The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Constitution

  • Senators’ conscience on constitution amendment

    The Nigerian legislature despite protests from a significant section ofthe political elites has taken upon themselves the responsibility to fundamentally amend the constitution of our country. The legislatures insist that they are constitutionally imbued with the power based on the provisions of Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Those opposed to this exercise argue that a fundamental amendment of the basic law of the country requires the services of a constituent assembly, specifically elected to carry out such an exercise. Some even argue that there is a need for a referendum after any fundamental amendment, for it to be properly called a grundnum – that is the foundational law of the land.

    Unfortunately, the current constitution is not autochthonous, as it was forced on the country by a military fiat, even though the constitution lied in its preamble that the people of Nigeria gave it to themselves. Having accepted the 1999 Constitution with its flaws, we also have to accept the ongoing amendment, as long as it conforms to the provisions of that constitution. Last week, the Senate started to vote on the clause by clause amendment of the constitution, based principally on the recommendations of the committee headed by Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu. On their own part, the House of Representatives are also getting set to vote based on the so called consultations the members held last year.

    Senate President David Mark, while kick starting the transparent voting process, enjoined his colleagues to vote according to their conscience. And they have. Regrettably, the conscience of our distinguished senators has proved inadequate in the circumstance. And we can only conjecture the reasons. Either that their conscience is so blurred that it is incapable of conscientious exercises or that it is so stunted that it is incapable of conscious reasoning. So far the exercise has not shown us that the distinguished senators are conscientiously patriotic. All they have done is to seek to whittle down the powers of the executive at federal and state levels, while expanding the legislative powers and influence in the Republic. Their other major interest is on how to share the national resources.

    The senators unfortunately have spared no thought on expanding and protecting the economic and socio-political rights of the ordinary citizens, or strengthening the provisions for fighting the debilitating corruption that is eating away the foundation of our country. Rather our senators have made headlines for shamelessly falling to the antics of the former Governor of Zamfara State, Senator Ahmed Yerima, by allowing our constitution to our collective shame to surreptitiously provide for under-aged marriage. Even after Senator Mark had appealed to his colleagues to re-awaken their sleeping conscience, the senators overwhelmingly voted to allow the pedophiles like Ahmed Yerima, a field day in 21st century Nigeria.

    To show the deadness of the conscience of our senators and even the representatives, there has been no champion for expanded socio-economic rights of the citizens of Nigeria throughout the ongoing exercise. This tragedy of our modern day politicians, rallies among the so called progressives and the derided ultra-conservatives, alike. No single legislator has taken to the roof top to demand that the fundamental objectives and directive principles of the state, provided in chapter 11 of our constitution, but made non-justiciable by the collaborating cavernous elites in the army should under the on-going amendment be made justiciable, as a means of empowering the people against the ravenous economic buccaneers, holding our nation by the jugular, in the name of elected officialdom.

    Again the conscience of our distinguished senators smacks of substantial illiteracy or dubious pretences. One glaring example is the refusal to separate the office of the attorney general from that of minister of justice and make its budgetary allocation a first line charge. Now with the attorney general and minister or commissioner for justice as one and the same person, appointed by the president or governor, the law makers should know that, such appointee will be more concerned plotting survival strategies instead of fighting corruption or other high crimes against the state. So again, our lawmakers have not bothered to critically and wholesomely examine our criminal justice system, to take necessary steps to strengthen same.

    Since the conscience of our distinguished legislators also appears hard of hearing, let me repeat the worn out argument that there is the need to have a streamlined state capacity to define, prevent, investigate, prosecute, try, and punish crime. That involves the legislature, the police, the attorney general, the courts and the prisons within the precincts of the powers of the state or the federating unit, in a properly so called federal system of government. Where the constitution of a country, such as ours, allows the prevalence of confusion, in its criminal justice system, it is either the elites have connived to allow same, or they are substantially ignorant as to the requirements for a modern society. As things are, what primarily drives our legislatures is subject to debate.

    It is also strange that no political party has come forward to enunciate its fundamental principles and objectives as a guide for its members, in this exercise. One had expected that all the political parties or at least those with progressive tendencies would come out with its core believes for advancing our country, and hope that her members would follow the guide. The absence of any clear party principles and policies, on such a fundamental process as constitution amendment is strange. Also distressing is that despite the so called caucuses based on regions and zones, there are no attempts to hammer out guiding interests for members. What we thus have as constitution amendment process is a cacophonous confusion to further our existing distress.

     

  • Constitution Review: Will Reps do people’s bidding?

    Constitution Review: Will Reps do people’s bidding?

