignation

    The leadership of the Kogi State chapter of the All Progressive Congress (APC) has demanded the immediate resignation of the Governor, Yahaya Bello for double voter registration.

    The chapter called on the state’s House of Assembly to proceed with impeachment process against the governor if he failed to resign.

    At a press conference in Abuja on Friday, the party declared that the governor’s action has caused an embarrassment to the entire state and has impugned on the party’s image.

    The chairman of the Kogi APC, Alhaji Hadi Ametuo who briefed spoke on behalf of the party’s executive in the state, said the party would not fold its arms and watch the governor destroy its image and integrity.

    Ametuo described double registration as serious electoral crime that must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

    “This is the kind of crime that the state House of Assembly which enjoys the mandate of the people cannot overlook”

    Other party chieftains at the briefing included Mohammed Ohiare, Ocheja Dangana, Abdulrahman Abubakar and Senator Dino Melaye.

    Melaye, who also spoke at the conference, added that what the governor did underscored the fact that he was not a registered voter in Kogi state in the first place.

    He wondered why Governor Bello accepted the gubernatorial candidacy offer of the APC in the first place.

    The controversial senator representing Kogi West district vowed to mobilise the state assembly for impeachment process against the governor should he fail to resign voluntarily.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), had through a statement on Tuesday, accused Governor Bello of registering twice as a voter, an action the commission described as an infraction on the nation’s electoral laws.

    Giving details of the governor’s illegal action, the INEC had stated, “It has come to the attention of INEC that Governor Yahaya Bello of Kogi state registered as a voter for the second time on Tuesday May 23, 2017 in Government House, Lokoja, the state capital.

    “First registration was on January 30, 2011 in Wuse Zone 4, Abuja. And the Governor’s double registration and doing so outside INEC’s designated centres are both illegal.

    “For the on-going continuous voter registration (CVR) exercise, INEC has designated a centre in each of the 774 local government areas across the federation, including the FCT’s six area council”.

    The electoral commission had stated that although Section 308(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, restrained it from prosecuting the governor, disciplinary action would be taken against its officials that aided the governor’s double registration.

  • Assassination attempts: Saraki seeks special protection for Senators, others ‎

    Assassination attempts: Saraki seeks special protection for Senators, others ‎

    Senate President, Abubakar Bukola Saraki, Thursday said that the Senate will work out special protection strategy to protect its members against rising cases of assassination attempts and harassment.

    Saraki, who spoke against the backdrop of the reported assassination attempt against Senator Dino Melaye (Kogi West) and the raid of the home of Senator Mohammed Danjuma Goje, noted that the upper chamber would take steps to ensure the protection its members.

    The Senate President spoke at the inauguration of an ad-hoc committee investigating the alleged attempted assassination on Melaye.

    Represented by the Senate Leader, Senator Ahmad Lawan, Saraki said that investigation into the assassination attempt on Melaye should be fully investigated by the committee.

    He noted that the probe would also articulate ways and means to protect members of the National Assembly against infringement and threats to their lives.

    He said: “The 1999 Constitution guarantees every Nigerian the right to life. Like every Nigerian, a Senator or member of the National Assembly deserves to be protected against infringement, threat and harassment.

    “The reported incidence in Kogi State where armed assassins invaded the house of a sitting Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senator Dino Melaye with the intention of taking his life is frightening and must be fully investigated.”

    Saraki added that effort must be made to “ensure that no Senator or member of the legislature is put in a position where he or she will feel his life is threatened in such a manner as to affect his judgment and thereby weaken hiss moral compass and ability to act without fear or favour.

    “The investigation will seek to unearth the remote and immediate issues connected with, and leading to the ugly incident.”

    Saraki asked members of the committee to discharge their task with great sense of responsibility, diligence and care.

    Chairman of the Committee, Senator Jibrin Barau, noted that though “the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate incidents are still unclear”, the panel would dig deep into the matter to establish the truth of the issue.

    Barau assured that the committee in carrying out its mandate would do so with the utmost sense of duty, bearing in mind the seriousness of the assignments.

     

  • How democratic is the 1999 constitution? (2)

    But it is the current 1999 Constitution that has become a poster child for constitutions created without people’s input in modern times.

    I predict that every multi-lingual or multi-national country with a unitary constitution must either eventually have a federal constitution based on the principles which I have enunciated, or disintegrate, or be perennially afflicted with disharmony and instability—Obafemi Awolowo, The Peoples’ Republic, 1968.

