The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Ben Nwabueze

Kanu shelves meeting with South East leaders, alleges plans to kill him

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu has decided to shelve the proposed meeting with the South East governors which scheduled to hold this Friday in Enugu alleging plans to assassinate him by security agencies.

He said he holds leaders and elders in high esteem which made him to agree to meet with them before now at the Enugu state government house with some prominent leaders of the zone.

Kanu’s stand was contained in statement he personally signed which reads, “Before now, prominent leaders and groups had insisted that I tow the line of peaceful dialogue and meet with the governors to find a lasting solution to our grievances. I conceded to that request which led to the 30th of August 2017 meeting with the South-East Governors Forum at the Government House in Enugu, in the company of the very eminent Prof. Ben Nwabueze and Evangelist Elliott Ugochukwu-Ukoh”.

“In view of the concerted effort by the oppressive Nigerian state to shatter the peace and tranquility of the South-East and the rest of Biafraland through military intimidation, it has become necessary for me to clarify why, regrettably, I may not be able to attend Friday’s meeting with the South-East governors as earlier agreed, for three main reasons.

“We are currently busy attending to our dead and injured from this latest round of unprovoked military onslaught against innocent civilians in our own land. All the casualties so far were shot by men of the Nigerian Army deployed to my house and those stationed along motor ways leading into Umuahia my hometown”.

“I have been reliably informed also, that a detachment of this same soldiers responsible for the murder of innocent unarmed IPOB family members have now been stationed near Enugu to ambush and assassinate me on my way to the meeting with the governors on Friday.

“On that same Friday the 15th of September 2017, the leadership of IPOB through the instrumentality of the Directorate of State (DOS) headquartered in Germany, will be meeting to vote on the viability or otherwise of continuing our struggle in this non-violent manner. There is urgent need to begin the process of defending ourselves in the face of relentless murderous attacks from the Nigerian state.

“It is impossible to engage in any meaningful conversation with the governors in the midst of so much bloodshed, abductions and military siege of our town and villages. Accordingly, we will not engage in any meeting with anybody until the atmosphere is conducive and peaceful enough to allow for such.

“The siren-blaring military convoys and armoured vehicles occupying the entire region is not only designed to intimidate our people but also deliberately primed to scuttle the IPOB/South-East governors meeting of Friday 15th September.

“I would like to use this opportunity to thank all men and women of good conscience from all over the world that have risen to condemn the barbaric slaughter of innocent Biafrans by the Nigerian military.

“Above all, I salute the steadfastness, devotion and total commitment to freedom from eternal slavery by the great IPOB family in Biafraland. I assure you that I remain resolute and dedicated to our shared vision of freedom regardless of the cost and visionless antics of the mindless oppressor.

“We have since crossed the Red Sea and arrived at the shores of the promised land. We have our trumpets ready to begin the great march around the evil walls of Jericho, and I assure you that in no distant time, the walls of Jericho will come crashing down.

“We can still hear the cries of Pharaoh and his horsemen as they are swallowed up by the Red Sea, chariots and all. Victory is ours! Victory is assured!!

Collaborators and agents of the oppressor are hereby advised to embark on self exile as there will be no hiding place for them”.

September 13, 2017
Igbo leaders warn Biafra group

•Police intensify investigations

The Concerned Igbo Leaders of Thought led by Prof. Ben Nwabueze has joined the South East Governors Forum in condemning an attempt by the Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM) to declare the Republic of Biafra.

In a statement by the deputy secretary, Evang. Elliot Uko, the group warned BZM and others not overheat the polity.

It said the act of seizing a broadcasting house to announce a republic is not the proper way to express anger and frustration.

The group said: “Such an action will only overheat the polity, which is the last thing any well- meaning Nigerian will pray for at this time.

“We appeal to those who feel aggrieved over the condition in the country to channel their grievances through the proper channel, including the ongoing National Conference.

“Actions capable of leading to a breakdown of law and order must be discouraged.

“We warn Igbo youths preparing for or planning whatever demonstrations to shelve the idea, as such action will only encourage our already misguided folks, who erroneously believe that secession or disintegration will help the situation.

“We advise those indoctrinating them along these lines to retrace their steps.

“Finally we reiterate that Ndigbo believe in a united Nigeria where equity and justice reign, where no man is oppressed. We believe in a restructured country where every section is treated fairly.”

Police have intensified investigations into the activities of BZM and have arrested more members.

The group attempted to declare the Republic of Biafra at the Enugu State Broadcasting Service (ESBS). A policeman and one of the group’s members were killed.

Thirteen BZM members, including their leader, Benjamin Igwe Onwuka, were arrested after the invasion and paraded by the police.

Police spokesman Ebere Amaraizu said yesterday that investigations were ongoing to get to the root of the matter.

“As soon as we conclude investigation, we will make it public and charge the suspects to court,” he added.

June 10, 2014
Nwabueze: confab ‘ll be meaningless without legal backing

Foremost constitutional lawyer and senior advocate of Nigerian, Prof Ben Nwabueze (SAN), has said the ongoing National Conference will be meaningless except there is a legal backing that will make its outcome binding on the nation.

Addressing reporters in Umuahia, the Abia State capital, Prof Nwabueze said the outcome of the conference must become a law for it to have meaning.

The legal icon was in the state with other members of Igbo Leaders of Thought to congratulate the governor on his election as the Southeast Governors ‘Forum chairman.

Prof Nwabueze said he was among those who agitated for the conference – with the belief that it was what the people needed to transform the country to a better place for the citizens and visitors.

The constitutional lawyer said he had explained in his write-ups the type of confab he expected to see.

According to him, he expects a conference that should “have a legal basis and framework, which must (also) have the competence to be legally binding”.

The renowned constitutional lawyer said the confab should have the competence to adopt a constitution, which would be a superior law of the land.