    As the House of Representatives votes on the 1999 Constitution amendment today, will the wishes of the people, as expressed at the public hearings across the 360 constituencies, prevail? Victor Oluwasegun and Dele Anofi report.

     

    The House of Representatives will vote on the constitution amendment today. The electronic method will be adopted for the voting. The exercise will be televised. The House’s spokesman, Zakari Mohammed, said the voting by the members must reflect the wishes of the people as expressed at the public hearings across the 360 Constituencies in November, last year.

    Will the legislators uphold the views of the constituents they represent in the Lower Chamber?

    The review of the 1999 Constitution by the National Assembly is challenging. One of the challenges is what exactly should be amended in the constitution. It has been generally agreed that the constitution is a quasi- military document, which has its own merits and demerits.

    In a bid to give the country a constitution that could be said to be people-oriented, the House, on November 10, last year, held the public hearings.

    During the sessions, the Ad hoc Committee on Constitution Review, led by the deputy Speaker, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, presented 43 items to the people. The templates addressed a number of knotty issues. The people’s response showed that they wanted constitution amendment on some items.

    Some critics have maintained that some questions items were meant to lead the public by the nose in order to arrive at a predetermined outcome.

    The House of Representatives commenced the consideration of the report of the ad hoc committee last week. The Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, had indicated that voting would commence this week. Many people are anxious about the outcome of the voting.

    Tambuwal had told the members that they should abide by the wishes of the people they represent. But, there are indications that some lawmakers are at variance with the opinions expressed by their constituents.

    Two issues that came up at the public hearing were the immunity for executive office holders, and financial autonomy for local government councils. While 225 constituencies want Section 308 of the Constitution amended in a way that will make the immunity provision for the President, Vice President, Governors and Deputy Governors to cover only civil proceedings while they are in office, 132 constituencies opposed it and three other constituencies abstained.

    Many people also want the Houses of Assemblyand local government to be given financial autonomy so that they can get direct allocation from the Federal Government coffers. while 324 constituencies voted that State Houses of Assembly should be granted financial autonomy/independence like the National Assembly, 26 voted against it and 10 abstained.

    Again, on whether Section 162(6) be amended to abolish ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ so that allocations due to the Local Government Councils would be paid to them directly,” 295 constituencies responded positively to the item, 62 opposed it and 3 others abstained.

    On state creation, 205 constituencies agreed that more states should be created. But they could not agree on the number to be created. 133 constituencies opposed the idea while 22 abstained from voting on the subject. However, the Chairman of the ad hoc committee told the House, that state creation had been struck out because none of the requests met the constitutional requirements. He, suggested a further amendment that would make the creation of states less cumbersome.

    277 constituencies agree that the local governments should be accorded the status of the third tier of government. But they rejected the proposal that the creation of local government areas should be the exclusive preserve of the state government. They also supported the denial of revenue allocation to the unelected local councils. From the trend of the consideration of the report last week by the House, it is likely that the lawmakers will grant Nigerians this particular wish.

    The issue of State Police was roundly rejected by 307 constituencies as they voted ‘no’ to the question: “Should Section 214(1) be amended to enable the establishment of a State Police.”

    On the issue of rotational Presidency, 275 constituencies rejected the proposal that a provision be inserted in the constitution for the rotation of the Presidency between the Northern and Southern Nigeria. 210 constituencies also rejected the idea of inserting a provision in the constitution to make the office of President rotate among the six geo-political zones. On the other hand, 147 said yes and three refrained from voting.

    Also, 261 constituencies voted that Section 197 (1)(b) be amended to abolish the State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) so that all elections in the country would be conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). 216 Federal constituencies voted against the amendment of Section 315(5)(a) and (d) to remove the National Youth Service Corps Act, Land Use Act, Public Complaint Commission Act and National Security Agencies Act from the constitution.

    Majority of the constituencies (224) said they wanted the office of President or governor of a state to be filled purely on merit, instead of zoning. 135 constituencies prefered zoning while only one constituency refrained.

    On the issue of tenure, the question was: “Should Sections 135 and 180(2) be amended to create a single tenure of: (a) five years; (b) six years; (c) seven years; for the Office of President and Governor respectively?” 110 constituencies voted yes, 245 constituencies rejected it and five constituencies abstained.

    Majority of the constituencies in the country (263) voted yes to the question: “Should the two-term tenure provision for the Office of President or Office of Governor be retained in the Constitution.” And while 95 voted against it, two constituencies abstained.

    Nigerians voted overwhemingly in favour of early submission of the budget to the parliament. 342 constituencies voted “yes”, six voted against and 12 abstained when the question, “Should Sections 81 and 121(1) of the Constitution be amended to require the President/Governor of a state to prepare and lay the annual budget before the National Assembly/State House of Assembly, at least, three months before the end of a financial year” was put to them.