    I am pleased to see that we are now all agreed that the federal system is, under present conditions, the only sure basis on which Nigeria will remain united. We must recognise our diversity and the peculiar conditions under which the different tribal communities live in this country – Tafawa Balewa, 1957.

    Some of the world’s most intractable problems arise when primordial ties are politicized by attempts at national integration. Minority security is a common good—good for the majority as well as the minority. By designing a constitution to allay the fears of defenceless ethnic subgroups, the framers of a regime-founding compromise can secure the national cooperation necessary for economic prosperity and military independence. Any nation split into”primordially defined groups” must discover a “form competent to contain the country’s diversity.” This “form,” once again, is a political constitution in the broad sense….—Stephen Holmes, Constitutionalism and Democracy, 1988.

    Today’s column is dedicated to the memory of Dipo Famakinwa, a young democrat and federalist whose life was cut short at a time he was engrossed in creating structures that can reinforce sustainable democratic and federal governance in the country.

    The epigraphs above have been selected to remind readers of the awareness of the ramifications of cultural diversity in the country by some of its founding fathers. The focus of today’s piece is on how Politics of Omission or what Stephen Holmes has characterised as Gag Rule had led to creation in 1999 of a constitution that ignores the importance of consultation, consent, and consensus in respect of the  normal nexus between constitution and the citizens it is designed to govern.

    Politics of omission is often deployed by those in power. The process allows such groups to filter or shortlist items that can be discussed. It is not unique to constitution making as it can be applied to any political agenda. By keeping certain issues out of consideration by the ruled, members of the ruling group in charge of agenda setting sweep items they consider troubling or volatile out of national discussion.  One aspect of Nigerian polity that has been shaped by politics of omission is the 1999 Constitution although this choice of action had been an abiding aspect of constitution making in the country for a long time. Out of the six constitutions for the country before 1960, only that of 1951 under Governor Macpherson was relatively free from deliberate narrowing of the agenda by the ruling group. Extensive consultations were encouraged at the village, district, divisional, provincial, and regional subnational levels before the national conference that produced the draft of the 1951 Constitution, which became the template for the 1954, 1960, and 1963 constitutions.

    The two constitutions written under the supervision of military dictatorship have been shaped by varying degrees of politics of omission or self-censorship. But it is the current 1999 Constitution that has become a poster child for constitutions created without people’s input in modern times. The 1999 Constitution was not unveiled until after it had been used to conduct the first set of elections to end military dictatorship. In other words, citizens and candidates for elective posts had no idea of provisions of the constitution that the president and lawmakers were later to swear to protect. In the colonial era, especially between 1914 and 1951, colonial rulers had no apologies for creating such constitutions for Nigeria as a colony. In 1999, military rulers chose to deploy tactics of politics of silence on issues they would rather hide from the public.

    The government of General Abubakar Abdulsalaam that succeeded the General Sani Abacha military presidency initiated a Transition to Democratic Rule process that included presidential, national, and subnational elections but avoided open discussion of a new constitution with the citizenry. Ironically, members of the group most involved in the struggle for an end to military rule, NADECO, also abandoned its demand for restructuring and a new constitution as it joined others to accept Abdulsalaam’s call for transition to civil rule. Thus, efforts of citizens to have an input in the design of a constitution that protects individual rights and regulates or disciplines the tendency of the central government to crowd out values of subnational communities in a multiethnic state quickly collapsed, and the rest is history.

    Through the military government’s choice of politics of omission, the last military administration, which like others before it that had deformed the country’s federal constitution, was quick to neutralise demands for a new constitution that included citizens in negotiation for provisions of the constitution the Abdulsalaam regime had selected brokers to frame. It was clear to the military that agreed to withdraw from coercive governance that organising a proper constitutional conference was likely to wipe out its marks on the polity, as such decision would enable citizens to bring into the open questions about military re-design of the country and offer new ideas about how to govern the country in relation to strident calls for political restructuring. The military thus opted for politics of omission, a process of issue-avoidance and opted to edit the 1979 Constitution, away from the gaze of the public.