Prof Nwabueze said he advocated this for the conference but was not seeing this happening at the conference.

He said: “Though what I advocated for is not what is happening, all hope is not lost. It could still be salvaged. This is what I am working on right now, and there are some things Mr President can do to get it right.

“…If he (Dr Jonathan) does what requires some measure of courage, because of the stand of the National Assembly on the conference, the situation would be salvaged.”

The constitutional lawyer noted that if President takes the right step on the conference, he would be showing the nation that he has put pressure on the members of the National Assembly to pass the bill into law.

This, Prof Nwabueze said, would give the outcome of the conference the legal backing it needs to become binding on the people.

He said the National Assembly could repeal the current constitution, which became a law through Section 9 schedule of Decree 24 of 1999 by making the schedule to disappear and by so doing the constitution would disappear.

He said once decree 24 is repealed the schedule would disappear with the constitution and once it does that with the legal backing of the national assembly through an executive bill which would have been passed into law, the outcome of the CONFAB will now be the new constitution.

The senior advocate of Nigeria however warned that making the decree that makes the constitution a law to disappear should be done in a systematic way, “So that the national assembly will not also disappear like the constitution”.

Prof Nwabueze noted that Section 4 of the constitution gives the national assembly the right to make the constitution to disappear, “As it was done in 1963 instead of waiting for two thirds majority of the national assembly to do that”.

April 23, 2014
Ohanaeze to Okorocha, Nwabueze: you can’t speak for Ndigbo

The apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, has warned constitutional lawyer, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) and Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha to stop speaking for Ndigbo.

The group said the two men had no justification to claim to be Igbo leaders.

Speaking with reporters yesterday in Awka, the President of Ohanaeze Ndigbo in Anambra State, Elder Chris Eluemunoh, said their utterances could make people believe that there was disunity in Ohanaeze, when there was none.

Ohanaeze alleged that Nwabueze printed leaflets and pamphlets, discrediting the group, adding that he was creating an impression that there was disunity.

The body said: “He should stop speaking for Ndigbo. Ohanaeze remains the only mouthpiece of Ndigbo. Everybody is in support of the national leadership.

“Ohanaeze has no case. The only one it had in 2011 was the one instituted against the leadership of Amb. Ralph Uwechue.

“Nwabueze should toe the line of Chief Garry Igariway. Anambra will not support Nwabueze’s reckless utterances.

“He should quit from politics. We will not abuse him, we don’t want to ridicule him, being a revered constitutional lawyer and the president of the Patriots. He is an elder statesman, but he should watch his utterances.

“Ohanaeze Ndigbo is intact, Ime-obi is intact, there is no problem whatsoever.”

The pan-Igbo socio-cultural organisation said Okorocha would never be Ndigbo leader.

It said he should stop arrogating the tag of Igbo leader to himself, adding that Okorocha’s root was well-known in Igboland.

Eluemunoh said: “With his antics in politics, especially in Igboland, he will not go far, irrespective of the party he attaches himself to.”

February 18, 2014
‘Igbo ‘ll insist on self-determination at conference’

Lawyer and elder statesman Prof. Ben Nwabueze kicked yesterday against the exclusion of the discussion on the country’s unity by the national conference.

He said the Igbo will insist on self-determination at the conference.

The octogenarian, who insists that the conference should write a new constitution for the country, said President Goodluck Jonathan had no right to decide Nigeria’s existence.

Speaking at the Conference of Ethnic Nationalities organised in Abuja by the Ethnic Nationalities Movement (ENM), he said: “Nigerians should have the right to self-determination.

“Now we have a conference that says that the divisibility of Nigeria is a no-go area. Does that mean that we cannot even talk about the inherent right of the ethnic nationalities to secede, we have no right to self-determination; is that what it means?”

The theme of the conference was: “Towards a truly representative National Conference.

Describing the right to self-determination as an inherent right of the citizenry, Nwabueze said his own nationality – the Igbo – had already resolved to insist on the inclusion of the subject as part of the agenda for the forthcoming national conference.

Nwabueze, who is the first academic Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), however, called on Hausa, Yoruba, Edo, Itsekiri and other ethnic groups to insist on their right to self-determination.

The jurist said: “If we can’t even discuss it, that excludes the right of the delegates to talk about self-determination. This is a burning issue. We, the Ndigbo, have already decided to insist that that right of self-determination must be there.

“I use this opportunity to invite other ethnic nationalities – the Yoruba, the Hausa, the Edo people, the Itekiri, the Ijaws the representatives of the Ijaw are already demanding it. We must all come together to discuss it.”

He noted that the fear that the discussion could culminate in the country’s disintegration should not stop the delegates from exercising their right to discussing self-determination.

Nwabueze explained that the representation of ethnic nationalities in the constitution would help to contain the government from oppressing others to create a state of instability.

He recalled that as the adviser to the drafting of the Ethiopia 1995 constitution, he insisted that ethnic nationalities should be included.

The legal luminary urged Nigeria to borrow a leaf from that.

Nwabueze, who noted that some critics had held the opinion that the United States and Europe no longer discuss ethnicity and tribe, asked whether those countries and continents had tribes in the first place.

According to him, all the ethnic groups in Nigeria predate the amalgamation of the country and their importance must not be trivialised.

He also expressed surprise that various religious organisations, trade unions and interest groups were considered for the conference while the nationalities that own them are left out.

The chairman of the occasion, Mr. Solomon Asemota (SAN), said the union of Nigeria could not be said to have produced useful results.

Asemota, a member of the national conference advisory body, who submitted a minority report, explained that the union’s failure accounts for the fear that the topic could result in the call for the dissolution of Nigeria at the national conference.

Asemota maintained that Nigeria cannot be said to have been constant with Indirect Rule, civil war and the Boko Haram insurgency.