    Diaspora voting was rejected by 311 votes to 46. Three constituencies were undecided.

    On the controversial issue of indegeneship, Nigerians resolved that people who have stayed in a particular place for a long period of time should enjoy indigeneship rights.

    Presenting the report on the floor of the House on April 11, 2013, Ihedioha said: “The results are the voice of Nigerian people who have expressed their views on what changes they would like to see in any amendment being made to the national legal ground- norm-the constitution of Nigeria.

    “It is important to note however, that the results being unveiled today represent the collated views and decisions of Nigerians living in various constituencies in the remotest nooks and crannies of Nigeria.

    “Now, we may not agree with the decisions of Nigerians on these questions, we may even have doubts on the practicability and efficacy of the decisions, but at this point in time, our duty is a simple one: to present the response of Nigerians on the various issues, without doctoring or any form of tinkering or manipulation.”

    However, the Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal went a step further. Admonishing his colleagues to adhere strictly to the wishes of the people, he said: “Already, there are indications that the House has genuine intentions going by the trend of the consideration of last week in which autonomy for the local government councils was favourably discussed.”

    But the question is: will this be sustained? Was the people’s public sessions of November 10, 2012 and the subsequent presentation of the collated results therefrom a pretense meant to portray the House as a true ambassador of the masses, or genuine desire to incorporate the voices of the downtrodden in the amendment?

    The answers to these questions would be revealed as the members of the House of Representatives vote on the aspects of the constitution today.

     

  • Constitution amendment blues

    Senators’ positions on the on-going constitutional review exercise continue to generate heated debate across the country, report Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, Assistant Editors, Remi Adelowo, Dare Odufowokan and Sanni Onogu, Abuja

     

    Some of the decisions were largely expected, but others have been described as ‘shocking, ‘strange’ and ‘disappointing.’

    These, in a way, capture the staccato rhythm of the debate that has trailed the resolutions reached this week by lawmakers at the Senate as they voted on the recommendations for further amendments of the 1999 Constitution.

    In a decision that was not unexpected, they not only voted against the proposed six-year single tenure for the president and governors, but also tackled the alleged excesses of state governors by granting financial autonomy to state Houses of Assembly.

    The senators also endorsed the proposal that a presidential or governor’s assent would not be required after a bill passed and transmitted to the president or governor had stayed with him or her for 30 days.

    The Senate also endorsed first line charge for states Independent Electoral Commission, State Houses of Assembly, Auditor-General of the states and state Judiciary, but failed to approve first- line charge for the Attorneys-General.

    On presidential assent for amendment of the constitution, the Senate voted that “for the purpose of altering the provisions of this constitution, the assent of the President shall not be required.”

    Reactions:

    Reactions to senate’s positions on these proposed ammendments have been quite passionate. For example, reacting to the senate’s refusal to grant autonomy to local governments, renowned constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Itse Sagae, told The Nation that “what the senate did was commendable. Anybody who is supporting that (autonomy for LGs) is guilty of constitutional illiteracy. You cannot have an autonomous local government in a federation. As far as I am concerned, local governments are agencies of state government.”

    The Senior Advocate of Nigeria added that granting autonomy to local government is a negation of the country’s federal system of government.

    Ayo Opadokun, in his reaction, told The Nation, “I will give you what you can call my general position on the whole process. The entire so-called constitutional review or amendment process by the national assembly, by this I mean both the senate and the House of Representatives, is like putting the cart before the horse. It is a funny case of the tail wagging the dog.

    “It is akin to a scenario where the management of a limited liability company decides to change the operational rules of such a company without clearance from the shareholders and other stakeholders.

    “The premise upon which the lawmakers are embarking on the project to amend the constitution of the country is faulty in all respect and as such, I cannot begin to offer opinions on such an exercise.

    “The truth is that they (national assembly members) are making false claims to having the sovereignty of the people to make laws for us all. This is a lie. It is an untrue claim on the part of the lawmakers.

    “Every Nigerian of voting age has a fundamental right to sovereignty. “They keep this sovereignty with them irrespective of the existence of a national assembly or even a presidency.

    “When they elect people into government, such a person gets a quantum of this sovereignty through the individual’s vote. The people get back their sovereignty once the person leaves office or when election is over.

    “The 1999 recognises clearly this arrangement between the electorate and the elected. This is why there is provision for the people to recall a legislator and impeach an executive.

    The national assembly does not have the power or right to do what it is pretending to do with the constitutional review,” Opadokun said.

