The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Constitution

  • Is a new constitution realistic?

    Is a new constitution realistic?

    Is The Patriots’ call for a new constitution realistic? What are the options? Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE wades through the historical, political, legal, cultural, and institutional reasons why producing a wholly new Constitution may be easier said than done.

    Calls for a new constitution in Nigeria are neither new nor surprising.

    From military rule through the return to democracy in 1999, the Nigerian political community has repeatedly debated whether the 1999 Constitution (as amended) can provide a firm foundation for national unity, stability, and development.

    A group known as The Patriots recently joined this chorus, advocating the production of an entirely new constitution to reflect the people’s aspirations.

    Yet, while the idea appears attractive in principle, the practical reality is far more complicated.

    Constitution-making in plural, multi-ethnic, and politically divided societies is usually fraught with obstacles.

    In Nigeria’s case, historical legacies, entrenched interests, institutional weaknesses, and socio-political dynamics make the task of producing a brand-new constitution extremely difficult.

    Chair of The Patriots and former Commonwealth Secretary General Chief Emeka Anyaoku, at a three-day emergency national constitutional summit organised by the Eminent Patriots of Nigeria, in partnership with the Nigerian Political Summit Group (NPSG), dismissed the 1999 Constitution as a military imposition.

    He believes that the country’s pluralistic nature requires a new constitution.

    He said: “Nigeria is a pluralistic country, and like all successful pluralistic countries around the world, for its stability and maximal development, its constitution must address its problems.

    “Second, it must address its pluralism by being formulated by elected representatives of its diverse people.

    “Our present 1999 Constitution, as amended, is not such a constitution. It was not democratically formulated.

    “It was instead imposed on the country through a decree by the military administration.”

    He argued that the governance system derived from the constitution is, therefore, faulty.

    “As a result, what we see is our nation’s need for a new constitution…

    “The present 36 federating units are incapable of generating and sustaining the pace of national development achieved in the early years of our independence under the 1963 Constitution.”

    He called for “a constitution that would be in sync with the Constitution of the United States, a constitution of successful pluralistic countries around the world”.

    Anyaoku disagreed with those who argue that a new constitution is not the answer.

    Former Body of Benchers Chairman Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) and Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), himself a member of The Patriots, believe a new constitution is needed.

    Olanipekun, in an interview, wondered who the “people” referred to in the preamble of the constitution are, arguing that no singular person can assume the pronoun ‘we’.

    He recalled that the 1999 Constitution was promulgated by the military after the Constitution Debate Co-ordinating Committee, led by Justice Niki Tobi, submitted its report.

    The committee, he noted, barely had two months to consult with Nigerians before submitting its report.

    Olanipekun said: “The report was merely advisory and cannot by any means of argument answer the question ‘who are the ‘we’?”

    “The National Assembly has to put on the right ‘thinking cap’ to completely overhaul the present constitution.

    “This has been my sing-song and homily in several presentations, and it is a patriotic call which we can only neglect at our own collective peril.”

    Read Also: Police charge 333 to court over alleged electoral violence in Kano

    Dr. Agbakoba had also called for a new constitution that would have the input of the “owners of Nigeria”.

    He, however, said a new constitution can be possible through “substitution”.

    Some believe a new constitution is not the answer.

    One of such persons is former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who said at The Patriots’ event, that Nigeria rather needs the right operators of the constitution instead of a perfect document.

    He said: “For me, no constitution can ever be regarded as perfect.

    “But whatever the strength or weakness of a constitution, the most important issue, to my understanding and experience, is the operators of the constitution.”

    Highlights of The Patriots’ draft bill

    • Constituent Assembly: To be elected on a non-partisan basis and include special interest groups, overseen by INEC.

    • Referendum: The draft constitution must be approved by Nigerians in a national referendum before adoption.

    • True federalism: Return powers to federating units, with states/regions possibly having their own constitutions.

    • System of government: Reconsider the expensive presidential system; possible shift toward a more affordable structure.

    • Legislature: Review bicameral system; reduce cost of governance.

    • Elections: One-day general elections, electronic transmission of results, diaspora voting, ban on defections (defectors lose seats).

    • Security: Introduce state police, border and coastal guards.

    • Judiciary: Decentralised court system; special courts for corruption and terrorism; separate Attorney-General from Minister of Justice.

    • Rights & Equity: Guarantee socio-economic rights (education, security, jobs) and gender equity in representation.

    Why a new constitution is no tea party

    General Abdulsalami Abubakar’s Provisional Ruling Council convened a Constitution Debate Coordinating Committee in 1998, which in turn relied heavily on the 1979 Constitution.

    After some adjustments, the military promulgated Decree No. 24 of 1999, ushering in the current document.

    Because it was not directly subjected to a popular referendum, critics argue that the constitution lacks legitimacy.

    However, this same origin complicates the possibility of replacing it outright.

    The Nigerian constitutional tradition is deeply shaped by top-down imposition, rather than bottom-up participation.

    A transition toward a fully participatory constitution-making process would require breaking with entrenched patterns of governance, something the political elite may resist.

    Legal entrenchment

    The constitution itself makes its replacement difficult. Section 9 prescribes an elaborate amendment procedure requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the National Assembly, plus approval by two-thirds of state Houses of Assembly.

    No provision explicitly allows for the wholesale replacement of the constitution.

    Therefore, any attempt to draft a new one would face a paradox: the 1999 Constitution would have to permit its own death.

    In practice, courts are likely to insist that any “new Constitution” must arise through the strict amendment process, thereby preventing an outright replacement.

    Political elite resistance

    It will be unrealistic to expect the current political elite to agree to a completely new constitution.

    For some, it may amount to willingly legislating away their powers and giving up the advantages they enjoy.

    Nigeria’s political elite benefit from the current constitutional arrangement, however flawed it may be.

    Governors wield enormous powers within their states; legislators enjoy privileges and control over appropriations, and the presidency commands immense executive authority.

    A new constitution could threaten these advantages by redistributing powers, enhancing checks and balances, or imposing stricter accountability.

    The National Assembly would inevitably play a central role in any constitutional overhaul.

    Yet, history shows that lawmakers are often reluctant to embrace reforms that dilute their influence or adversely affect those they represent.

    It took a lot of compromises for the Tax Reform Bills to be passed into Law.

    Previous constitutional amendment efforts — including proposals on devolution of powers, state police, and local government autonomy — have repeatedly failed due to legislative resistance.

    Expecting the same body to endorse an entirely new constitution is therefore unrealistic.

    Besides, Nigeria’s political culture is heavily based on patronage networks.

    A new constitution would likely require reforms that curtail corruption, enforce fiscal responsibility, and limit executive discretion.

    Political elites who thrive within the current patronage system may see little incentive in endorsing such sweeping changes.

    Federalism and ethno-regional divisions

    Nigeria’s diversity — with over 250 ethnic groups, multiple religions, and wide socio-economic disparities — makes constitutional consensus elusive.

    Each region or group interprets the “federal question” differently.

    Some demand restructuring to grant states greater autonomy; others fear such restructuring will weaken the centre and fuel secessionist tendencies.

    Northern states often prefer a strong central government, fearing that decentralisation may reduce their political influence.

    Southern states tend to push for true federalism, resource control, and state police.

    Minority groups worry about being dominated by larger ethnic blocs if too much power is devolved.

    These conflicting interests mean that attempts to design a brand-new constitution could quickly descend into regional bargaining, walkouts, or stalemate.

    Ongoing separatist agitations — from Biafra movements in the Southeast to Yoruba self-determination groups in the Southwest — complicate matters further.

    A new constitution-making process could inadvertently provide secessionists with a platform to amplify their demands, thereby derailing consensus.

    Institutional constraints

    Effective constitution-making requires strong, credible institutions to manage dialogue, enforce procedures, and guarantee fairness.

    Unfortunately, Nigeria’s institutions remain fragile. Electoral bodies, legislative committees, and even judicial institutions are frequently accused of partisanship.

    Without impartial institutions, any constitution-making process risks being manipulated for partisan advantage.

    The judiciary could become a stumbling block.

    Courts may be asked to interpret whether the constitution-making process is lawful under the current legal framework.

    Given Nigeria’s history of judicial conservatism, the judiciary might strike down efforts that do not strictly comply with Section 9 amendment procedures.