    High on the list of issues for avoidance by the military was (and still is) ‘constitutionalisation’ of   cultural diversity of the country. Without allowing the people to express their wishes about what type of union they would prefer, appointed framers of the constitution returned a version of the 1979 Constitution that re-enacted non-justiciability of Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution: Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy which provides for political, economic, social, educational, and environmental objectives of state policy. The most graphic paradox of the 1999 Constitution, like its 1979 version, is the non-justiciability of a chapter that states: it shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of government, and of all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of this Chapter of the Constitution. What is the sense in creating duties that citizens have no power to enforce and that no court has the power to enforce?

    That a document with such contradictions has been undergoing amendments for the past few years may sound promising to over-sanguine citizens, but the truth of efforts of the 8th National Assembly, like the one before it, is that most of the proposed amendments also avoid discussion of citizens’ fear of some measure of veiled ethnocracy. Ethnocracy refers to what Holmes describes as “a single religious, linguistic, racial, or regional group” capable constitutionally of expelling, assimilating or subjugating all others. This situation appears to be encouraged by constitutional silence on the issue of a constitution that promotes mutual reinforcement between national and subnational governments.

    The much-touted amendments by the National Assembly are more about reinforcing the interests of members of the ruling group: local government autonomy, creation of new states, provision of life pension benefits for principal officers of the Senate and the House, indigeneship versus citizenship, provision of space for independent candidacy in a country with over 30 registered political parties, etc.

    Amending or appearing to amend the 1999 Constitution has been on for about five years. This is an indication that constitutional amendment may have become another illustration of politics of omission or distraction. Like the military framers of the constitution, the lawmakers elected under the constitution also appear eager to narrow the agenda of constitutional debate by engaging in interminable exercise of constitutional amendment. As many of the proposed amendments only skirt the real issue about a constitution that shuts out citizens in the process of determining what provisions they want in the Basic Law that governs their interactions, there is need to stimulate a national conversation on a constitution that can save the country from self-distraction from good governance.

     

    To be continued

     

  • Constitution Amendment: LGs to get financial autonomy

    Constitution Amendment: LGs to get financial autonomy

    Local Governments in Nigeria would be given financial autonomy in the ongoing constitution review, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Yussuff Lasun, has said.

    Lasun, who is the Chairman, Ad hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, disclosed this at a one-day retreat of the committee on Friday in Abuja.

    He said that there was the need to ensure financial independence for local governments because they were essential to democracy and development in any country.

    “It is very dicey because it will involve you to amend so many sections of the Constitution, but what I will assure you is we’re going to push for financial autonomy.

    “We are concerned because if you go all over the country today, local governments are no longer in existence.

    “That is not good for democracy, it’s not good for development and that is why it has become very difficult for the people of the grassroots to feel the impact of government,” he said.

    The deputy speaker described local government is an important part of democracy.

    “Once they cannot operate on their own, once they don’t have elected officials at local government level, once they don’t have access to their own money, definitely, it will be difficult to do anything at that level.”

    Lasun said that all over the world, local government was responsible for almost 40 percent of the development, hence the need to push its financial autonomy in the country.

    He said that the onus for constitution amendment lay with the state assemblies.

    “If the States want the Constitution to be amended, they will append their signature to what we pass at the National Assembly,” he added.

    On the report of the National Conference conducted by the last administration, the deputy speaker said that it would be considered for inclusion in the Constitution amendment.

    “We have done that. We have taken those that we think are reasonable and they are going to form part of what we will consider here.

    “The reviewed Constitution will be ready by May 2018 at most; if we follow our programme diligently, I think it cannot be earlier than February or March, next year.

    “But, I can assure you of one thing, we’re going to ensure that we achieve all these within the third year of this administration.

    “This is because constitution review has a lot of political implications and we don’t want anybody to start reading meaning into whatever section of the Constitution we want to amend at that point,” Lasun said.

  • One term bill for acting president, gov. passes 2nd reading

    One term bill for acting president, gov. passes 2nd reading

    A Bill seeking to amend the 1999 Constitution and limit the tenure of a president and governor on acting capacity to a single term passed a second reading in the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

    The amendment bill which is sponsored by the Chairman, Special House Ad hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, Deputy Speaker Yussuff Lasun.

    The bill provides that no person who had held the office of president or governor of a state or acting as president or governor of a state for more than two years of a term to which some another person was elected president or governor, shall be elected to the office of president or governor of a state more than once.

    The aim of the bill‎ is to give constitutional protection to the two-term tradition as contemplated by virtue of the combined provisions of sections 137(1)(b) and 182(1)(b) of the Constitution.