    Controversy:

    Based on reactions of respondents during the week, it seems the most controversial issues and decisions of the senators include their rejection of the bill praying for local government autonomy, as well as the ‘yes vote’ to make any woman eligible for marriage even if she is underage. A majority of Nigerians, who spoke to The Nation, accept the position senators took on the proposed six-year single tenure.

    Six year single tenure

    Most respondents to the killing of the single term proposal have been that of endorsement. Chief Chekwas Okorie, National Chairman of United Progressive Party ( UPP), in a telephone interview, told The Nation, “I welcome the position of the senate on the six-year single term proposal. I believe the proposal was not well thought out by the Ike Ekweremadu committee. The four-year tenure, renewable based on performance or acceptability is better. You are aware that America, from when we copied that system has practiced it for over two centuries without regrets. Even the Uwais Committee recommen-ded the retention of the four year tenure, so I don’t see why we would want to change it now.

    Dr Francis Egu, a member of the Board of Trustees of CPC, now APC, said in a chat, “I think what the senators did on this very proposal reflects the opinion of Nigerians. But unfortunately, they failed to follow the same leading on the issue of local government autonomy.

    Before the senate’s latest endorsement, opinions were divided on decisions of the Senate, particularly on the single term tenure and the rejection of autonomy for local governments.

    In a telephone interview with The Nation shortly before the senators voted, renowned constitutional lawyer, Professor Itse Sagay, was non-committal on the propriety or otherwise of single term for both the president and state governors. He said, “I don’t see anything right or wrong with it. I really don’t know if it is better or worse than what (two-term) we have presently.”

    But another constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, Mr. Fred Agbaje, was more forthcoming on the issue. “I don’t support it (single term) at all,” he declared emphatically.

    Agbaje argued that if the proposal had sailed through, “it would have increased the twin malaise of corruption and nepotism in the country.”

    However, the proposal got thumbs up from Agbaje’s colleague in the Bar, and human rights crusade, Mr. Bamidele Aturu.

    Providing more insight on his position, Aturu posited, “I’m beginning to think that the agitation for second term by political office holders, particularly the president and governors, is corrupting the polity.”

    He argued further, “After the first two years of the first tenure of these office holders, electioneering for the next election begins to take the centre stage. If it (single term) would help the president and governors to perform, then it is a welcome development, because they would focus strictly on governance. A classical case is the crisis plaguing the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF), which has been linked to the second term ambition of the president.”

    Aturu disagreed with the school of thought which argued that the provision of the single term tenure will worsen the rate of corruption. He stated, “I don’t buy this argument at all! My opinion is that if our anti-corruption agencies are allowed to function properly, this issue of corruption can be taken care of.”

    In a statement that may provoke further debate, Aturu asked two pertinent questions: “Now that there is two-term tenure for the president and governors, how many of the governors are performing? Has the rate of corruption gone down?”

    The radical lawyer, however, said that for the single term tenure to check the challenge of corruption, the judiciary must be strengthened to work and perform.

    ‘Yes’ vote for underage marriage

    Senators ‘yes’ vote that a Nigerian woman should be considered eligible for marriage was highly criticised by most respondents that spoke to us during the week. In fact, the controversy over this matter started at the hallowed chambers when the distinguished senators were about to take the decision. It started with the interpretation of the relevant laws.

    Dr Egu blamed the development on what he described as loss of our family values. As he puts it, “The issue of marriage of underage has to do with the fact that we have lost the sense of family values. I think our family values are at stake here. If we reinvent our family values, there would be no need for us to resort to legislation. Families should know when to give out their daughters in marriage.”

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Ecology, Senator Abubakar Bukola Saraki, yesterday debunked the allegation of a sponsored bill before the Senate, proposing the legalisation of child marriage.

    Saraki, in a statement by his Special Assistant on Media and Advocacy, Bamikole Omishore, in Abuja, said he was not aware of any Bill before the Senate proposing child marriage or an indirect bill having a provision for that.

    “Therefore, it will be presumptuous to make any further pronouncement on this issue,” he said.

    The Senator representing Kwara Central in the Upper Chamber, said, however, that if the information needed was the clarification about comments made by some senators during the voting on constitutional amendment, he cannot hold fort for the opinions of the other senators on the provision relating to the legal age for capacity to renounce citizenship under the Nigerian Constitution.

    According to the statement, the lawmaker spoke after numerous comments were posted on his website and social media pages.

    Saraki said: “What I can tell you is that one of the uppermost principles which I uphold as a senator is the wellbeing and protection of children irrespective of their religious background or their social status.