    It may even take years before the Supreme Court eventually decides appeals that will arise from such a decision.

    Economic and logistical burdens

    Constitution-making is expensive. Convening a constituent assembly, organising nationwide consultations, drafting, and conducting a referendum would require billions of naira.

    In a country facing fiscal constraints, mounting debt, and pressing socio-economic challenges (inflation, unemployment, insecurity), allocating such resources could provoke public resentment.

    Will the Federal Government be willing to release such funds?

    Even after producing a new constitution, implementing its provisions could require massive restructuring: new institutions, adjusted revenue allocation formulas, and possibly new tiers of government.

    These carry additional financial burdens that the Nigerian state may not be prepared to shoulder.

    Is there any way out?

    Dr Agbakoba recognises this challenge and has advocated the adoption of what is called “substitution.”

    “The current National Assembly has the powers to facilitate this process under the constitution.

    “National Assembly can adopt wholesale constitutional replacement as suggested by the late eminent scholar Prof. Ben Nwabueze under sections 4(1) and 315(1) (a) & (4) of the 1999 Constitution, he said.

    What was Prof Nwabueze’s idea?

    From an analysis by a legal expert, Collins Okeke, a core pillar of Prof. Nwabueze’s argument rested on the distinction between the “Federal Republic of Nigeria” as a sovereign nation-state, and the “Federation” as the collection of component units that make up Nigeria (i.e., the states and the Federal Capital Territory).

    Prof. Nwabueze drew attention to Section 2 of the Constitution, which separately defines these two entities.

    Section 2(1) describes Nigeria as “one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” while Section 2(2) states that “Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of states and a Federal Capital Territory.”

    With this distinction in mind, Prof. Nwabueze interpreted Section 4(1) of the constitution, which vests the legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the National Assembly, as granting the Assembly the power to legislate on matters related to Nigeria’s national sovereignty.

    Meanwhile, he saw Section 4(2), which empowers the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation, as pertaining to legislation that impacts the component units of the Federation.

    Okeke noted that if one accepts Prof. Nwabueze’s interpretation, the logical next question is: under what circumstances can the National Assembly legitimately invoke its Section 4(1) powers to legislate for the Federal Republic as a whole, rather than just the Federation?

    Dr. Agbakoba, expanding on Prof. Nwabueze’s paper, suggested that this power could be exercised in times of grave national importance or when there is an existential threat to the corporate existence of the Federal Republic.

    He cited examples, such as the invocation of the “Doctrine of Necessity” in 2010 to appoint Goodluck Jonathan as Acting President following the incapacitation of then-President Umaru Yar’Adua, and the potential creation of a new constitution, given its far-reaching implications for the nation.

    Nigeria has been on a journey to find a suitable model that will give the constitution acceptability and legitimacy.

    With national conferences and the present model of alteration failing to win popular and legitimate acceptance, could Prof. Nwabueze’s third model be the answer?

    In advocating for this third model, Prof. Nwabueze made a distinction between “sovereign” constitutions, which are written by the people through a Constituent Assembly or similar body, and “statutory” constitutions, which are enacted by a sovereign parliament.

    He pointed out that all of Nigeria’s constitutions to date have been statutory.

    The 1960 Independence Constitution was a schedule to an Order-in-Council of the British Government, the 1963 Republican Constitution was enacted by parliament simply repealing the 1960 Order-in-Council and replacing it with a new constitution, and the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions were schedules to military decrees.

    Building on this, Prof. Nwabueze argued that the National Assembly has the power to repeal the current 1999 Constitution, which was enacted via Decree 24 of 1999, and replace it in its entirety with a new constitution.

    He believed this power derives from Sections 4(1) and 315(1)(a) & (4) of the Constitution.

    Section 315(1)(a) provides that an existing law shall be deemed an Act of the National Assembly to the extent that it is a law with respect to any matter on which the National Assembly is empowered by this Constitution to make laws.

    Prof. Nwabueze contended that since the National Assembly has the power under Section 4(1) to legislate for the Federal Republic, and the 1999 Constitution (Promulgation) Decree is a law on a matter the National Assembly can legislate on, it can therefore repeal and replace the decree, and by extension, the Constitution.

    Ozekhome: Legislature should facilitate new Constitution

    Ozekhome believes the legislature should be an enabler of the constitution, not the originator.

    He stated: “It is axiomatic that under constitutional democracy, sovereignty resides in the people.

    “The legislature, while clothed with enormous powers of lawmaking, is not the primary source or originator of the people’s will.

    “Rather, it is a conduit-a servant and enabler-of that will.

    “Nigeria’s National Assembly, as presently constituted, draws its powers from the 1999 Constitution, which is itself a product of military fiat, not of popular affirmation of the people.

    “This reality raises a fundamental legal-philosophical contradiction: can a creature of a flawed document presume to re-birth it? Can a child reconfigure its own paternity?

    “The National Assembly, being a product of a schedule attached to Decree No. 24 of 1999, cannot, ab initio, claim any right to author a new grundnorm that overrides its own existential basis.

    “All it can do is to amend, amend and amend the flawed Constitution under section 9 thereof.

    “The reason is that being the tail (representative agent), it cannot wag the dog (the people that own the will).

    “The National Assembly’s attempts at constitutional amendment – however noble-have therefore largely been elitist and parliamentary, not popular or plebiscitary.

    “Several constitutional alteration bills have been passed (up to five already); yet none has bridged the democratic gap of a sovereign national consensus.

    “None has dared to make Chapter 2 justiciable (the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principle of State Policy). They would never!

    “The people thus watch from the sidelines as professional politicians hold sway over what should be their social contract.

    “That is akin to medical doctors prescribing medication to patients they have not examined.

    “The people’s voice is conspicuously absent in the very document that governs their lives.

    “The legislative arm must therefore reposition itself-not as the progenitor of a new Constitution, but as the facilitator of a new constitutional order birthed by the people themselves through a referendum.”

    According to Ozekhome, Nigeria must jettison the illusion that piecemeal amendments can yield a legitimate, people’s Constitution.

    He strongly believes that a referendum-based Constitution would erase the ghost of military rule and birth a fresh beginning and identity for Nigeria.

    “It would convert cynical citizens into patriotic stakeholders.

    “It would replace imposed obedience with inspired allegiance,” the SAN contended.

    On the steps to be taken, Ozekhome summarised: “Let the President or National Assembly initiate an enabling Executive Bill; let the National Assembly pass it into law.

    “Let the process commence towards a truly people-led constitutional process.

    “Let the Constituent Assembly deliberate and agree on a draft new Constitution.

    “Let the National Assembly, in its new law, mandate INEC to organise a people’s referendum.

    “Let civil society and other stakeholders mobilise town halls, public debates, and grassroots dialogues to aid the Constituent Assembly.

    “Let the courts be courageous in defending the people’s right to re-found their nation.

    “Let the press amplify, not suppress. Let the young rise and the old lead by example and with conscience.

    “Let it be said of this generation: They inherited a broken Constitution. They rebuilt it and gave us a new one.”

    Whether the dream of The Patriots will become a reality remains to be seen.

    Aside from the obstacles, which make it a long shot, opinion will remain divided on whether Nigeria necessarily needs a new Constitution or better leaders.

    But there is no doubt that the persistent calls by patriotic intellectuals and elder statesmen under The Patriots reflect genuine dissatisfaction with the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

  • Constitutional matters

    Constitutional matters

    Apart from a flag, an anthem and a seat on the United Nations, the one other thing that was needed to define a new nation was a written constitution. There was a time when a national airline was another fixture of a new nation status but that seems to have passed out of fashion now, as the ownership of airlines, has been cornered by a few Middle East countries.  But when Nigeria became independent all those many years ago, she came equipped with an airline which like many things associated with that period has subsequently become extinct. There was also a time when even the Nigerian constitution like the Nigerian Airways was simply swept aside or if the truth be told, just discarded like a spent rag by home-grown coup makers.

    When Nigeria became independent in 1960, she had a brand-new constitution to go with that status. That constitution was painstakingly put together under British supervision at Lancaster House in London, the traditional venue of other Commonwealth constitutional talks. There, Nigerian political leaders and traditional rulers; emirs, obas and ezes, from each of the existing three regions met to produce the document which was to lay down the principles which were to guide the new country on what was hoped was the path of peace, progress and unity. At least, that was the aim of that exercise.