    These sections provide that the president and governor of a state shall serve in those capacities for a maximum period of eight years.

    However, the Constitution equally envisaged circumstances where a person can be chosen to act as president or state governor, such as when the president or a governor resigns, dies or is impeached,” Lasun said.

    If passed, an acting president or acting governor who served for more than two years in a four-year term shall only be eligible to contest election to the same office only once.

    This proposed amendment, the deputy speaker said, was inspired by the 22nd amendment to the constitution of the United States of America.

    It provides that “no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.

    “And no person who has held the office of president or acted as president for more than two years of a term to which some another person was elected president shall be elected to the office of president more than once”, Lasun added.

  • 1999 Constitution: The legitimacy question

    1999 Constitution: The legitimacy question

    THE National Assembly is warming up to begin the epic debate that will probably culminate in the fourth alteration of the 1999 Constitution.

    Heightened activities at the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Constitution Review before the two chambers went on end-of-session break told the story.

    The two chambers may be working to beat time to avoid the kind of high wired politics that led to the failure of the 2014 Constitution review.

    Although the controversy sparked by the proposal for life pension and immunity for presiding officers of the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly overshadowed the June 17th Senate retreat on constitution amendment, the retreat was not all about the two proposals.

    The character and quality of debate Nigerians should expect on the floor of the two chambers were set at the retreat. Possible areas of conflicts were also defined. Interest groups, those who desire some fundamental changes in the spirit and letters of the constitution emerged.

    The group of seat warmers and the choir of nay sayers were also in attendance at the retreat. They busied themselves chattering away some precious time while the serious minded, those who came for business, laboured to sway opinions on issues dear to them.

    Expectedly, intense lobbying on some contentious proposals is said to have ensued as debate of the general principle of the proposals shifts to the floor of the two chambers. There is still a long way to go, many hurdles to cross and fierce battle ahead outside the two chambers.

    One of the touchy issues that featured at the retreat was the brutal attack and debate about the legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution. The question of the legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution considered no go area by some within and outside the National Assembly, brought new dimension to the entire exercise. Can Nigerians of whatever hue proudly call the 1999 Constitution the peoples’ constitution? That was the question that resonated while the retreat lasted.

    While some senators described the military imposed 1999 Constitution as lacking in legitimacy and therefore should be completely changed, others saw the attack on the document as unwarranted.

    In the opinion of the proponents of the legitimacy question, the constant panel beating of the 1999 Constitution, does not address the fundamental issue of legitimacy of the document. The legitimacy question promoters talked about faulty foundation, including glaring imbalances in the constitution.

    One of the resource persons at the retreat, Professor Okechukwu Oko, had in his presentation on “The need for a new constitution and the procedure for achieving it,” provoked the 1999 Constitution legitimacy debate.

    Oko had asked rhetorically whether the National Assembly can write an entirely new constitution for the country instead of the incremental approach to constitution review the lawmakers adopted.

    Apparently to instigate the gathering to think deeper, Oko posited that after repairing a car so many times, the mechanic might summon courage to ask the owner of the car to buy a new one.

    But Prof. Sam Egwu, another resource person, was categorical that the National Assembly was not elected to write a new constitution.

    Senate Chief Whip, Senator Olusola Adeyeye, said the call for a new constitution, because the 1999 Constitution was not written by the people, was misplaced.

    The Osun Central lawmaker informed that even the American constitution did not originate from the people. The American constitution, he said, came from the Aristocrats.

    Adeyeye said the legitimacy of the American Constitution came as a result of faith, trust and the fidelity of the people in the document.

    If Nigerians insist the 1999 Constitution lacked legitimacy, the way out, he said, is to conduct a referendum to change what Nigerians opposed in the constitution.

    He reminded his colleagues not to forget that leaders have been sworn in by the constitution.

    For Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe the talk about a new constitution meant to dissolve the National Assembly.

    The Abia South Senator added that the National Assembly was never elected to write a new constitution.

    The question of the legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution, he said, could be settled through a referendum.

    He supported the incremental approach adopted by the National Assembly to amend the constitution.

    On his part, Senate leader, Mohammed Ali Ndume cautioned that rather than talk about the legitimacy of the constitution, the retreat should focus on fundamental issues bothering Nigerians.

    For a member of the House of Representatives, Hon. Nkem Uzoma Abonta, who was at the retreat, those who say the constitution is not the issued missed the point.