The chairman said: “The marriage of 1914 cannot be said to have been fruitful,or have produced many useful results. This explains why the dissolution of the Nigerian Union cannot be discussed at the National Conference for fear of its actualisation.

“We cannot also say that Nigeria has been constant, not with Indirect Rule, insecurity, the civil war and now Boko Haram as well as other issues that have plagued her for more than 50 years.

“There is evidence that Nigeria is not designed as a great “Trust”, because the Southern Lady of means who provides for the upkeep is being taken for granted. She is treated as a woman married under customary law and treated as a mere chattel and this has made the marriage difficult.”

In his presentation, titled “A Summary and Matter Arising for Nigeria’s National Conference”, a professor of sociology, Onigu Otite, advised that whenever it is required that conference delegates be selected from a region, state, or category of Nigerians, efforts should be made not only to represent ethnic minorities or combination of them, but also to avoid double nominations.

He suggested that the Federal Government should undertake an ethnic balancing and weighting exercise after collating the names of all the delegates to the conference.

This, according to him, would help to ensure equity and appropriateness in the choice of delegates for a balanced national conference.

Otite said: “Our president should be given the privilege of nominating some attendees to national conference. This will hopefully promote the representativeness of people from all the ethnic groups of Nigeria at the conference.”

February 12, 2014
‘Conference that won’t adopt new constitution is waste of time’

Professor Ben Nwabueze, Chairman of The Patriots, a group of eminent Nigerians, and leader of Igbo Leaders of Thought, is a foremost constitutional lawyer, whose views on the proposed national conference have been well-sought after. In this exclusive interview with Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, in his GRA home in Enugu, the legal icon spoke passionately on the proposed conference, current political tension in Rivers State, the National Assembly and the proposed centenary celebrations. Excerpts:

RIGHT now, Nigeria is talking about the need to get a new constitution. Can you explain to us what is wrong with the 1999 Constitution?

In identifying clearly the primary thing that is wrong with the 1999 Constitution, we, The Patriots, have tried to draw the distinction between process and content. When you talk about what is wrong with the constitution, I think you are focusing on content. Yes, content is important and we will talk about it later but a more important, more fundamental thing is the process by which a constitution is adopted. Is it a democratic process? If it is not, then the constitution is not a democratic constitution. It is not a peoples’ constitution. We have never had a constitution adopted by the democratic process of going through the people. You go through the people by first having a national conference specifically (convened) for the purpose of adopting a constitution and when you have concluded that, the thing must go to a referendum. The people will vote. It is a simple yes or no referendum. Do you agree or do you not agree with this constitution? When you have done that, and that is what more than 85 percent of the countries of the world have done since 1989, take it from me; more than 85 percent of the countries of the world have done this. When you have done that, you now have a democratic constitution, a constitution adopted through a democratic process by the people.

This is absolutely essential because the constitution is the supreme law of the land. You call this 1999 Constitution the supreme law. What makes it a supreme law? The only thing that can confer the status of the supreme law to a constitution is the authority of the people. If a constitution is not adopted through a democratic process by the people, there is no rationale for its supremacy. It is just supreme because you said so.

If you turn to the 1999 Constitution, you will find in Section 1 that it is the supreme law of the land. What makes it the supreme law? Is it because it is made for us by the military? Is that what made it the supreme law? If you want a constitution that will be the supreme law, that’s why you mention law, the only body that can confer the status of the supreme law on it is the people. That is the first thing you will settle about the constitution before you will begin to talk about the content. So the first and most important thing that is wrong with the 1999 Constitution is the process by which it was made.

When you come to the content, there are so many defects, so many faults. Is it the structure? Is it alright? We all seem to have agreed with the six zone structure. But then, what do you do with the 36 states? I think they should say. Then after that you talk about the structure of power between the centre and the zones or the regions. The structure of power is so terribly wrong. The constitution vested too much power at the centre, that’s what is killing us. That must be rectified. A lot of powers must be taken away from the centre and given to the zones or the states. You talk about fiscal federalism. Look at Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution and you ask yourself, is this a federal system and so much power over finance is vested in the centre? If I were to go through that section (162), there are 10 sub-sections, all geared towards giving fiscal power to the centre. That section must be completely abolished and replaced. So much is wrong with the 1999 Constitution in terms of content.

From what I have been reading, it seems some people are agitating for equal representation at this year’s national conference. Given that your group is insisting on a conference of ethnic nationalities, have you worked out how the representation would be? Will the major ethnic nationalities like Ndigbo, Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani have equal representation with the smaller ethnic nationalities?

Let me start by saying there is no problem that does not have a solution. There is always a solution to every problem if you apply your mind to it. Now, there are roughly, no one is certain about the number, but a research by Professor Ogigu Otite, an emeritus professor of the University of Ibadan, said there are 389 ethnic nationalities in Nigeria, some small, some large, like the Igbo, the Yoruba and the Hausa-Fulani, which are in millions in number. Ndigbo, for example, are, at least, 40 million and I believe there are more, scattered all over the place. Some of these 389 ethnic nationalities, according to Prof Otite, are so small that you will be doing a lot of violence to equity and justice if you say that four million people will have equal representation with ten thousand or one million. There are some that are much less than one million, recorded in terms of thousands. The ethnic minorities are demanding equality but surely, in doing this, you must be fair to everybody but fairness must not be carried to the point of gross injustice by saying that 40 million will have equal representation with ten thousand. So, this has to be worked out. There is always a solution to every problem.

How long do you think it will take Nigeria to prepare and get a new constitution? I am asking this question because we are scheduled to have a general election next year.

It won’t take long. For example, Ndigbo will, between today and tomorrow, conclude our position with regards to the type of constitution we want. We will print it in a book form and distribute it across the country. Other groups should do the same and we can then compare notes. From the position of each of the participating groups, we may accept some, reject some and marry the accepted positions together.