    In deference to the ethnic and other diversities which governed the country, it was decided that a federal system based on the three regions existing at the time should be adopted. The desire to create a Federation was dictated by the need to protect the autonomy of the three regions which existed at the time. Other salient points adopted included a parliamentary system of government with a bicameral legislature, three regional governments as well as a ceremonial head of state who at independence was also the representative of the English crown in Nigeria. It was by no means a perfect document, but it was far from being a complete disaster when it came into operation. However, there were also signs of stress from the get-go. But these could be appreciated for what they were or appeared to be; teething problems. In any case, the Independence constitution had been designed with a life span of no more than three years as it expired quietly in 1963 to be replaced by the Republican constitution when Nigeria was transformed into a Republic within what was known at the time as the British Commonwealth.

    The first serious challenge to the new constitution was mounted predictably, some may say, by forces in the Western Region, the seat of the of the official (loyal) opposition to the Federal government. Following the inconclusive Federal elections of December 1959, the NPC made up of Northern elements formed a governing alliance with the NCNC, the ruling party in the Eastern Region leaving the AG from the West in opposition. Within a few months however, the AG imploded and plunged the Western Region into crisis which led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the opposition Federal government as early as 1962. From this point on, the Federation began to unravel, principally along ethnic lines, leaving the constitution in tatters. From then on, crisis after crisis undermined the viability of the Federation and then the Republic, to such an extent that by January 1966, the military overthrew the civilian government and tossed the constitution into the dustbin. Sixty years later, we have not yet come to terms with settling a viable constitutional agenda for Nigeria, a situation which has hamstrung our national development to a significant extent.

    For all the noise over ⁷written national constitutions these days, one may be forgiven for not knowing that they are a modern invention. The first constitution that was made to measure was put together by the framers of the American constitution which was designed to monitor the interaction between American citizens living in one of the states on the eastern seaboard of the nascent country now known as the United States. It also regulated the relationship between the various states which made up the new country. Virtually all countries since then has arrived fully clothed with a written constitution.

    Read Also: Patriots demand new constitution, support independent candidature 

    By far the most memorable words of the American constitution as frequently pointed out by Nigerian commentators are the first three words; ‘We, the people’. These are the same words on the Nigerian constitution. They are there to give ownership of the constitution to the people for whom the document was written as it was supposed to have done to the original users of those words. But who indeed are the people referred to here? In the case of the American constitution, it is clear that a significant number of people, if not a majority of them were excluded from consideration as people. Women and Blacks were, for example not enfranchised members of the community. Women were denied the vote until 1920 and there are still parts of the USA where black people cannot take their voting rights for granted. As for the men, most of them were excluded from the process of constitution making as only the members of the elite were even aware that there were people who had been saddled with the responsibility of producing a constitution to be used to guide the affairs of the new republic. The writers of the American constitution were representatives of the original states which made up the republic in 1783. However it would be stretching things too far to refer to them as the people. As for the constitution of Nigeria, it was put together by a committee which was handpicked by military governments, first in 1979 and then in 1999. This may explain why the respective constitutions which were fostered on the country were virtual copies of each other. From this point of view, those who question the legitimacy of ascribing the Nigerian constitution to the people of Nigeria have a valid case in point. It can be argued that there is no way that a document generated at the behest of the unrepresentative Nigerian military can be ascribed to ‘we the people’ of Nigeria.

    The first military constitution of 1979 prescribed the presidential system of government for Nigeria in the imitation of what is practised in the USA, complete with state governors, bicameral legislature, an independent Judiciary as well a separation of powers between the Presidency, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

    The Republican constitution was trashed in 1966 and replaced with a unitary system with twelve states, the number of which had increased to nineteen by the time that the military handed over power to civilians under the 1979 constitution. This put an end to the elaborate Regional system which had been designed to manage the diverse ethnic and religious differences which existed within the country. There are many who think that the inadequacies of that constitution were responsible for the abject failure of the civilian government which had been put in place to rule the country on its basis. A shade over four years after the return to civil rule, the military were back, barking orders at the civil population. Within a few months after the military seized the power they had only recently relinquished, it was clear that they were out of their depth as they stumbled from one fiasco to the other. Since they were adept at the management of violence however, there was little if anything that the powerless civilians could do to ameliorate the discomforts of those days. Consequently, for sixteen sterile years, the military rode rough shod over the rest of us. And when they were finally shamed into dropping the reins of power, they had no qualms about dusting off the 1979 constitution which had failed so spectacularly and hanging it around our collective neck. 

    • To be continued.
  • The challenge of constitution review (1)

    The challenge of constitution review (1)

    The National Assembly is, once again, taking Nigeria through another round of constitution amendment. In the past, the periodic exercise yielded only token results. Would the outcome of the piecemeal review be different this time round?

    The need for a review is premised on the discovery of certain gaps, omissions, and defects in the 1999 Constitution, which have always elicited complaints and criticisms among the various stakeholders.

    The constitution has been variously described as a unitary project, an imposition by the military, and a document that stifles federalism. It has been viewed as an inexplicable instrument for strengthening the centre to the detriment of the sub-national units that are expected to be coordinated with the distant, powerful central authority.

    The national document stipulates the fundamental principles the country must abide by and the direction the people should collectively take in the course of their governance journey. But it appears Nigerians, from the First Republic, have not collectively produced a truly “people’s constitution”.

    The 1999 Constitution has also come under attack for sustaining the imbalances in the so-called federal structure characterised by lopsided state and local government distribution among the over 250 ethnic groups lumped together by the colonial interlopers.

    For 26 years now, it has remained the bone of contention because of its inability to reshape fiscal relationships between the two critical tiers and guarantee a miniature opportunity for measurable resource control.

    The late legal luminary, Chief Rotimi Williams (SAN), once said that the constitution lied against itself when in its introductory passage it stated that “we the people,” when it was obvious that a military decree gave birth to it.

    The operators from 1999 to date have been lukewarm in redirecting energy to fundamental amendments that should lead to the devolution or decentralisation of power. While there is a consensus about the urgency of state police as a baseline for tackling insecurity, it is only being pursued at a snail’s speed.

    But, the meagre amendment recorded in the recent past has paled into an improvement on paper. While rail transportation has been decentralised, the states or groups of states at the regions are not exploring the opportunity for the growth of their domains.

    Read Also: Customs issues 21-day ultimatum to tap defaulters over N379.6bn bond breach

    Other initiatives, including the mechanisms of federal character, catchment area, and quota system introduced to foster equity or convey an impression of non-exclusion and non-marginalisation, have not added up. Critics allude to the elimination of merit and blockage of growth in certain regions to facilitate the progression to development in other regions.

    There is also the argument in some quarters that the constitution is not the problem; the obstacles, they say, are the operators. While the perceived flawed constitution is taken to the cleaners, the sub-national units are not eager or willing to really subject it to a judicial test, thereby depriving the country of a final pronouncement by the arbiter on some contentious issues generated by the document.

    There is the subsisting tension between the National Assembly, which is constitutionally empowered to review the document, and eminent Nigerians pushing for a new constitution under the banner of ‘The Patriots.’

    Among the Patriots are distinguished Nigerians who are former operators of the constitution, and those who defended the operation while they were in power. These include former ministers, governors, legislators, advisers, and ruling and opposition party chiefs. Also among The Patriots are retired diplomats of global repute, leaders of ethnic mouthpieces, rights activists, labour representatives, some traditional rulers, professionals, critics and other members of civil society. The feeling is that, although it is not an elected body and, therefore, may not pass the test of representativeness because a democratic mandate is doubtful, they mean well for the country.

    While it is hard for the ’eminent personalities group’ to deny the existence of a democratically elected central legislature, they are unwilling to submit their recommendations or proposal to it in the course of the review. Some critics prefer to intimidate the parliament with the nebulous argument that the legislators are products of defective elections. Yet, it is becoming increasingly hard to organise another jamboree and capital-intensive constitutional conference when the anticipated report may not be significantly different from the reports of the 2004 and 2014 confabs that are gathering dust.