    The Abia State born lawmaker was of the opinion that the constitution is the issue “because what we have as constitution makes some people lazy due to a lot of imbalances, especially in sharing formula.”

    He insisted that there should be fundamental changes in the constitution to make the document workable to serve the people better.

    Abonta said the first section to amend should be Section 9 of the constitution to allow the people of Nigeria to write their constitution different from a military imposed document.

    But Senator Isa Hamma Misau said anybody talking about changing the constitution should be prepared to resign his membership of the National Assembly.

    Senator Jeremiah Useni threw the session into a prolonged disquiet when he dismissed advocates of the legitimacy question as talking nonsense.

     “Some people just sit down here to talk nonsense,” the Plateau State Senator said.

    Senator Useni was particularly miffed that some people who benefitted from military rule still have the audacity to talk ill of military rule.

    “They don’t know what to say. I mean they came here to talk nonsense,” he said.

    But Senator Shehu Sani could not take Useni’s outburst lightly.  The Kaduna Central Senator gave it back to Useni.

     “If we are going to have a constitution that is truly called the peoples’ constitution, I will be the first to resign. I will be one of those that will be prepared to resign my position if that will give us a truly peoples’ constitution. If we say we Senators, we know Senators are elected, if you say teachers, you know that teachers are trained. For us to say we the ‘people’ let it be truly the people.

    “No matter what we do, this document we call the constitution remains an illegitimate document. The Jonathan’s Confab report is even batter than this document. If it means referring to the Confab report we should do something.

    “Some people just sit here as if some of us did not fight for democracy. Some people will sit here and want to rewrite history,” Senator Sani said.

    Tempers rose. Deliberation was temporarily affected.

    Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, came to the rescue.

    Ekweremadu explained that the talk about a new constitution is not entirely the issue of legitimacy but about being futuristic and thinking ahead.

    The issue of legitimacy of the constitution, he added, “is settled”, but the template should be set for future amendment, especially when Nigerians want to make the constitution smaller.

    It may be too early to predict the outcome of the constitution review exercise, what is assured is that certain proposals, although adopted at the Lagos retreat, will die a natural death.

     

  • Senators disagree on 1999 Constitution’s legitimacy

    The legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution came to question at the just ended Senate retreat on constitution amendment.

    While some senators described the military-imposed 1999 Constitution as lacking in legitimacy which should be completely changed, others saw the attack on the document as unwarranted since the question of its legitimacy had been settled.

    A resource person, Prof Okechukwu Oko, in his presentation, titled: The Need for a New Constitution and the Procedure for Achieving It, provoked the debate.

    Prof. Oko asked rhetorically whether the National Assembly could write a new constitution for the country instead of the incremental approach to constitution review the lawmakers adopted.

    He posited that after repairing a car so many times, a mechanic might summon the courage to ask the owner to buy another.

    Also, another resource person, Prof. Sam Egwu, was categorical that the National Assembly was not elected to write a new constitution.

    Senate Chief Whip Olusola Adeyeye said the call for a new constitution because the 1999 Constitution was not written by the people was misplaced.

    The Osun Central lawmaker noted that even the American constitution did not originate from the people.

    He said the American constitution came from the Aristocrats.

    Adeyeye said the legitimacy of the American constitution was because of the faith and trust in the fidelity of the people that came later.

    The senator said if Nigerians insisted that the 1999 Constitution lacked legitimacy, the way out was to conduct a referendum to change what Nigerians opposed.

    Adeyeye said it should not be forgotten that leaders had been sworn in by the constitution.

    Enyinnaya Abaribe said the talk about a new constitution meant the dissolution of the National Assembly.

    The senator noted that nobody elected the National Assembly to write a new constitution.

    He said the question of the legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution could be settled through a referendum.

    Abaribe supported the incremental approach adopted by the National Assembly to amend the constitution.

    Senate Leader Mohammed Ali Ndume cautioned that rather than talk about the legitimacy of the constitution, the retreat should focus on fundamental issues bothering Nigerians.

    A House of Representatives member, Nkem Uzoma Abonta, said those who say the constitution is not the issued missed the point.

    The Abia State-born lawmaker said the constitution was the issue “because what we have as a constitution makes some people lazy due to a lot of imbalances, especially in sharing formula”.

    He insisted that there should be fundamental changes in the constitution to make the document workable.