Our position now is that Nigeria should call a conference to adopt a new constitution but apparently, the conference the federal government is going to convene is a mere talk shop not a national conference to adopt a new constitution. When they said they are calling a conference and that the conference will agree whether there will be a new constitution, it sounded very strange to me; it does not make much sense to me that you should first convene a conference of 500 people, which will decide whether we need a new constitution. What if the conference said yes, we need a new constitution, what happens? Do you at this stage convene another constitution since the former cannot proceed to adopt a new constitution after reaching the decision that we need a new constitution?

On several occasions, we have had national conferences in Nigeria that amounted to nothing and as a result some people are insisting on Sovereign National Conference. Now, from the point of view of law and practicality, is it possible to have a Sovereign National Conference when there is a sitting government? If not, why is it that our governments always toy with this idea?

The simple answer to your question is that it is not possible. That is why many people have abandoned the struggle for a Sovereign National Conference. You can’t have a Sovereign National Conference when there is a sitting sovereign national government. We do have today, a legal order. A legal order is established by a constitution, by institutions like the National Assembly, the Presidency, the Judiciary, the rule of law – these are some of the elements of a legal order. Once there is a legal order in existence, you cannot have a Sovereign National Conference. You will be contradicting yourself. These are two contradictory concepts. You must accept that there is a legal order in existence.

Now, the concept of sovereignty includes political sovereignty, belonging to the people; we have legal sovereignty, vested in the government on behalf of the people. So, there is a sitting government, vested with legal sovereignty of the country and that is what we mean by saying there is an existing legal order. So, you can’t create a second sovereign body. This means that the whole idea of a Sovereign National Conference is a misconception; it’s a failure to understand the nature of what we have on ground. If you want to have a Sovereign National Conference as we have had in some African countries, you must overthrow the existing legal government.

So, given this dilemma and the fact that Nigerians want a Sovereign National Conference that would have the power to…

Don’t talk about Sovereign National Conference. I think, given the explanation I made earlier in this interview, we should be talking about a National Conference. We can’t have a Sovereign National Conference when we still have a legal order in existence. The solution is to have a genuine National Conference, where we will sit, discuss and agree on a new constitution. If the conference is not to discuss and agree on a new constitution, it’s a waste of time, as Afenifere has said, a waste of everybody’s time.

Just before I leave the issue of national conference, how has your group been relating with other groups like Afenifere, which you just mentioned?

Fortunately, the position of the Igbo Leaders of Thought has been accepted by the South-West, by the two groups of Afenifere; the Afenifere mainstream and the Afenifere Renewal. The South-South has adopted the same position, the Southern Nigerian People’s Assembly, led by Dr Alex Ekwueme for the South-East, Chief Edwin Clark for the South-South and Bishop Bolanle Gbonigi for the South-West, have also adopted the same position. The North-Central has also adopted the same position, so one can say we are relating well with other groups, at least on the issue of process. On the issue of content, we intend to send an outreach committee to go and talk with the other groups.

Considering what is happening in Rivers State, an average man in Nigeria believes there is a complete breakdown of law and order there. From the point of view of the law, how would you describe the Rivers State situation?

What is it that is happening in Rivers State? I mean in which aspect?

I am talking about the relationship between the governor and the commissioner of police in the state. A situation where the police commissioner is demanding that the governor, who is supposed to be the chief security officer of the state, must obtain permission from the police before organising a rally? Is that right?

Is that what the police commissioner is saying?

Yes, he is saying that the law requires all citizens to obtain police permission before organising a rally but some people are arguing that the governor is the chief security officer of the state and as such does not need police permission. So, there is confusion.

When you read the Igbo position on the new constitution, you will see that one of the things we said is wrong with the constitution is the arrangement with respect to the police. It is fundamentally faulty. The Constitution provides that in terms of the public order and public security, the command of the police is vested in the Inspector-General of Police. But the Constitution goes on in the same sections, 214 and 215, to provide that as concerns public order and public safety, that the president can give lawful direction to the commander of the police that is the Inspector-General of Police. Sub-section says in respect to public order and public safety, the governor can give lawful direction to the commissioner of police for the state. In other words, the Constitution recognises the governor of the state as the chief security officer of the state. It goes on to say, provided that the commissioner of police will, before carrying out the order of the governor, (make references) to the president.

But in a situation of grave danger, the commissioner of police, must, as a matter of constitutional duty, carry out the orders of the governor. Otherwise, there will be fundamental contradiction. You said that this is the chief security officer of the state and you said the commissioner of police must refer to the president. The president is the chief security officer of the whole nation, but for the state, it is the governor. So, the whole arrangement is faulty. How can you have a chief security officer for a state and a mere state police commissioner begins to override him? It makes no sense.

When you talk about a state, not just in terms of a state government, but a state as a concept, whether federal or state; the state by definition means a body, an entity that has the power, the coercive power to enforce, to maintain its existence as a government; to enforce its authority, to enforce its laws. Anybody, or entity that does not have that coercive power is not a state. So these things we have today are not states in the proper connotation because they don’t have coercive power. So, when it now gets to a situation where the governor of a state gives directive with regards to public order and public safety and a state police commissioner begins to override it, the only solution is to have state police. A state government must have a state police. That is the only way to reconcile the idea of a state. The state government must have a state police; otherwise, they cannot be referred to as states or governments. This is one of the things we are canvassing for – state police.

There is also a raging controversy over threats to declare vacant the seats of some National Assembly members who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). From the point of view of the law, can the Senate President or any other official declare the seats of these elected officials vacant?