    Certain categories of Nigerians derive pleasure from being delegates to the successive constitutional conferences. Instead of agitating for the implementation of previously accumulated reports, they are calling for a repeated conference and trying to blackmail the government into acceding to their proposal.

    Those pushing for another brand of parley, which is the Sovereign National Conference (SNC), are taking the country back to 1914, with the appeal that the basis for peaceful co-existence has not been properly agreed upon by the diverse ethnic groups in this highly heterogeneous country. They cleverly avoid the fact that in the fifties, the founding fathers – Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, and Nnamdi Azikiwe, among others – agreed on some basic principles.

    The argument of the proponents of the SNC is that federalism is the answer. This is correct, as it tallies with the vision of the pathfinders of history. That is why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who believes in federalism, should not spare efforts in making the Federal Government to fully devolve power to the sub-units in a constitutional manner. 

    But their call for regionalism has taken many Nigerians aback. While states in a region can cooperate and achieve economic integration, the call for the dismantling of the states and reversion to the regional structure of the pre-and independence era is illogical. The goals of unity in diversity and preservation of identities are defeated when, for example, the Igbo of Asaba, Urhobo, and Itshekiri now return to the old capital of Ibadan, and the Kanuri of Borno return to Kaduna. How can marginalisation be averted when the Efik, Ibibio, Ikwere, Ogoni, Andoni, and Ijaw return to Enugu?

    Also, the call for a return to the parliamentary system is misplaced. The circumstances surrounding the adoption of the current presidential system should not be forgotten. Those who recommended the switch in the 1978/’79 Constitution Review Committee and the Constituent Assembly were the operators of the cabinet system of the First Republic who witnessed the tension between President Nnamdi Azikiwe and Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa. Zik retorted that he, as the ceremonial president, could not imagine working with a power-loaded Head of Government. In fact, in 1964, the country was enveloped in apprehension when the President initially refused to call on the Prime Minister to form the government because he was not convinced about the integrity of the nationwide parliamentary elections.

    At the recent public hearings, the outstanding issues – local government autonomy, state and local government creation, boundary disputes, constitutional roles for traditional rulers, and resource control – came to the front burner.

    Despite the court ruling, autonomy for local government remains a burning issue. There was no proper understanding of the elevation of the council system into a third tier. It is an aberration that the local governments created by the states are listed in the Constitution. Autonomy is automatically hampered by the realisation that the Houses of Assembly retain the roles of creation, oversight, and prescription of rules and guidelines for the local governments. The councils were created as units of grassroots governance to cater for local concerns on behalf of the states. They are extensions of the state apparatus for ease of administration at the local level.

    The agitation for state creation is legitimate. The elite are protesting marginalisation, oppression, and exclusion in some states. They want some access to state resources, like their privileged rivals in the respective pre-existing states. But its feasibility is doubtful. The question is: how viable are some states?

    The military had committed the error of a lopsided distribution of states. Redressing the colossal injustice is problematic. In the Southwest, for instance, agitators are calling for six or more states. The pattern of agitation is the same in the other five geopolitical zones. The Southeast has a special case. It is protesting the inequality of five states against seven in the Northwest and six in other zones, despite its comparatively smaller landmass.

    The only solution is not to create more states. Another solution is to create one more state in each of the six regions. The best answer is to remove local government completely from the purview of the Federal Government and allow the states to create more local governments to foster inclusion, a sense of belonging and development.

    Monarchs are clamouring for roles in government, forgetting that their involvement in politics in the past republics created problems for them. Some of them were deposed for operating from the opposition side and treading the path of the inevitabilities of partisanship.

  • Southwest’s quest for a new constitution

    Southwest’s quest for a new constitution

    Southwest constitutional review conference depicts the zone’s eagerness for increased relevance in the country, ASSISTANT EDITOR EMMANUEL BADEJO reports.

    Efforts to review the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to capture current realities and position Nigeria for greater future are in top gear, courtesy of the Senate.

      In any democratic setting, the review of the constitution is a recurrent exercise. Nigeria has always been at it. Before the  independence in 1960, the nation’s constitution was said to have had more foreign content as many of the drafters were non-Nigerians.

    Even when more Nigerians were part of the process, the essence to capture new grounds and position the country for effective and efficient governance has always necessitated constitutional review.

    The 1999 Constitution, as has also been criticised as an instrument bequeathed to the country by the military. This has, however, gone through many reviews.

    But, to change the whole constitution has been a herculean task. While the National Assembly every four years engages in the process, the efforts have not yielded expected results.

    Historically, while some of the changes had not been supported by the community leaders, others failed to get the endorsement of the majority members of the Houses of Assembly.

    Notwithstanding, the National Assembly has not relented at getting the task of delivering a new constitution done for the country.

    Hence, the 10th Senate took the crusade to the six geo-political zones few days ago. For two days, the Senate listened to the public from all walks of life, as they presented their memoranda and advanced argument for their requests.

    Read Also: Keyamo inaugurates Ganduje, Kuku, six other governing board of FAAN

    The National Assembly’s Constitution Review Committee may conclude the exercise in December.

    This review is focused on addressing various issues, including federal structure and power devolution, local government autonomy, and strengthening the electoral process.

    The process involves public hearings, consultations, and engagement with various stakeholders.At the Southwest legislative proceeding, the response of stakeholders underscored an urgent need to have a new ‘people’s’ constitution.

    The event that held simultaneously at the six geo-political zones for two days was well attended.

    The Lagos venue, Water Cress Hotels, in  Ikeja, was filled to capacity as stakeholders including the executives, legislators at all levels, traditional rulers, community leaders, civil liberty organisations, religious and business groups showed up at the conference.

    Leader of the Senate and vice chairman, Senate Committee on Constitution Review, Dr. Opeyemi Bamidele, thanked participants for their presence.

    “I want to sincerely appreciate you all for your response at your expense. This shows your interest in governance and unwavering desire and commitment for a better Nigeria.”

    Bamidele, who didn’t perhaps expect the huge turnout, apologised for the space constraints.

    “Let me apologise for this venue. If we knew we would have this turnout, we would have spoken to Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu to give us Adeyemi Bero Hall. We’re sincerely sorry.

    “This turnout goes to show how much we desire a new constitution for our country. And, this is one of the processes that will give us a constitution of our dream, he said.”

    Justifying the exercise, the Senate Leader said though the process was not new, previous amendments did not resolve fundamental questions of governance affecting the country.

    According to him, the Upper Chamber noted that diverse initiatives it promoted to introduce state police; enshrine the roles of traditional institutions in the constitution, and devolve more powers to sub national governments, among others, in the previous amendments did not secure two-third approval at the state assemblies.

    Bamidele, who spoke on behalf of the Deputy President of the Senate and Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, Senator Barau Jibrin, said the need to continuously review the document was sacrosanct.

    Bamidele noted that previous amendments did not tackle several fundamental issues of national importance confronting the federation.

    According to him, there was a need “to come up with a constitution that will address the fundamental issues confronting Nigeria.

    “In response to the demands of Nigerians, the National Assembly has enacted five amendments to the Constitution, known as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Alteration Acts.

    These amendments, he added, addressed various issues related to good governance, institutional strengthening, and national aspirations.

    “However, several fundamental issues of national importance remain unresolved, requiring more than just routine law-making by the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly.

    “These issues continue to dominate public discourse with many Nigerians advocating for legislative action to address them.

    “We received hundreds of memoranda addressing key issues that have not yet been resolved by the previous amendments, mainly due to a lack of national consensus and the evolving dynamics of modern governance.

    He, thus, highlighted several fundamental issues that had not been decisively addressed to include electoral reforms and adjudication; judicial reforms focused on case management and administration; enhancement to local government administration, involvement of traditional institutions in contemporary governance, ensuring gender equity and inclusion in governance; devolution and distribution of powers and concerns related to security and policing, among others.

    Bamidele added that, the committee “has carefully reviewed and drafted all the memoranda that we have into bills. We are now presenting them to you all for further input and discussion.

    “Members of the committee hold no preconceived opinions to impose upon you but are committed to being guided by legislative practices grounded in the highest ethical standards, integrity, open-mindedness, and patriotism.”