    “The girl child especially needs protection under our law, therefore any bill or legal provision which is aimed at promoting the rights of any child, the wellbeing of children generally, the prohibition of practices that inhibits the girl child and her potentials and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against any child will continue to receive my unflinching support.”

    He added that during his tenure as Governor of Kwara State, the state was the first among the 19 northern states to pass the Child Rights Act and to domesticate the United Nations Convention on Child Rights.

    He insisted that he will oppose any bill that seeks a contrary objective to the one portrayed above.

    Chairman, Senate Committee on Information, Media and Public Affairs, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, also commenting on the matter, said: “Let me make a clarification. The vote that was taken on that section was not a vote on marriage neither was it a vote on the question of the age of marriage. It was a vote that was taken on the possibility of anyone renouncing their citizenship. That is what that clause says and the clause was very clear. It says that if you want to renounce your citizenship, what is in the law as at today has two sections and those two sections, I can clearly read it out so that you will know exactly what it says. It says: ‘Any citizen of Nigeria of full age that wishes to renounce his Nigerian citizenship shall make a declaration in the prescribed manner for that renunciation.’ So, it has to do with whether you want to renounce your citizenship. At the subsequent sections, it now gives an explanation of what a Nigerian of full age means and for that purpose, in Section 4A it says that ‘full age means the age of 18 years and above’ and then in 4B it says that ‘any woman who is married shall be deemed to be of full age.’

    “Now the committee recommended that you don’t have to be 18 years and above before you are a Nigerian citizen because that is what this clause means. Because if it says full age is 18 it means whether you are a man or a woman, until you are 18 you can’t be a Nigerian and we felt this is wrong. That is why the committee now said delete these two parts so that any body from birth is a Nigerian.

    “But the the vote has been taken and the votes that were taken now show that these clauses will be retained in the Constitution because there wasn’t up to 73 votes supposed to have been used to delete it. So, it is not deleted. It remains as it is in the Constitution and not as recommended. What was recommended was a deletion. There wasn’t the 73 votes that were needed to delete it so it remains as it is.”

    Presidential, governors’ assent

    Senators’ position on the issue of presidential and governors’ assent to a bill is one of the decisions that appear to enjoy general approval.

    The Senate passed alteration to Section 58 by inserting a new subsection “5A” which states: “Where the President neither signifies that he assents or that he withholds assent, the bill shall at the expiration of thirty days become law.”

    A total of 100 senators registered to vote, 89 voted ‘yes’ while 11 voted ‘no’.

    The Senate also approved the alteration of the Section 100 by inserting a new subsection “5a” which reads: “Where the governor neither signifies that he assents or that he withholds assent, the bill shall at the expiration of 30days become law.”

    Reaction of most Nigerians to this position has been that of approval. Dr Fransis Egu, a member of Board of Trustees of CPP, now All Progressives Congress, for example, said ” what they have done is the opinion of Nigerians.” He said, on this very matter, the distinguished senators were actually in tune with the people they are representing. He denied that it was a way of reducing the power of the executive. As he puts it, ” Every sector of the government should be active and should do what it has to do in good time. Why should a president or governor leave a bill in his table unattended to for 30 days. Such a bill should be passed into law without the officer.”

    LG autonomy

    On the proposed amendment by the Ekweremadu Committee to Section 162 of the constitution abolishing the controversial Joint State/Local Government Account and also stipulating that the monthly revenue allocation to the third tier of government be paid to them directly, Sagay was unsparing in his condemnation.

    The Senior Advocate of Nigeria added that granting autonomy to local government is a negation of the country’s federal system of government. He argued, “It’s already an aberration for local government to be listed in the constitution. It is a gross breach of federalism that we claim to be practicing.

    “If autonomy is granted to local government, then all the 36 states should be dissolved and let there be only local government and the federal government. With this, we know we are operating a purely unitary state.”

    A lawyer and former member of the House of Representatives, Ned Nwoko, had a different view.

    “Of course, I totally support this proposal,” he said, adding, “The real issue is that most governors act as lords in their respective states. They want to control everything; they want to decide who becomes chairman of local government, ministers and ambassadors, yet they don’t want whoever is president to interfere in the running of their states.”Nwoko, however, lent his support for Section 121, which also granted financial autonomy for state houses of assembly, state Auditors-General and states’ judiciary. He posited that these provisions will allow the institutions to check the excesses of the executive arm of government.

    Okorie also regretted the denial of local government autonomy. “I feel sad that the senators did not see the wisdom of freeing the local governments from the grips of governors. I think the senators were unduly influenced by governors. What they have done, if allowed to pass, would not be in the interest of Nigerians. So, why didn’t they go the whole hog and delete the local government? We claim we have a third tier of government, it is wrong for us to continue to make local government an appendage of state government. I think ALGON has not done enough lobbying,” he said.