When a member of the National Assembly or any other assembly member defects from the party on which platform he was elected to another party, his seat can be declared vacant. But there is an exception. If this defection is as a result of division, factionalisation within that party, then his seat cannot be declared vacant. So, it boils down to this, is there division, and is there factionalisation within the PDP? If there is, then their seats cannot be declared vacant. If there is no factionalisation, no division within the PDP, then they cannot defect without their seats being declared vacant. So, the onus would be on whoever that sues to prove whether there was factionalisation within the PDP.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has just released the 2015 election timetable. Given the current political situation and the visible signals, do you think Nigeria would get a free, fair and credible election next year?

It is difficult to predict. Whether the 2015 elections would be free, fair and credible depends on a lot of issues and the political situation then. We have not had free and fair election in this country because the stakes are too much. People are prepared to rig because of the high stakes and the high stakes are complicated by the political situation which creates this necessity for do or die. The election that is coming is an attempt or an opportunity to displace the PDP from its position of control or rulership. PDP has ruled the country up till now. If you are going to try to displace it, don’t expect that it would be a free easy ride. The PDP, according to the methods in this country, will not sit and watch you take power away from it. So, this is the factor that will affect the elections. It is the factor that will go to a considerable extent to determine whether the election would be free and fair.

This year, the country will be celebrating its centenary; it’s 100 years as a country. As one of the few elites that have seen it all, can you assess how we have fared as a nation?

I have written an article on this before where I disagreed with the idea of celebrating the so-called centenary. What are we celebrating? Is it our enslavement? Before 1914, the different segments of Nigeria had been colonised and so in 1914, the colonisation of these different segments was consummated by the amalgamation. So, the amalgamation marked the real colonisation of Nigeria. It marked the origin of our enslavement. You know what colonisation means; it means enslavement. It means you are a slave and ruled as a subject nation, as a subject entity from 1914 to 1960 when the country gained independence. All the deprivations, all the degradations involved in colonisation, we suffered for those long years. Is it what we are celebrating? Secondly, what did amalgamation bring in its wake? A North-South divide, a North-South dichotomy, is the greatest obstacle to the unity of Nigeria. Yes! Take the north, they now see themselves as a separate group, their vision, their attitude, their outlook are different, notwithstanding that what they call the north or northern Nigeria is an artificial creation of British colonialism. As a journalist, you should know; think of all the many problems we have in this country and you will agree that the greatest of all the problems is the North-South divide, the North-South dichotomy. It is the greatest problem we have for Nigerian unity. We have Arewa, which means Northern Nigeria. We have Arewa Consultative Forum, etc and recently, in 2012 the formation of the Southern Nigeria Peoples Assembly. That completes the dichotomy between the north and the south, creating attitudes, different divergent attitudes and visions and aspirations in the people. Is that what we are celebrating – the creation of this divide by the British colonialist, who fostered and handed it down from generation to generation up till now. Tell me what amalgamation has brought that we are celebrating? Yes, it brought the two entities, northern and southern Nigeria, together; is that what we are celebrating?

Can you also comment on the fortunes of the Igbo people in the Nigerian project. You know how the race started out and where they are today. Some people said Ndigbo lost out at some point. Is that true, if so, at what point did they lose out and is there any hope for them?

For the Igbo in Nigeria, we have suffered a setback as you said. And if you ask me, I will trace the origin of the set back to the civil war. Yes, that is what has brought about this set back and Ndigbo must strive hard to correct the set back. I believe that all hopes are not lost. Ndigbo can still regain their lost position and glory in this country.

February 9, 2014
Igbo women support Nwabueze group

•Disown Ohanaeze

The President, Igbo Women Assembly and member, Imeobi Ohanaeze, Mrs. Maria Okwo, said yesterday in Enugu that Igbo women support the Prof. Ben Nwabueze-led Concerned Igbo Leaders of Thought in rejecting the modalities for the proposed National Conference.

Mrs. Okwo, who said the modalities were in contrast with the yearnings of the Igbo, faulted the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, for endorsing the modalities.

Igbo women, she said, disagreed with the report of the Femi Okurounmu-led committee, which suggested that the National Assembly would debate the outcome of the National Conference.

Mrs. Okwo said: “It is wrong. We should follow the footsteps of other countries where such decisions were subjected to a referendum. Ours should not be different. Sending it to the National Assembly will amount to nothing because they will kill it there.

“We (Igbo women) want a people’s constitution. The one we are operating is a military constitution imposed on us. The opportunity has arisen for us to give ourselves a people’s constitution and you want to send it to a handful of people to doctor it to their selfish taste?

“The President has convened a National Conference. What we do not want is another jamboree, which we experienced in the past. We have had two conferences – the Obasanjo conference and the Abacha conference. They came to naught.”

Chiding the Ohanaeze leadership for endorsing the modalities, the woman leader said the letter to President Goodluck Jonathan was to be signed by Prof. Nwabueze and the Ohanaeze President-General, Chief Enwo Igariwey, but he (Ohanaeze president-general) refused to sign it.

“Nwabueze was advised to call the aggrieved together and let us agree on our position paper on the National Conference as a body.

“A letter was printed and Nwabueze and Igariwey were asked to sign it. But the latter said he wanted to consult others. And that was the end. He never signed the letter. He refused to sign the letter. So, five people signed the letter, including Nwabueze,” Mrs. Okwor added.

February 5, 2014
Nwabueze: My position on conference patriotic

The leader of The Patriots and Igbo Leaders of Thought, Prof Ben Nwabueze has said the Chairman of Presidential Advisory Committee on National Conference, Senator Femi Okurounmu is not fair over his remarks on him on the proposed dialogue.

Okunrounmu had said Prof. Nwabueze did not have a grasp of the committee’s report which was sent to the president. He said the Igbo leader rushed into condemnation of the committee’s job regardless of the fact that it had met its terms of reference.