    On the region’s requests, Bamidele said: “The request of the people of the South-West before us include Bill for creation of Ijebu State from Ogun State, Bill for creation of Coastal State from Ondo as well as Igbomina State from the three states of Osun, Ekiti and Kwara, bill for creation of Ibadan State from Oyo State as well as New Oyo State also from Oyo State with state capital in Oyo.

    “Others are bill for listing of created LCDAs into the constitution so as to be recognized as local government, bill for the excision of Orile Oko from Remo North Local Government into Obafemi-Owode Local Government of Ogun State, bill for boundary adjustment of Isheri Olofin Mole between Lagos and Ogun State as well as Bill to change Irewole Local Government in Osun State to Ikire.”

    Bamidele said that other demands that the 10th Senate is equally passionate about are constitutional roles for the traditional rulers as well as reserved seats for the women at both national and state assemblies.

    He added that in as much as the national assembly has always in the past wanted roles for the traditional rulers to be included in the constitution, the amendment had always failed because of the refusal of the 2/3 of the state House of Assembly of the federation to support the passage of this bill as ordered by the constitution.

    Bamidele said: “The last 1999 constitution amendment that we did during the 9th Senate, we almost got there, we almost succeeded with having constitutional roles for our traditional rulers but the law says that constitutional amendment required the approval of 2/3 of the state assemblies in our 36 States.

    “That is where it got stalled but I want to advise that as traditional rulers, you have to do a lot of advocacy, you have to take your case to a conference of Speakers of the state House of Assembly to get their support. You have to do a lot more too to talk to governors, present your case before the Governors’ Forum because that has always been where the challenge lies.”

    The governor of Lagos State, Mr. Babajide Sanwo-Olu represented by his deputy, Dr. Obafemi Hamzat lauded the gathering for providing the people of the Southwest the opportunity to have a fair say in the ongoing constitutional review.

    Sanwo-Olu however, who spoke for other governors in the zone added that, it will continue to amount to injustice if the 37 LCDAs created in the state in 2003 due to the growing population of the state, is not included in the constitution and allow to be recognized just like other local governments in the country.

    He explained that “For instance Alimosho Local Government with a population of almost same as Bayelsa State had to be broken into six LCDAs, even Kano with almost same population as Lagos State has 44 Local Governments, Jigawa with 27 local government was later created out of Kano State, yet Lagos is still expected to continue to have 20 Local Government.

    “It is just fair and proper to have the LCDAs created about 22 years ago to be listed into the country’s constitution and be given due recognition just like other local governments across the country.”

    Also, the Speaker of Ekiti State House of Assembly who doubles as the Chairman, Southwest of Speakers, Adeoye Aribasoye described the constitutional review as long overdue.

    Aribasoye stated that the lawmakers in the Southwest were bothered about issues of local government autonomy, legislature autonomy as well as constitutional roles for the traditional rulers adding that, his colleagues would do their best to support the passage of amendment of the constitution in these areas when the amended bill is sent to them.

    Speaking on behalf of the traditional rulers, Ooni of Ife, Oba Enitan Ogunwusi said that the demand of the traditional rulers to be given constitutional roles is not because they want to be rubbing shoulders with the government but to rather complement government’s efforts and be on the same page in providing qualitative leadership for the people.

    Oba Ogunwusi supported by other first class traditional rulers such as the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Abimbola Owoade; Olowo of Owo Kingdom, Oba Ajibade Ogunoye; Ayangburen of Ikorodu, Oba Kabiru Shotobi; Dagburewe of Idowa, Oba Sikiru Okuribido who represented the Awujale of Ijebu land, Oba Kayode Adetona, demanded that the ongoing constitutional amendment must put to rest the need for traditional institution to be given constitutional roles to enhance good governance in the country.

    The royal father said that already the traditional rulers are doing a lot in terms of providing security, conflict resolution and general sociocultural and socio-economic development of the country saying that having constitutional backing will further help to do so much for the betterment of the country.

    The royal father they were not asking for anything new, but only asking for the reinstatement of the constitutional roles.

    Making presentation for the creation of Ijebu State from Ogun State, a former governor of the state and Senator representing Ogun East at the Senate, Otunba Gbenga Daniel said that the move was necessary to correct over a century injustice meted out to people of Ijebu land.

    Daniel said that of all the provinces created by the colonial government over a 100 year ago such as Oyo, Sokoto, Ondo, among others only Ijebu Province has not been made a state.

    The Senator said that Ijebu land did not only have vast land and population but also have lots of resources both human and materials and it is economically viable to drive its development.

    According to him, the Remo people who seemed to be traveling a different route have also agreed to support the call for the creation of the new state as long as their name and identity are reflected in the new state such.

    They have therefore demanded that the new state should be called Ijebu Remo State just like Akwa-Ibom State.

    There were also presentations for the creation of New Oyo State from Oyo State, Ibadan from Oyo State, Coastal State from Ondo State, Igbomina State from Osun, Ekiti and Kwara States as well as reserved seats for the women at both national and state assemblies.

  • Senate to hold public hearing on Constitution review July 4

    Senate to hold public hearing on Constitution review July 4

    • •Bills on State creation, role for  rulers,  autonomy for councils, others top agenda

    The Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution will on July 4 and 5  hold  a  two-day zonal public hearing in the country’s six geo-political zones.

    The hearing is to gather citizens’ inputs on the proposed amendments.

    The committee, chaired by the Deputy  President of the Senate,  Barau Jibrin, said the public hearing  will be held simultaneously in Lagos (Southwest), Enugu (Southeast), Ikot Ekpene (Southsouth), Jos (Northcentral), Maiduguri (Northeast) and Kano (Northwest).

    The hearing will examine critical national issues, including local government autonomy, electoral and judicial reforms, state creation, state police and inclusive governance.

    The Special Adviser to the Deputy President of the Senate on Media and Publicity, Ismail Mudashir, in a statement, said one of the bills: “Proposes the establishment of local government councils as a tier of government to guarantee their democratic existence and tenure. This is part of a renewed push to grant full autonomy to the country’s 774 local government councils.

    “The second bill on local government reforms seeks to create an independent National Local Government Electoral Commission (NALGEC) to organise, conduct and supervise local government elections.

    “Also to be considered during the zonal public hearing are two bills on security and policing for the establishment of state police and state security council to coordinate internal security policies at the sub-national level.

    “In the area of fiscal reforms, six bills are going to be considered, including the one to empower the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation, and Fiscal Commission to enforce compliance of remittance of accruals into and disbursement of revenue from the Federation Account and streamline the procedure for reviewing the revenue allocation formula.

    “Also, on fiscal reforms, a bill to alter the provisions of the constitution to specify the period within which the president or the governor of a state shall present the appropriation bill before the National Assembly or House of Assembly will be discussed during the hearing.

    “In a fresh move toward gender equity, the Committee will also consider a bill to provide additional seats for women in the National and  Houses of Assembly.

    Read Also: Alia suspends aide arrested by EFCC over sextortion, cyberbullying

    “To strengthen traditional institutions, a Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution to establish the National Council of Traditional Rulers, the State Council of Traditional Rulers, and the Local Government Council of Traditional Rulers would also be considered.”

    He added: “On electoral reforms, a proposal seeking the amendment of the 1999 Constitution to allow for independent candidacy at all levels of election, from local councils to the presidency, will also be discussed at the public hearing.

    “This is just as a bill for diaspora voting to enfranchise Nigerians abroad has been listed for consideration.

    “The hearing will consider over 20 bills seeking to overhaul the country’s judiciary, including timelines for judgment delivery and expanded jurisdiction for election tribunals.

    “In a bold push for devolution of powers, proposals have been made to transfer items like labour and shipping from the Exclusive to the Concurrent Legislative List.”

    He said also to be considered during the “public hearing are 31 proposals on state creation, with five requests each from the South West, South South, and North Central geopolitical zones. The committee has received seven requests from the North East, six from the North West, and three from the South East.

    “The committee stressed the importance of public engagement in shaping the country’s constitution, calling everyone to participate during the zonal public hearing.”

  • Constitution amendment must address environmental rights

    Constitution amendment must address environmental rights

    SIR: The National Assembly has begun the constitutional amendment process, and as usual, all sorts of areas in the constitution have been proposed for amendment. One area that is often ignored but critical for Nigeria’s survival is the environment. The environment is not just an abstract policy area but the foundation upon which the economy, public health, and social stability rest.