     

  • Reps begin consideration of constitution review report

    Reps begin consideration of constitution review report

    From next week, all committees in the House of Representatives will be engaged in nothing else but with the report of the Constitution review, it was learnt yesterday.

    Speaker Aminu Tambuwal spoke yesterday on the suspension of the various oversight functions of the committee for the consideration of the constitution review report.

    The House, it was also learnt, began the consideration of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Constitution Review yesterday.

    The report was laid before the House on July 4. Members went straight to business after Majority Leader Mulikat Akande Adeola moved a motion that the House move into the Committee of the Whole.

    The Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Review of the Constitution, Emeka Ihedioha, read a synopsis of the report.

    Yesterday was the first day for the consideration.

    Members raised issues about the procedure for contribution. This took a while to resolve.

    Tambuwal warned members not to vote against the decisions of their constituents, as documented in the result of the people’s public sessions.

    He said: “Let me once again say that what we have before us is not our opinion but the aggregate of all opinions from our constituencies. Whether it’s individually or collectively, we do not have any issue against any politician. But we aim to strengthen democracy.”

    The Speaker said he had heard that the people’s public sessions be subjected to a referendum.

    He said: “The constitution has proscribed the procedure for amendment, and we can’t go outside it. The constitution did not prescribe a referendum. As issues are raised, we, as members who facilitated the people’s public session, have no power over the decision of the people.

    “My charge is that we proceed with the wishes of the people. I appeal to all of us that when the time to vote comes with the result, we should not vote against the wishes of our people.”

    The House deferred the consideration till today to allow members bring copies to the floor.

    Tambuwal said there would be a clause-by-clause and section-by-section considerations of the constitution review report today.

    He said voting would come after the consideration of the report.

     

  • ‘Pitfalls to avoid in money laundering cases’

    ‘Pitfalls to avoid in money laundering cases’

    Although the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has challenged the legality of the Money Laundering Act 2011, which compels lawyers to declare financial transactions with the clients in court, lawyers were last week taught how to relate with their clients in order to avoid being indicted for money laundering.

    Participants at the NBA Lagos branch “money laundering vs the legal practitioner” session, which was part of events to mark the branch’s law week, were enlightened by renowned legal scholars and practitioners on how to do their jobs without aiding and abating the crime.

    The session, which was chaired by Rickey Tarfa (SAN), had Mrs. Funke Adekoya (SAN), Prof. Akin Oyebode and Mrs. Ngozi Giwa-Amu as speakers.

    Referring to countries such as Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom, Mrs Adekoya noted that legal practitioners across the globe have always staged a legal war against enactments that conflict with their codes of professional ethics.

    She said lawyers indirectly get involved in money laundering through the use of the lawyer’s client account by criminal clients as a bank account to deposit criminal proceeds for onward transmission to various payees on the instructions of the client; through management of clients’ money or other assets; using his/her name to acquire bank accounts, credit cards or loan agreement for the client; creation of companies and trusts, among others.

    The attorney-client privilege is a fundamental concept in the relationship between a lawyer and his client, Adekoya said.

    ”It provides protection for both the lawyer and client from disclosing communications made in confidence for the purpose of enabling the client to obtain legal advice or assistance. The lawyer cannot be compelled to disclose it, even by an order of court.

    “The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (“the Constitution”) guarantees every person the right to a legal practitioner of one’s choice (Section 36(6)(c)) and, thereby, entitlement to attorney-client privilege. Section 37 of the Constitution also guarantees the right to privacy,” she said.

    On how lawyers can protect themselves from such liability, Adekoya urged them to ensure client’s due diligence checks and further enquiry; report suspicious activity; do in-depth oversight of the client’s business; assess the client’s objectives and provide requisite staff training.

    She said they should ensure awareness of transactions with heightened money risks; avoid the provision of banking services for clients; refuse cash payments above a certain limit at the law office or into the firm’s bank account as well as the monitoring by accounts staff to ascertain if funds received from clients are from credible sources.

    Citing the rules of professional conduct, Mrs Adekoya advised lawyers to terminate relationships with clients who are criminal dealings, adding “a lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the course of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner.”

    Oyebode noted that contrary to widely held opinion, the privilege of confidentiality between lawyer and client is not absolute as the law has envisaged circumstances when the privilege can be impugned.

    He argued that the Money Laundering Act does not directly remove the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege but obliquely criminalises failure by any person to report an international transfer of funds or securities required to be reported under the Act, which was merely following the precedents laid down by earlier legislation such as the ICPC Act, 2000 and Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011.