Nwabueze, in a statement noted that “the impression one gets from the Senator’s outpouring is that either he has himself not read the report of his committee or he read it without fully understanding it.”

“The report was obviously not written by him but by someone else, by the secretary of the committee apparently and he looked it over without fully digesting it,” he said.

He said the Okurounmu outpourings were carried by some newspapers all in a bid to denigrate him in unsavoury manner.

He maintained that Okurounmu’s statement that he often condemns whatever he does not participate in was uncharitable.

According to him, Okunrounmu said “It is known and well published in the media that Prof. Nwabueze is nursing an illusion that he is the Mr. know-all for Nigeria, who Mr. President should entrust with the sole responsibility of drafting the constitution of Nigeria.”

He maintained that he does not wish to be involved in issues with Okurounmu, who he had not met before. “I do not know him. I have not heard of him before his appointment as chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee and cannot make public imputation on his character by way of a resort to denigration of me.”

The Igbo leader said all the issues raised concerning the conference were genuine and patriotic calls to make the country better in terms of representation at the conference and its legality.

January 14, 2014
Igbo leaders reject Okurounmu Panel’s report

A major crisis of confidence has hit the planned National Conference, following yesterday’s insistence of Igbo leaders on a new constitution.

Unless the Prof. Ben Nwabueze-led Igbo leaders of thought are persuaded, a credibility crisis is imminent for the conference, which is likely to begin before the end of March.

The Igbo leaders of thought, after yesterday’s meeting in Enugu, rejected the proposal of the Presidential Advisory Committee, led by Senator Femi Okuroumu, which recommended the amendment of the constitution. They are also opposed to the proposed selection of delegates on the basis of senatorial zones or federal constituencies.

The Igbo leaders, at the end of their third meeting, also gave an indication that they had initiated an action aimed at reconciling the various factions in the pan-Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, that the Igbo should not be divided at the conference, they said.

The meeting was attended by prominent Igbo elders, including, Senator Anyim Ude, President-General of Ohanaeze, Chief Enwo Igariwey, Archbishop Maxwell Anikwenwa, Dr Okwesilieze Nwodo, Senator Offia Nwali, Dr Chu Okongwu, Chief Ben Obumselu, Dr Dozie Ikedife, Mrs Maria Okwor, Chief Enechi Onyia (SAN), Mr. Chris Okoye, Elliot Uko and Igwe Aja Nwachukwu, among others.

The secretary of the group and former Director General of the National Orientation Agency (NOA), Prof Elochukwu Amucheazi, told reporters that the Igbo position on the conference would be made public by the end of this month.

He said they were totally opposed to any recommendation that would have anything to do with the retention of any aspect of the 1999 Constitution. Only a new constitution would be acceptable to Nigerians, he said.

Amucheazi said the position of the Igbo leaders is that the conference should be for all ethnic nationalities, being the only way the people would be carried along in the process.

“The advisory council seems to be thinking of the amendment of the constitution and we met to see how to inform the president that this is not in order because we are thinking of an entirely new constitution. What we are saying is that we must have a way of informing the president and Nigerians that the recommendation is not in order and in trying to do this, you can see this is the meeting of Concerned Igbo Leaders of Thought and we are bringing in Ohanaeze to have a reconciliation in two weeks time because we want Ndigbo to be united in this.

“We want this country to survive and we are doing all in our power to make it survive. We are working out the content of the constitution and when we are through with it, we are going to invite all Igbo groups to have a say on it.

“In other words, Ndigbo have rejected the recommendation of PAC. If this is a conference of all nationalities, all ethnic nationalities should be represented. What we are saying is that if we are using the geo-political zones, we must make sure that all ethnic units are represented.

“Again, it is not delegates through adult suffrage by individuals on their own merit but that the ethnic nationalities will have a way of nominating people to it. So we are dealing with nationalities and this is an issue that seem to be misunderstood. We want ethnic nationalities and not senatorial zones,” he said.

The Igbo leaders also demanded that the new constitution should not pass through the National Assembly but should be subjected to a referendum.

The leadership crisis rocking Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Amucheazi said, will be sorted out at their next meeting on January 18.

January 7, 2014
‘How national conference can succeed’

In this piece, legal scholar Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) highlights the differences between the 2005 Abuja Political Conference and the proposed National Dialogue and offers suggestions on the mode of operation, membership composition and report ratification.

In February 2005, President Olusegun Obasanjo suddenly convened what he called the National Political Reform Conference (NPRC).

The charade did not end with the abrupt disbandment of the NPRC, but was continued by the National Assembly Joint Constitutional Reform Committee (JCRC) under the chairmanship of the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ibraham Mantu, whose main object was to obtain, by fraudulent manipulation, a semblance of public approval for the elongation of the President’s and state governors’ tenure of office.

Purpose of the proposed national conference and a legal framework for its operation

Being a palpable fraud, a farce, and programmed to come to nothing, the 2005 NPRC cannot in any way be equated with the proposed National Conference, or be used as a basis for saying that the latter will also come to nothing. As conceived, the proposed National Conference has a specific purpose, namely, to discuss and agree on the terms and conditions to be embodied in a new Constitution as the basis on which the diverse nationalities and peoples comprised in Nigeria can live together in peace, security, progress and unity as one country under a common central government. This is the primal purpose of the proposed National Conference, the crux or pivot of its agenda, and to which everything else is ancillary.

Given the above primal purpose for it, the initial problem facing the Conference is to fashion out a Legal Framework for convening and holding it, and for holding a Referendum to approve a Constitution adopted at the Conference. Without such a Legal Framework, the Conference cannot effectively take off as conceived, and will be doomed to fail as did the 2005 NPRC for the reason, among others, that, as earlier explained, there was no law establishing it and backing up its work. The task of fashioning out appropriate Legal Framework for the proposed National Conference has, happily, been entrusted to a Presidential Advisory Committee. No Committee of this type, with wide-ranging Terms of Reference, was set up in 2005 as a prelude to the convening of the NPRC, and to lay the foundation for its successful outcome. In any case, as earlier stated, fashioning a new Constitution for Nigeria was never part of the agenda or purpose of the NPRC.