    Nowhere is this more evident than in the Niger Delta region, where decades of oil pollution have created one of the world’s most severe environmental crises. Since oil’s discovery in 1958, this once-pristine ecosystem has endured systematic degradation, with conservative estimates indicating between nine and 13 million barrels of oil released into the environment. Recent data from the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency shows that between 2020-2021 alone, 822 separate oil spills released 28,003 barrels of oil into sensitive ecosystems.

    The human cost of this environmental devastation is immeasurable. Communities across the Niger Delta have seen their water sources contaminated, agricultural lands decimated, and fishing grounds destroyed. Health concerns, including respiratory diseases, skin conditions, and increased cancer rates, plague residents exposed to pollutants. The United Nations Environment Programme has concluded that remediation would require the world’s largest ever environmental clean-up operation, potentially lasting 30 years and costing over $1 billion.

    Yet, despite this catastrophe, oil companies frequently escape liability due to a critical constitutional loophole. Section 20 of the Constitution states that “the state shall protect and improve the environment,” but its placement within Chapter 2 (Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy) renders it non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution. This means affected communities cannot directly enforce this provision in court.

    Nigerian courts have attempted to bridge this gap through creative jurisprudence. In the landmark case, Jonah Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd & Ors, Suit No. FHC/B/CS/53/05, the Federal High Court held that the constitutional rights to life and dignity “inevitably include the right to a clean, poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment.” The Supreme Court affirmed this approach in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518), explicitly recognising that oil spills violate the constitutional right to life.

    However, these judicial efforts face significant limitations without explicit constitutional backing. Courts must perform interpretative gymnastics to establish that oil pollution violates fundamental rights. Oil companies continue to exploit constitutional ambiguity by arguing that environmental protection remains a non-justiciable policy objective rather than an enforceable right. Communities bear excessive evidentiary burdens to demonstrate how specific instances of pollution directly violate their constitutional rights.

    Read Also: INEC seeks constitutional, electoral act amendments ahead of 2027 elections

    The solution is clear: Nigeria needs a constitutional amendment that explicitly establishes environmental rights, particularly protection from oil pollution, as fundamental human rights directly enforceable under the constitution. This would involve relocating Section 20 from Chapter 2 to Chapter 4 of the constitution, with language clearly stating that oil pollution and other forms of environmental degradation constitute direct violations of fundamental rights.

    This would not be a radical departure from global practice. South Africa, Kenya, Ecuador, Portugal, and Brazil have all incorporated environmental rights into their constitutions’ fundamental rights chapters. These models have proven effective in enhancing accountability for corporate polluters.

    As Nigeria confronts multiple challenges requiring constitutional solutions, the environmental crisis in the Niger Delta demands equal attention. By amending the constitution to explicitly establish oil pollution as a violation of fundamental rights, the National Assembly can deliver long-overdue environmental justice to millions of Nigerians while creating a sustainable framework for the country’s future. Without constitutional protection for the environment, Nigeria’s development will remain fundamentally unstable and unsustainable.

    • Collins Okeke, Lagos.
  • ‘Constitution review should foster federalism’

    ‘Constitution review should foster federalism’

    Dr. Akin Fapohunda, Secretary-General of Western Region Organisation and member of Patriots, spoke about the constitution review and the imperative of restructuring as the key to federalism. Excerpts by EMMANUEL OLADESU

    What is your view on constitution review?

    We analogously have a huge “worn out cloth,” but we are patching it anew in 39 places. Is it useful to patch a cloth that is worn out in 39 places and expect a good outcome? The House of Representatives has come up anew with 39 proposed amendments. Members of the Senate have not come up with their own set of amendments. Eventually, we might have between 60 and 100 amendments in the Constitution.

    What a waste of valuable time of the country and its people. What we need is a readable prose, a Federal Constitution in not more than 30 pages We need to have a serious document that can be readable in just 30 pages, which all Nigerians can easily memorize and know what it’s all about.

    The original Constitution was written on four large sheets, using about 4500 words, including the 27 amendments since 1776, it now runs 7500 words. Printed on pocket-sized paper, it is just a 36-page document. The Nigerian Constitution on the other hand consists of 320 articles divided into eight chapters, running into almost 400 pages.

    What form of Constitution would you suggest?

    A holistic appraisal of our framework of governance is most appropriate, rather than just changing clauses that catche the fancy of some members of NASS. So, have they amended the revenue allocation formula? Have they acted on the winners take all electoral system? Have they amended the political party structure that would bring out well qualified candidates? What of the very bloated exclusive list of functions that only Abuja is burdened with?

    Overall and holistically, what NASS is proposing is till vague. Is it the French model? Are we using the British model? Why can’t they say that what we need is a federal with concurrent regional governments; with a two tier Constitutions in a decentralized system, and a clause that permits referendum in order to ascertain the wishes of the various ethnic nationalities?

    What is your appeal to the President on the constitution review?

    President Tinubu should set the agenda. We need to decentralise.  The views of eminent Nigerians like Dr. Emeka Anyaoku; Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), Mr Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Mr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN),  the late Chief FRA Williams; the late Professor Nwabueze and the late Chief Edwin Clark and Chief Ayo Adebanjo should be considered. They have made suggestions on the constitution review.

    Read Also: Edo moves to resolve dispute over ceding of oil wells to Delta state

    Let me give the President the credit that he is a very good person. When The Patriots paid him a visit last year; he said he was interested in the economy. I appeal to him to reconsider their suggestions.

    The President should take time to read and digest the Peoples Republic, a book written by Obafemi Awolowo.

    The report of the National Political Conference of 2014 was not implemented by former President Goodluck Jonathan. Can the report solve the problem?

    Timeliness is everything. If the report was implemented in 2014, that is 11 years ago, it would have made some sense. But the atmosphere in the country then is very different from what we have now. President Muhammadu Buhari later rule for eight years. All the compromises of 2014 have expired. Even if it was implemented in 2014, in 2025,  it is time now to forget the patch-up of 2014. We now need a fundamental change. A lot of water has passed under the bridge. Nigeria can no longer afford 18 additional states.

    Before leaving office, former President Buhari took some items – railways and electricity – from the Exclusive List to the Concurrent Listst. It that not a  form of decentralisation?

    Our problem is more complex than applying cosmetic changes to them. Can States that are unable to implement 70,000 minimum wages take on power generation? Electric Power investment is huge. You need a lot of dollars to build turbines, do transmission lines, etc. Unless we decentralize government and scale down political leadership, we are heading nowhere. For the country to develop, we must reduce recurrence expenditure from 80 per cent to nothing more than 30 per cent to have enough money to execute capital projects.

    We must cut areas of waste so that we can free enough money to do critical things for the next five, 10 to 20 years. In fact, we need five-year plans for our budgeting cycles.

    I am going to credit the National Assembly for the creation of Regional Commissions. That is an admission that Nigeria must be run in a modular manner because each of the regions have peculiarities to be managed differently. If we have a Constitution that recognizes decentralized regions, each region should have control of affairs holistically. Each region will generate its own revenue and contribute to the maintenance of the Federal Government as if it is a club. We’re back to the time when the late Sir Ahmadu Bello said, look, I’m not interested in “Lagos” as it then was. I want to stay in Kaduna. Let (Sir Abubakar) Tafawa-Balewa go to Lagos and be the prime minister. We should make the center unattractive.

    In fact, President Tinubu would have made a better prime minister of Western Region. He knows far more about the Western areas than any other part of Nigeria. Obviously, Mr. Peter Obi will be better as premier of the Eastern Region. Mallam El-Rufai is most ideal for the North West and so on. Nigeria needs to be managed in a decentralized manner. There will be positive competition. There would be massive development across the country. Should there be any mistake at policy implementation levels, eight regional governments cannot make the same mistakes simultaneously.

    What is the position of your group, Atunto, on all these?