    Oyebode said lawyers would enjoy no protection under the law for any property that they hold on behalf of their client if it can be established that such a property arose from transactions involving money laundering.

    “It should be clear to all concerned that lawyers carryout their duties under the law and have to abide by whatever strictures and constraints envisaged by the law in furtherance of the larger interests of society,” he said.

    The event also had sessions on security; the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), legal ethics, with Justice Ayotunde Philips, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), Chief Bayo Ojo (SAN), Emeka Ngige (SAN) and Babatunde Ogala, among others, in attendance.

     

  • Senate on constitution amendment

    The Senate Committee for the review of the 1999 constitution last week turned in their report to the plenary.To my utter disappointment, and I guess that of many Nigerians, the proposals as reported in the news were long on sharing of political positions and powers, but very short on new constitutional pivots for the badly needed economic regeneration of our country. The exercise may turn out a waste of time and resources, unless the Senate makes a radical departure from the reported highlights of the committee’s work.

    I had thought that the Senate would use the exaggeratedly advertised constitution review committee’s work to give the states vital legal capacity to engage in economic activities by removing from the exclusive legislative list, the ownership of mines and minerals, railways, labour, fishing, police and prisons and classify them into the concurrent legislative list. Also the report has nothing excitingly new for the ordinary Nigerian, such as enforcing the creation of a national social security scheme or making the provisions of Chapter Two of the constitution enforceable in courts.

    Rather, some of the highlights of the proposed amendments, include one six-year single term for the president and governors, separation of the office of the Attorney-General from the Minister for Justice, abolition of president’s signature for constitution amendment, elevating local government councils as quasi third tier of government, the privileges and disabilities of a vice-president or deputy-governor who succeeds his boss, increased benefits for former heads of the legislative assemblies and similar opportunities in the sharing of political positions and the dwindling national wealth.

    So, if these proposals are all we will get from the legislature, then what may likely happen is that after the amendments, the country will continue its bumpy journey to an eventual collapse. But who will blame the committee members? After all they are shielded from the vagaries of the economy. In their cocoon they are more concerned about provisions on power and wealth sharing, instead of using the constitution for wealth creation. With their bloated and unconstitutional financial benefits forcefully appropriated from our common treasury, many commentators are not surprised that the Senators have shown the lack of mental capacity or the necessary rigour to legislate our country out of poverty.

    As I have argued on this page, there is the urgent need for development as the key impetus for any new law in our country. Luckily, the Senators still have the chance to redeem the situation, when they resume plenary, after their recess. What our dear nation needs is a bold constitutional step to fiscal federalism, even if on a limited scale. First, is to return land ownership to the original owners or at least the states of domicile. Of course he, who owns the land, owns what is on it; and that will result in land owners repossessing the minerals on their land, as against the unconscionable dispossession enunciated in the Minerals Act and the Land Use Act. To stem the drastic impact of a radical departure from the present formula, the process could be graduated over a decade, with the new beneficiaries paying huge taxes to the Federal Government, for the huge infrastructure already in place.

    The most dramatic effect from the exercise will be that states with huge minerals deposits in their domain, but which are currently considered as poor states will have the opportunity to seek for investments to develop those minerals. Again, those states with comparative advantages in other natural benefits and other spheres of human endeavor will be compelled to begin to exploit them, and the necessary economic activities badly needed to stem a failed Nigerian state, will kick-start. Is it not strange that despite pushing for economic activities in the states, the railways and labour for instance are locked up within the exclusive legislative list? While the Federal Government may retain regulatory authorities, the states must be allowed to pursue the conveniences of a modern state.

    In arguing for laws to expedite economic activities, it is incongruous for our constitution to allow the federal agencies to determine the general wage bill of state employees, because it has the exclusive legislative right on labour. The Federal Government should only have the right to determine the national minimum wage, through the national economic council. Also, to foster the protection of the economic activities within the states and local councils, there is the need for local police; and also state exhausted hierarchy of courts, and state prisons. The federal courts should retain appellate authority over fundamental human rights, federal laws and inter-state activities. The federal legislature must wake up and use law making as a normative instrument for economic development; to gift Nigeria a chance to modernity.

     

    Osun’s tablet of knowledge

    It was exciting few days ago to watch the scruffy faces of the rural and the urban children of the state of Osun, as they held up their android (Ope Imo) that will no doubt change their lives. The project if sustained will likely bridge the gap for all the children, regardless of the privileges of birth, with regards to access to knowledge materials.