Some years ago, in October 2001 to be precise, The Patriots prepared such a Legal Framework in the form of a Bill, titled the National Conference and Referendum Bill, which it submitted to the Presidency and the National Assembly. The Bill, after some revision, was re-submitted to the two bodies in 2013.

The long title of the Bill describes it as “A Bill for an Act to make provisions for convening a National Conference of the peoples of Nigeria for the purpose of discussing and adopting a new Constitution to be submitted for consideration and approval by the people of Nigeria at a Referendum and matters ancillary thereto.” The long title thus provides a clear enough description of the character of the Conference proposed. This is reaffirmed by a declaration in a Preamble that the Conference is “a Conference of the nationalities and ethic groups comprised in this Nation so as to give them the opportunity to exercise their inherent right to determine democratically for themselves the Constitution by which they wish to be governed in one united Nigeria” (emphasis supplied). The Preamble further declares that the need for the Conference arises from the fact that the Constitution under which the country is governed “came into existence as a result of a Decree enacted by the Federal Military Government.”

The Bill then goes on to spell the process for holding a Referendum for the approval of the Constitution by the entire mass of the people, which is to bestow legally binding force upon it.

A Referendum of the people to approve the Constitution is the most fundamental aspect of the whole process. It is no doubt a novel process in the country, but that is what is legitimately due to the Nigerian people– an opportunity, for the first time since the creation of the Nigerian state in 1914, to adopt, through Referendum, a Constitution by and for themselves in exercise of the constituent power inherent in them as a‘sovereign people, not just to make an input in the amendment of an imposed Constitution. It is their birthright as a sovereign people, a birthright of which they have long been denied, first, by our British colonial masters, then, by our military masters, and, now, by our so-called democratic rulers in the Presidency and the National Assembly. There is no justifiable reason for continuing to deny them that birthright.

Given an existing legal order, constituted by a Constitution, the principle of the Rule of Law, by a Legislative Assembly, a Presidency, a Judiciary and other instrumentalities of government, such as we have in Nigeria, a National Conference to adopt a People’s Constitution, and a Referendum to approve the Constitution so adopted, must be authorised by a law enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by the President, in the terms set out in The Patriots’ Bill. There is no way a Referendum can be held in the country under the existing legal order without an enabling law prescribing how it is to be conducted, its outcome and the force of the result in law. People cannot just troop out to vote in a referendum. Anything else outside the legal framework set out in The Patriots’ Bill can only take place by way of a revolution, such as happened in the eight African countries where the Conference took place outside the pre-existing legal order. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether such a revolution can take place in Nigeria, as things are at present. The impediments are too many and too great.

Sections 16(1) and 17(8) of the Bill deserve to be specially noticed. Section 16(1) provides : “The Chairman and Secretary of the National Conference shall certify the Draft Constitution as passed by the National Conference and lodge authenticated copies thereof with the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall cause it to be laid before the appropriate House but the said Draft Constitution shall not be subject to any change or amendment by any of these authorities.” (emphasis supplied).

Section 17(8) says : “… the Draft Constitution for the Federal Republic of Nigeria adopted and passed by the National Conference shall become law and be binding on all persons and authorities when and if there is a majority of ‘YES’ votes at the Referendum approving it….”

Thus, the National Conference and Referendum Bill prepared by The Patriots sets out in clear enough terms an appropriate Legal Framework for the proposed National Conference. The Presidential Advisory Committee may propose amendments to it.

The vexed question whether the conference has the character of a sovereign body

The Legal Framework for the convening and holding of a National Conference and a Referendum, as set out above, does not confer upon the Conference the character of a Sovereign National Conference. It is a contradiction, both in ideas and in terms, to demand a Sovereign National Conference when a sovereign government is still in place and in control; you must first displace or emasculate the latter before you can have an SNC, as was the case in the eight African states of Benin, Togo, Congo (Brazzaville), Niger, Mali, Chad, Gabon and Zaire in the period 1990 to 1993.

For the sake of a proper understanding of the meaning of the term, “Sovereign National Conference”, it needs to be explained that the provisions in The Patriots’ Bill to the effect that a Constitution adopted at the National Conference “shall not be subject to any change or amendment” by the National Assembly or the Presidency (section 16(1)), and that the Constitution, so adopted, “shall become law and be binding on all persons and authorities” directly it is approved at a Referendum (section 17(8)), do not make the Conference a sovereign body, in the strict sense of the term, inasmuch as the finality of its decisions and the legally binding force of the approval of its decisions by the Referendum derive from a law enacted by the sovereign legislative authorities under the country’s existing legal order.

But refusal by the National Assembly or the Presidency to enact into law, the provisions in sections 16(1) and 17(8) of the Bill, or to abide by them after their enactment into law, will be a test of the ability of the Nigerian people, in spite of the impediments, to assert and demonstrate their power and supremacy as the repository of the country’s sovereignty and the source of the sovereign power exercised by the legislative and executive organs of government. From the contest of power over this issue between the sovereign government and the people as the ultimate sovereign, the National Conference may emerge as a sovereign body.