    Abonta said the first part to amend is Section 9, to enable Nigerians write their constitution, instead of the military-imposed document.

    Hamman Misau said anybody talking about changing the constitution should be prepared to resign his or her membership of the National Assembly.

    Senator Jeremiah Useni threw the session into a prolonged disquiet when said: “Some people just sit down here to talk nonsense.”

    Useni said some of those who benefitted from military rule still had the audacity to talk ill of the military.

    “They don’t know what to say. I mean they came to talk nonsense,” he said.

    But Senator Shehu Sani (Kaduna Central) replied Useni.

    He said: “If we are going to have a constitution that is truly called the people’s constitution, I will be the first to resign.

    “I will be one of those who will be prepared to resign my position. If we say we senators, we know senators are elected; if you say teachers, you know that teachers are trained. For us to say ‘we the people’, let it be truly the people.

    “No matter what we do, this document we call the constitution remains an illegitimate document. The (former President Goodluck) Jonathan’s Confab report is even better than this document. If it means referring to the Confab’s report, we should do something.

    “Some people just sit here as if some of us did not fight for democracy. Some people will sit here and want to rewrite history.”

    Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu said the talk about a new constitution was not about legitimacy but about being futuristic and thinking ahead.

  • Still on Kaduna religious bill and 1999 Constitution

    The Kaduna State Religious Preaching Bill has generated controversies. Some have held that the Bill is irredeemably unconstitutional on the authorities of sections 10 and 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999. But are they right in the light of the balancing provisions of section 45(1) CFRN?

    Some believe that the provision of section 4 of the Bill which recognises Islam and Christianity as the two major religions in Kaduna State breaches the provision of section 10 of CFRN 1999 which prohibits recognition of state religion by either the state or federal government. The relevant question however is whether recognising “two major religions” is the same thing with adopting a state religion. It is my view that the two are different. The Kaduna Bill does not seek to impose a state religion; it only seeks to regulate two major religions (out of others recognised in the state) with divisive and violent intolerant tendencies. To flout section 10 of CFRN 1999 therefore, a state or federal law must clearly provide that it is now adopting religion A or B as the official state religion to the exclusion of all others. This, obviously, is not the case here. We can equally argue that by establishing institutions for pilgrimage (to Mecca and Jerusalem only) at both state and federal levels, these two tiers of government have adopted Christianity and Islam as official religions on Nigeria. This is an argument that will be dead on arrival (DoA).

    Others fervently justified the unconstitutionality of the proposed Bill on the ground that most of its provisions contravene section 38 of the CFRN 1999 which recognises the right of every citizen to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Since this constitutional provision recognises the enjoyment of this right either in private or in public or in community with others, those who hold this view argued for an absolute (as opposed to a qualified) application of the provisions of section 38 without admitting or acknowledging the possibility of a derogation even within the ambit of the CFRN 1999. This explains their absolute assertion that people can decide to practise his Christian or Islamic religion and belief alone without regard to other members of the society.

    It is however important to clarify that the word “public” must be interpreted together with the words “in community with others.” It is by so doing that we can fully appreciate that the constitution is simply saying “your right to freedom of religion can be exercised in person in private, or in community with others in public and at designated places of worships.” This type of interpretation can be justified under the constitution itself which requires fair balancing of all the fundamental rights of citizens. Thus even though you have a right to freedom of speech, you cannot in the process defame other people: if you do, you will be visited with a civil suit for libel or slander. This need for balancing is equally echoed in one of the witty quotations of a former US Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr who said that “your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

    More importantly, the CFRN 1999 permits governments (state or federal) to enact legislation needed for balancing citizens’ rights. This can be found in section 45(1) of the CFRN 1999 which provides thus:

    “Nothing in sections 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of this Constitution shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society

    (a)    in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health (emphasis added); or

    (b)   for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom  of other persons”.

    It will be over-simplistic and playing with human lives to overlook the fact that the Kaduna Bill is proposed to reduce religious violence/intolerance and mindless killing in that state. This is a state where several precious lives had been lost to riots resulting from the Maitatsine attack, the Danish Cartoons incident, the Miss World incident, and recently, the Shiite-Army clash. I therefore find it incomprehensible that anyone will discuss section 38 of the Constitution without referring to the above-quoted section which permits governments to come up with legislation required for rights-balancing.