    We need a Constituent Assembly without further delay. And it can be done. In fact, all these groups already have drafts that reflect what we have been saying for years. It is to just synthesize them and publish for Nigerians to debate and agree through a referendum. And within three months, we can promulgate a new constitution into law to replace the 1999 Constitution. And if we do it before the end of the year, it means the 2027 election will be based on the new framework where you don’t need to do more than win elections in your constituency and from there onwards, it will be an electoral college to get to higher offices. Once anyone win elections at the LGA Constituency level, he/she  can be elevated to become prime minister without expending any further funds. No one will ever need region-wide campaigns to become Premier or nationwide travels to be prime minister. This will reduce the tension, obviate maneuverings and backbiting. There will be no need for 100 million naira to purchase nomination forms.

    As a country, we have been fumbling and wobbling since 1999. We need to discuss how the 371 ethnic nationalities can live and coexist in peace, with focus on real development.

    The eminent personalities mentioned by name in this interview have a very urgent duty to work concertedly with all civil society groups and leaders of ethnic nationalities across Nigeria towards the drafting of a Bill seeking for the Substitution of the 1999 Constitution for formal presentation to the National Assembly, as soon as possible.

  • Constitution review: Reps to prioritise local govt, judiciary, devolution of power, others

    Constitution review: Reps to prioritise local govt, judiciary, devolution of power, others

    House of Representatives Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Committee on Constitution Review, Benjamin Kalu, has said the committee will work for strengthening the functionality of local governments, the judiciary, electoral matters and security in the country.

    Kalu said these issues constitute the core of the ongoing constitution review by the parliament.

    The Deputy Speaker spoke at a meeting of the House constitution review committee.

    He listed devolution of power, gender issues, revenue and fiscal reforms as well as human right as other issues that will get attention of the parliament during the review process.

    Kalu said the parliament wanted to strengthen the autonomy and functionality of local government administrations, ensuring they serve as the grassroots foundation of governance, promote judicial independence, enhance access to justice, and streamline the administration of justice for all Nigerians.

    The Deputy Speaker also said the review committee would ensure the integrity, transparency, and inclusiveness of our electoral processes.

    On security, he said the constitution review would address the urgent need for a more robust and localised security framework to safeguard lives and properties, promote a more equitable distribution of responsibilities between the federal, state, and local governments.

    Read Also: Tinubu, Macron foster economic ties at Nigerian-France Business Council in Paris

    Kalu assured Nigerians that the committee would advance gender equity, ensuring fair representation and inclusion of women in all spheres of governance.

    The Deputy Speaker stressed that the committee would produce a constitution that would enhance fiscal responsibility, equity in revenue allocation, and economic development across all tiers of government and strengthen the protection and promotion of fundamental rights, reflecting the aspirations of all Nigerians.

    He said: “These areas are not just pillars of our constitutional review; they are the foundation for building a more equitable, just, and functional Nigeria.

    “As we all know, constitution amendment is a complex process, requiring the input, consensus, and sacrifice of diverse stakeholders across our federation. This committee has made remarkable progress, but there is still much to be done. I implore you to continue to double your efforts, maintaining the momentum necessary for the success of this national endeavor.”

    Kalu listed the successes the committee has so far recorded.

    The Deputy Speaker said they include successful engagement with the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) and attendance of the Southwest zonal Conference of Speakers of State Legislatures.

    According to him, those engagements are testaments to the committee’s commitment to inclusivity, dialogue, and consensus-building as the bedrock of this constitution review process

    Kalu announced that the House would hold a National Dialogue on Local Government and Constitution Amendment on December 2 at the Congress Hall of Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja.

    He said: “This event is a vital platform to consolidate ideas and strategies for achieving a robust local government framework, which is critical to our constitutional review efforts.

    “In addition, other engagements that we will be having include: public engagement on tax reforms as it concerns the constitution amendment, and a public engagement with political parties…

    “As we continue in this historic undertaking, let us remain guided by our shared commitment to strengthening our democracy, deepening our federal structure, and fostering unity and prosperity for all Nigerians.”

  • Constitution review: Lawmakers disagree on state police, okay LG autonomy

    Constitution review: Lawmakers disagree on state police, okay LG autonomy

    Members of the Senate Committee on the Constitution Review on Sunday concluded their two-day retreat on the amendments to the 1999 Constitution in Kano and unanimously agreed to include full autonomy for local governments in the nation’s legal document.

    The federal lawmakers, however, expressed divergent views on the issue of state police.

    Senators from the South-East and South- South geopolitical zones at the forum, advocated for the creation of an additional state.

    The legislators spoke at the sidelines of the Retreat which was organised by the Senate panel in collaboration with the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC).

    Their decision to save the third tier of government from total collapse following the abuse of their roles by the state governors, may not be unconnected to the recent Supreme Court verdict and the pledge by Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, that the National Assembly would tinker with the constitution to legalise their full autonomy.

    Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele; a former Chief Whip of the red chamber, Ali Ndume; Chairman Senate Committee on Finance, Senator Sani Musa; Senators Abdulfatai Buhari, Osita Izunaso and Ned Nwoko in their various submissions insisted that full autonomy for local governments was long overdue.

    Bamidele noted that the current constitution placed the administration of local government in the hands of the state government but the exigencies of the current situation has made it necessary to make the third tier of government, completely independent.

    He said: “The independence of the autonomy of our local governments cannot be taken away.

    “The debate is ranging as to whether or not local government should be considered as a tier of government.

    “Law is made for men and not men for law. Regardless of what is in our constitution, what is important is that certain realities have come to terms with us.

    “So, if we’re talking about local government autonomy, the way some of us have looked at it, in the senate and in the National Assembly, is that we need to complement what the Supreme Court has said.

    “The Supreme Court didn’t say anything that is not in our constitution. The Supreme court only gave it some further clarity.

    “Arising from that, it’s also important that as much as possible, we also ensure that the fear that governors will not allow local governments to function can also be addressed through further tinkering with our constitution.

    Read Also: Court compels RISIEC, Fubara to conduct LG poll in line with apex court’s judgement

    “For instance, a lot of stakeholders are concerned that for as long as local governments elections are conducted through state independent federal commissions, there could be a highway to nowhere.”

    In his own submission, Osita Izunaso said arguments about possiblity of local government chairmen becoming too powerful to the extent of impeaching governors if granted full autonomy, does not holds water.

    He said: “When we started in this country, local governments had full autonomy then and they were developing their areas. I believe in full autonomy of the local government.

    “I am sure it is going to work. I don’t believe that LGs autonomy would empower council chairmen to impeach the governors. The fear does not arise and I don’t even believe in it.

    “The governors have immense constitution powers. Only the state assembly can move against the governor. The council chairmen don’t have the power. Governors and council chairmen should face their work.”

    Senator Abdulfatai Buhari, backed the position of the Senate Leader by saying the election of council chairmen and the councillors should be conducted by an independent body not constituted by state governments.

    He said: “Local government autonomy could only be achieved if their elections are conducted by an independent body.

    “If that is not done, states will continue to siphon their money, through threats, through blackmail.

    “If I just put you there as local government chairman, as the governor, definitely you will be answerable to me, but if am contesting my election people’s eyes will be on me and when I am able to perform, you can’t force me to take the money to the governor.

    “If we want that Supreme Court judgement to hold water, we should expunge from the Constitution, that aspect of Joint Account.

    Senator Sani Musa noted that the process of restructuring had started with the Supreme Court verdict on local government autonomy.

    He said: “When you are talking about restructuring, we should be able to give the local governments, the autonomous power to be able to run their administration from the grassroot level so that the impact of governance can reach the grassroot.”

    In the same vein, Senator Ned Nwoko said local government autonomy, was very critical.

    He said: “The local government has almost but died, there is really nothing happening there, it is just as a mere third tier of government.

    “So any reforms that support what the Supreme Court had already done, it will help to reintroduce the ideals of having a local government.

    “If we have an independent local government where elections are conducted by INEC for instance and they have their own money and they are able to take care of local securities and deal with hospitals and the rest of them, a lot will happen for good.”

    The senators were however divided on the issue of state police.

    Those in support said insecurity would be tacked effected with state police while others said political opponents would be targeted by state governors.

    Musa who supported the idea said, “when we are talking about State Police, every state in this country is facing one insecurity or the other and I believe that if we look at the issue of State Police, it good for us.”

    However, Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume said:“What we need is to increase the manpower of the police and improve their welfare for effective policing. State Police would be abused by the governors.”