Ensuring the adoption of a suitable new constitution by the conference

Ensuring that the National Conference adopts a suitable new Constitution for the country raises a problem perhaps more troublesome and more perplexing than the issue of fashioning out appropriate Legal Framework; the problem is not taken care of by fashioning out an appropriate Legal Framework. Unless the adoption of a suitable new Constitution for the country is ensured and is realised, it (i.e. the Conference) may become a talk-shop, as did the 2005 NPRC, without achieving its primal purpose, which is to give us a new Constitution. It would thus be a failure, as asserted by those opposed to the idea. To ensure the accomplishment of this primal purpose, the Conference, when it convenes, must have before it, a Draft new Constitution to form the basis of its deliberations; without this, its meetings are bound to become a talk-shop and will not accomplish their primal purpose. Clearly, a situation where every Nigerian or every member of the Conference may submit a Draft new Constitution for consideration by the Conference will result in the Conference having before it too many Draft Constitutions, which may make it difficult for it to accomplish its primal purpose.

Thus, the problem boils down to the issue of a modus operandi for the Conference.

But, whilst the Committee’s recommendations are awaited, it seems clear that we cannot run away from the imperative necessity of having a Constitution Drafting Committee. The Okurounmu Presidential Advisory Committee itself is not envisaged as a Constitution Drafting Committee, and is neither intended nor mandated by its Terms of Reference to function as one. The job requires a specialist committee of experts.

A Constitution Drafting Committee was part of the modus operandi used in making the 1979 Constitution. The Federal Military Government (FMG) had in 1976, by an executive instrument, set up a Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) of 49 members (the 50th member, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, declined to serve) composed of prominent lawyers, men and women knowledgeable in the principles and practice of statescraft, and other seasoned experts/specialists (the 49 Wise Men, as they came to be known), to prepare a Draft Constitution. A Draft was duly prepared by the Committee. Thereafter, the FMG enacted a Decree establishing a Constituent Assembly – the Constituent Assembly Decree 1977 – corresponding more or less to the proposed National Conference. As constituted under the enabling Decree, the Assembly had 230 members, of whom 20 were appointed by the FMG, seven were the Chairman of the CDC (Chief FRA Williams SAN) and the chairmen of its six sub-committees (I was one of the six), and the remaining 203 members were elected, not directly by the people, but by the local government councils acting as electoral colleges.

But the important point to note as regards the issue of modus operandi is that the Draft Constitution prepared by the CDC was laid before the Assembly and formed the authorised basis for its deliberations. The enabling law required the Draft Constitution to be presented in the Assembly in the form of a Bill, which the Assembly was to deliberate upon following a procedure of first and second readings and detailed clause by clause consideration in a committee of the whole Assembly. The procedure allowed for amendments to be moved by members. Indeed, an amendment seeking to replace the presidential system proposed in the Draft with the parliamentary system of cabinet government was rigorously pressed upon the Assembly in two different forms and lost : see Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, Official Report, vol. 11, cols 1943 – 55; cols. 1981 – 8. The Chairman of the CDC and the Chairmen of its six sub-committees, sitting in the front benches, were assigned the responsibility of piloting the Draft Constitution Bill through the Assembly. It needs to be stated, despite the controversy that arose over the issue between the Assembly and the FMG, that the 1977 – 78 Constituent Assembly was not a mere deliberative body, and that the substance, content and form of the 1979 Constitution were the product of its decisions, notwithstanding a few changes surreptitiously slipped in by the FMG at the last minute after the Constitution Bill had been passed by the Assembly. Such, then, was the modus operandi used in making the 1979 Constitution.

Recognising the imperative necessity of having before the proposed National Conference a suitable Draft ew Constitution to form the basis of its deliberations, I formed in the course of the Uyo National Political Summit the idea of getting a team of prominent lawyers, political scientists and other experts with specialist knowledge to work with me to prepare a suitable Draft new Constitution and, when the Draft is ready, to re-convene the Uyo Political Summit to have a thorough and critical look at it, and make such revisions and changes as may be considered necessary. The re-convened Uyo Political Summit would be a kind of mini National Conference. Leaders from the various geo-political Zones attending the Summit will be duly inducted to mobilize and enlighten participants from their Zones on the provisions in the Draft in order to facilitate deliberations on it and its adoption at the National Conference proper.

As I said in my last letter, dated October 31, 2013, to the 15 members of my Committee of lawyers, political scientists and other experts, drawn from the six geo-political Zones,, “unless the National Conference, when it convenes, has before it a Draft New Constitution, to be piloted by people well acquainted with its provisions and well inducted on what is necessary to be done to get it adopted, the Conference may lose focus and degenerate into a talk-shop and end without achieving anything, like the previous ones”.

In preparing a Draft, we will look at Drafts prepared by Pronaco, The Patriots, the amendments/revisions made on the 1999 Constitution or under consideration by the National Assembly, and proposals from other quarters, as well as the constitutions of some other African countries. When my Committee completes its work, then, its Draft, with changes made on it by the re-convened Uyo National Political Summit, will be sent to the Presidency, the National Assembly, and the Presidential Advisory Committee if its life/mandate has not expired by the effluxion of the time given to it to wind up its work and turn in a report.

Chairmanship of the conference

It needs hardly be emphasised that the character of the proposed National Conference, and its success or failure, would be determined, to a great extent, by the credentials, the personality and forcefulness of character of its Chairman. He or she must be a person with a considerable measure of acceptability in the Northern and Southern segments of the country, and whose mind, attitude and disposition are not known to be unduly conditioned or otherwise affected by the North-South Divide, which must be acknowledged as among the worst of the country’s many afflictions – a person who, therefore, commands the confidence of the generality of people in both segments. In addition, he or she must be a person whose age and condition of health leave him or her sufficient physical strength as well as mental and emotional stability to be able to withstand the enormous strain and stress of piloting, mediating and moderating the proceedings of the Conference, which are expected to be stormy, even acrimonious, a task that would tax the patience of even the Biblical Job.

It is as well that the President, as the authority to appoint the Chairman of the Conference, should start right away to give serious thought to the choice of a person to chair it. The choice is not going to be an easy one, because there are not many Nigerians that meet the above criteria.

November 27, 2013