    In further criticising the Bill and making a case for its jettison, some are offended that the Bill subjects “Christians to the jurisdiction of customary courts” when those courts lack understanding of Ecclesiastical matters. But truth be told, the court in this case is not called upon to interpret any Ecclesiastic provisions; rather the customary court will be interpreting a purely secular law as represented in the proposed Bill. So, this criticism is also DoA.

    Some have made too much issue of the requirement that any intending preacher must obtain licence from the JNI/CAN committee. In over-flogging this as a violation of the right to freedom of association, they failed to notice that the JNI/CAN group is simply performing a nominal administrative duty of issuing licence. The bulk of the work leading to license issuance (verification of personality, etc.) are within the prerogative of the local government committees. This makes a lot of sense since local governments are the closest to the people and they stand in a better position to know the characters of intending applicants. It is this local government committee which makes recommendation to the Inter-Faith committee on whether to grant or deny a licence. The Inter-Faith committee simply acts on this recommendation by authorising the JNI/CAN committee to issue license. Even though the local government committee is peopled mostly by JNI/CAN members, nowhere in the proposed Bill is it provided that membership of JNI/CAN is a precondition to licence grant.

    In the final analysis, a law such as this is long overdue for most states of Nigeria. In Ilorin, Kwara State where I live, government roads are blocked on Fridays for Jumat prayers, and on other days for any other programmes of the Mosque. Churches conduct vigils blasting their services through loud speakers at the highest volume, not minding the peace of the people in their vicinities. Are these to be understood as exercise of their rights to freedom of religion? What about atheists? Don’t they too have rights not to be bothered by whatever you are preaching? What about a Christian or Muslim who does not want to be bothered by whatever you are “selling” in the name of Almighty God or Allah? All these are necessary balancing in virtually all democracies of the world. As a matter of fact, in some of the countries I have been to, religious activities are legally required to take place only in sound-proof apartments. While the Kaduna State Bill may not be a perfect piece of legislation as it is, it is a welcome development. Concerned stakeholders in the state should therefore attend the public hearing of the Bill to make sure their concerns are taken care of. As an example, I believe the scope of where recorded religious materials can be played should be extended to include inside private cars but at a moderate volume. It is important we exercise our rights to freedom of religion with a balancing mindset. Only then can there be peace all over the country. May I close with the words of George Carlin that “religion is like a pair of shoes…Find one that fits you, but don’t make me wear your shoes.”

     

    • Olatunji, a lecturer at University of Ilorin, writes from the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa.  

  • Orji/Kalu rift: 1999 Constitution to blame

    General Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the world’s most powerful military commanders ever, once quipped that he had better face a hundred bayonets than a single newspaper. Obviously, what the French General wanted to point out was the lethal nature of the power which the press wields—even a single newspaper; no one can afford to face it.  It is ironic therefore in Nigeria today that a particular citizen can beat his chest as it were and say “I have done what Napoleon could not do” because for eight years the man has been forced to face the onslought of a particular news media. That man is Chief Theodore Ahamefule Orji, the immediate past Governor of Abia State, who has been having a running battle with his predecessor in office Dr Oriji Uzor Kalu, publisher of the Sun newspapers. Please note that I only know both men by reputation.

    Not for one day have we read any pro-Orji news or commentary in Kalu’s media. Nor have they ever published a rejoinder from Orji’s side to balance an ugly, skewed publicity equation. Thanks however to the open-heartedness of other media like The Nation, ThisDay, National Mirror, The Guardian, The Punch, Vanguard, Tribune etc. that have been the saving grace; otherwise T.A Orji would have been undone long ago. Those of us watching from a distance can no longer afford to keep quiet. This is media tyranny writ large. This is man’s inhumaniy to man. It is an abuse of privilege which William Shakespeare said manifests when people “disjoin remorse from power”. It’s also abuse of freedom—freedom to own or establish a medium of communication, which the framers of our Constitution purposely married with the right to Freedom of Expression, in Section 39. We should feel concerned because the abuse or denial of one man’s right anywhere is the abuse of other people’s rights everywhere. It is T.A Oriji today; it may be the turn of Abubakar or Adeyemi tomorrow. Why do we face this problem today? Marrying freedom of expression with freedom to own and operate a press or medium is a very good idea because it makes them a couple.