    Both Senators Nwoko and Osita Izunaso, maintained that the creation of additional states in their geopolitical zones was long overdue.

    Izunaso said: “The most important agenda the South East Caucus in the National Assembly has is to push for equity and justice.

    “We need an additional state in the South East so that we come to terms with other zones in the country that all have six each.

    “A situation where the South East have five states when others have six, does not go well for balancing. I believe that our colleagues from other zone will see the reason why we need the state support us.

    “There are bills in that regard. For instance, I have my own Bill for the creation of Orlu State. There are two other bills from our colleague for the creation of two other states. We are going to sit back as a zone harmonise our positions.”

    Nwoko said: “The Anioma state creation for me is something that has to be done, if that is the only state that is created in this period, I will not be surprised.

    “Agitation for Anioma state had been going on for almost 50 years, it is the oldest agitation for a state.”

  • New constitution as magic wand? (2)

    New constitution as magic wand? (2)

    Pushing on from its meeting with President Bola Tinubu last week where they strongly made a case for the adoption of a brand new constitution as the desired panacea to the country’s multifarious challenges such as mass corruption and insecurity among others, The Patriots, a group of respected elder statesmen, has proceeded to set up a 17-man committee to spearhead the advocacy and ultimate actualization of the idea. The committee, inaugurated by the leader of the group, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, headed by Professor Tony Kila with Senator Shehu Sanni as co-chairman, has the task of interfacing with different segments of the public including the National Assembly with the aim of devising methodologies for the promulgation of a new constitution for the country.

    But is the extant 1999 Constitution (as amended) so inherently flawed and innately bereft of any redeeming feature whatsoever that it deserves to be jettisoned wholesale and a new document conjured to take its place? Our answer to this poser in the first part of this piece last week was an unequivocal no.

    True, the 1999 Constitution is not a perfect document. No human constitution is. Will the new constitution envisaged by The Patriots be drawn up by beings from outer space and implemented by faultless angels once it assumes the authority and legitimacy of law? As I contended last week, it is not particularly intellectually honest to describe the 1999 Constitution as an imposition of the military. It is also a gross exaggeration to aver as some do that the Constitution lied when, in its preamble, it described itself as a product of “We the people”. The truth of the matter is that the 1999 Constitution has its roots in and is virtually a carbon copy of the 1979 Constitution which to a significant degree had some input from critical sections of the populace.

    One of the chapters in the new book, ‘Nigerian Public Discourse: The Interplay of Empirical Evidence and Hyperbole’ by former governor of Lagos State and two-term federal minister, Mr Babatunde Fashola (SAN) is titled, ‘Our Constitution The Fundamental Problem? A Legal Analysis.’ It is pertinent to quote him at some length on the origins of the 1999 Constitution. In his words, “It is worth recalling that at the juncture when the 1999 Constitution was promulgated, Nigerians had languished under military rule for over a decade and were fervently desirous of a return to civilian governance. General Abdulsami Abubakar, the transitional figurehead of that period, was constrained by time and could not convene a comprehensive Constituent Assembly. The 1999 Constitution was thus the product of Justice Niki Tobi’s Constitution Debating Coordinating Committee, which essentially revised and updated the 1979 Constitution”.

    Continuing, Fashola wrote, “Upon submission of his committee’s report, His Lordship articulated, among other observations: “In the light of the memoranda and the oral presentation on the 1995 Draft Constitution, it is clear that Nigerians fundamentally opt for the 1979 Constitution with relevant amendments. They desire it, and they have copiously articulated their reasons for their preference in various memoranda and oral presentations. Thus, we have recommended to the Provisional Ruling Council the adoption of the 1979 Constitution with relevant amendments from the 1995 Draft Constitution”.

    The 1999 Constitution is thus not some illegitimate bastard fathered by the military as many hastily insinuate. She is the progeny, largely, of the 1979 Constitution which in turn was the outcome, first, of the recommendations of a Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) made up of 49 of the country’s best and brightest professionals with the towering Chief Rotimi Williams as its Chairman. The CDC’s proposals were debated, modified, and ratified by a Constituent Assembly comprising members elected on non-party basis with the Local Government Councils serving as electoral colleges.

    What do those who canvass the jettisoning of the present constitution and the wholesale adoption of a new one want us to do with the experiences of the last 25 years of unbroken democratic governance under the constitution since 1999? Are we to discard them as wasted years of the locusts throwing away both the baby and bath water? Not even the 1999 Constitution is cast in stone as sundry legislative amendments and recurrent judicial pronouncements have, in many instances, fundamentally altered the texture and tenor of the Constitution.

    Read Also: Don’t distract Ganduje, Sule warns APC members

    Changes to the Constitution continue apace as illustrated, for example, by the recent decision of the apex court granting financial autonomy to the local government councils as an authentic third tier of government. Surely, more of such alterations can be expected as Nigerians take advantage of the clauses provided for in the constitution to effect changes in the ceaseless drive towards a ‘more perfect’ democratic order.

    Driven by youthful passion and patriotic exuberance, the brains behind the January 1966 coup that decapitated the first republic were not sufficiently patient to allow the political class and general populace to learn appropriate lessons from the inevitable pitfalls and stumbles in the path of a burgeoning democracy. This is a sharp distinction from India which is no less culturally complex and plural as Nigeria but has never experienced military intervention in its politics.

    Yet, the lesson of several coups in our post-independence history is that achieving rapid development cannot be a function of policies conceptualized and implemented with ‘immediate effect and automatic alacrity’. In virtually every instance, so called corrective Messianic military regimes end up perpetrating worse atrocities than the elected administrations they toppled. As has been repeated all too often, the key to overcoming the inevitable challenges of democratic governance is more, not less, democratic practice.

    Nigeria moved away from the parliamentary system of the first republic to escape the evils believed to be associated with that form of governance only for those negative practices to rear their ugly heads and accelerate the collapse of the presidential system of the second republic. Yet, there are those who are currently advocating a return to parliamentary governance as a cure to the perceived shortcomings of the presidential system. This will amount to a fruitless going around in cycles. The problems we confront stem not only from the political structure but no less from a substantially negative political culture that sabotages good and productive governance as well as compounds the conundrum of underdevelopment.

    The current high costs of governance is one reason often adumbrated to make the case for dumping the current constitution for a governance model that ensues in more parsimonious utilization of public resources. But the high governance costs is not necessarily inherent in the presidential system of government. This is an issue that can be effectively tackled administratively without recourse to fundamental constitutional change. Much of the humongous governance costs have to do with the massive corruption which is eating deep into the fabric of our social system. But the cure for corruption lies less in constitutional changes than in the revamping and overhauling of social values through massive re-orientation campaigns as well as the institutionalization of an efficient, effective and credible judicial system that ensures that there are swift and weighty consequences for corrupt practices.

    There are those whose grouse with the 1999 Constitution is that they perceive it to be outrightly unitary in orientation or insufficiently federal in content. It will be difficult to prove that the Constitution does not have undeniably federal features as Fashola rigorously demonstrates in his essay quoted earlier while the areas of federal deficit can be pragmatically addressed without recourse to the extreme of discarding the entire Constitution and embarking on a fresh voyage of constitutional search with no clear destination in focus.

    As Fashola aptly put it “In my scholarly analysis, the issue is not that Nigeria lacks a federal constitution. Rather, the question that arises is whether our current constitutional arrangement is sufficiently federal. I posit that this should be the focus of our discourse. Perhaps our constitutional arrangement is not sufficiently federal. Perhaps we desire to have appellate courts at the state level, drawing upon historical examples like the Western State Court of Appeal. Perhaps we aspire to have Supreme Courts at the state level. These are potential areas for discussion, around which we can conduct a cost-benefit analysis of pursuing such a path”.

    And it is certainly difficult to credibly fault Fashola’s submission that “As I acknowledged earlier, there may be the need to further amend part of the constitution and indeed- the amendment has been made in 2023, but those who seek those amendments, must move away from wholesale condemnation and recommend specific amendments that they seek. This approach will strengthen their position, attract intellectual rigour to their proposition and enable them to be taken seriously by parliament”. Anyone expecting a grandly fashioned new constitution as a magic wand before which our multifarious challenges will be miraculously resolved occupies an illusory universe.