    But then, like in every marriage where no law forbids abuse on either side, the marriage of the two freedoms in one and the same Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution is liable to abuse or selfish exploitation such as we are witnessing today in the Orji/Kalu drama. Therefore, in order to deal with such situations or prevent same, it is necessary to amend the constitution and add a fourth sub-section to Section 39(1) which says “every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.”The amendment being proposed here which should come immediately after sub-section (1) or after the existing sub-section (3) is as follows: “Because it is impossible for everybody to establish their own medium, every medium or press established pursuant to sub-section (2)of this section, for the purposes of dissemination of information, ideas opinions and news shall enforce the Fairness Doctrine by ensuring feedback mechanism so that without discrimination in any form anyone reasonably feeling injured or hurt in anyway by the activities of the medium/media can exercise the right of reply in or through the same offending medium/media possibly in full measure.”

    Be that as it may, this intervention was not necessarily prompted by any urge to seek remorse or relief for Orji. Far from that; essentially this intervention became necessary in order to condemn a worrisome trend that ridicules Nigerian journalism as exemplified in two recent write-ups credited to Ebere Wabara, Dr. Kalu’s media adviser. In the first write-up in Daily Sun of September 1, entitled “Koos James, Orji & Kalu,” the author wasted valuable space penning a high-falutin piece that bordered on ego-trip in the name of a rejoinder marred by poetic licence, empty grandiloquence and an attempt at rogue intellectualism with a disastrous result. In fact, the very second paragraph of the piece made up of 40 odd words had no finite verb and therefore ended as a meaningless phrase. The second in Daily Sun of September 7th entitled “Justice Abang blasts T.A Orji” proved more disastrous as it raised serious doubts about his grasp of basic principles guiding judicial reporting. One doesn’t need to be an egg in order to recognize a bad omelette. Although I am not a journalist, I can always point out bad journalism any day. If Wabara and his team have run out of issues in their self-declared fight with T.A Orji there is no sense in resorting to unprofessional hara-kiri. The right thing to do is to call a truce and move on. Kalu no longer needs all this ridiculous fawning by Wabara who delights in addressing him as “FIFA President” even when he is yet to enter the race proper; not an adviser who delights in addressing him as “Forbe’s billionaire” or “Pillar of sports in Africa” – all in a useless attempt to curry his favour. Rather what he needs now is a media adviser who knows that in writing a rejoinder to an unfavourable publication by your opponent, you don’t go about repeating the same offending negative words used against your boss. For example Wabara said in his full page verbiage of 1/9/2015: “Government is a continuum. There is hardly any former governor who never left a conflagration of debts”, (column 4, line 10). Really? So Kalu left not just a huge debt in Abia but a “conflagration of debts”? Well, we are hearing this dimension for the first time. All we knew all this while was that the man left a huge debt amounting to N55 billion. Anyway, Wabara may be right because leaving N55 billion debts in 2007 with nary a legacy to account for it in a poor state like Abia could have sparked off a conflagration but for the mature way T.A Orji handled the matter. Wabara also argued in his ego-trip that because Kalu contributes to the anti-corruption debate in Nigeria the man could not be grouped among the corrupt—a position that contradicted Kalu who in his write-up in Saturday Sun of 12th September 2015 clearly grouped himself among corrupt Nigerian civilian rulers thus: “what we have witnessed rather sadly within the few years that civilians have been in the saddle of leadership in Nigeria is endemic corruption. And with corruption came other vices”.

    So what was Wabara trying to tell us?

    • Mr. Agarzue writes from Abuja.

  • ‘Why Uduaghan freed prisoners’

    Delta State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Charles Ajuyah (SAN) has said Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan freed some death row inmates on health grounds.

    Among those freed as part of events to mark the nation’s 54th Independence was a 77-year-old man, Dickson Umukoro, who was freed seven years after he was sentenced to death.

    He was convicted for murder in 2007 but later had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment in 2010.

    The governor pardoned and ordered his release from prison on the grounds of age, health challenges and good conduct.

    Also freed were 53-year-old Monday Tom and an unnamed adolescent, who had been sentenced to death for various crimes.

    Tom was convicted for murder and sentenced to death on October 19, 2005.

    Regarding the adolescent, the commissioner said: “The young man, whose name is withheld by reason of his age, was detained by an order of court in 2009 as he was then under 17 years  when the offence was committed.

    “The Prison Authorities have been advised appropriately in the warrant of pardon signed by the governor.”

    Praising Uduaghan for the gesture, Ajuyah said it was a rare act from the governor in exercise of his prerogative powers as contained under Section 212 of the 1999 Constitution.