    I commend Governor Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola for his ability to conceptualise this project and I urge his brother colleagues to emulate this revolutionary stuff. Again, all the states should invest in the critical competences of the teachers and children at the foundation levels, to train minds that will grow to thoroughly utilise the modern gifts of technology; and locally develop new ideas.

     

     

  • How Nigeria can achieve people’s Constitution, by NBA

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has identified factors which will make the 1999 Constitution, undergoing amendment, more people-oriented.

    The factors, it said, include inclusivity, validity and transparency.

    The association backed the gradual amendment of the Constitution, saying it believes piecemeal approach is preferable to a wholesale alteration in which an existing constitution is totally jettisoned for a new one.

    The association condemned the divisions among governors with the Nigerian Governor’s Forum (NGF), which the association declared as unconstitutional.

    NBA President Okey Wali (SAN), who made NBA’s position known, spoke while welcoming delegates to the association’s just-concluded National Executive Committee (NEC) in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State.

    “The Nigerian Bar Association supports the proposed review of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the National Assembly. It is the position of the Bar that more than anything else Nigeria needs amendment of some important aspect of the Constitution in the interest of democracy consolidation.

    “Since the amendment exercise started, the NBA has identified two crucial principles of Constitutional amendment. They are: timing and approach. Under timing, we suggest that Constitutional amendment should be an on-going exercise. As soon as an issue identified as germane for constitutional amendment arises, the process of a new amendment ought to be initiated at the National Assembly through a Bill.

    “On approach which has great linkage with timing, the NBA believes that piecemeal amendment is preferred to a wholesale amendment in which an existing Constitution is totally jettisoned for a new one.

    “The oldest federation, the United State of America, has had same Constitution for over 200 years and has made only 27 amendments to it. India has made 94 amendments to its Constitution in 60 years,” Wali said.

    The NBA President said the central issue is not only whether there is a constitution but whether or not the constitution is of the people.

    “The pertinent questions are: does the constitution reflect the wishes of the people? How was it made? Were the processes involved in its making open and transparent? Were the processes inclusive?

    “It could be deciphered from the foregoing questions that these are the parameters for testing a people oriented constitution, the type we deserve for Nigeria. These are the basic elements of a good constitution and this revolves around the process of passage.

    “These basic standards include: Inclusivity: the constitution must be owned by the people. In effect it is in the spirit of the Rule of Law for the people to have a say in how they are governed. Ownership ensures credibility of the constitution. Validity: the constitution must be subject to a referendum. Transparency: Process must be transparent to ensure credibility.

    “It is only through a process as enunciated above that Nigeria, can have the type of constitution we truly deserve. I want to state unequivocally again that the only way to achieve a people’s constitution is through a referendum

    NBA also took a stand on the state of emergency declared by President Goodluck Jonathan in

    Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states.

    “It is because of the failure of law and order that necessitated the declaration of the state of emergency in the three aforementioned states. President Jonathan had unequivocally stated in his state of emergency speech that in view of the intelligence report available to him, it had become necessary to declare the state of emergency.

    “But the big lesson in this National security debacle is the urgent and important need to equip the Nigerian Police Force. It is not enough to always send the Armed Forces to places where our National Security is threatened all the time.

    “One may ask the question why not involve the Nigerian Police Force? But we must ask ourselves whether the Nigerian Police Force is well funded and equipped? The Bar calls for the urgent equipping of the Nigerian Police Force. From available statistic, the Nigerian Police Force has the required man power but lack the requisite training and equipment.

    “The Bar therefore calls for the urgent funding, training (capacity building), and equipping of the Nigerian Police Force. Without adequate funding, the Nigerian Police Force cannot function. That is why they are getting overpowered and killed every day. If we had a well trained and equipped Police, we never would have needed soldiers and the military.

    “The NBA calls on the Federal Government to declare a state of emergency on the Police Force, with a view to making them capable of functioning appropriately.”

    NBA called for the strengthening of the judiciary’s independence, adding that the problem of overloaded court dockets is indeed one that must be tackled head-on.

    It said: “Government must recognise that the judiciary is the Third Arm of Government in any civilized society. Accordingly, the independence of the Judiciary must be guaranteed and secured. To secure the independence of the judiciary, government must grant to it true financial autonomy, and a full self-accounting status.

    “The funds of the judiciary must be released to it as soon as the same is approved in the budgets of the Federal and State governments. The personal emoluments of judicial officers, together with their other conditions of service, should be enhanced to make them commensurate with that of their counterparts in England, from where Nigeria derived its Legal system.

    “Bayelsa State is the only State in Nigeria that has passed a law backing a self accounting judiciary vide its Judiciary Financial Autonomy Law 2012.

    “The NBA reiterates that Government must recognise that it is only the existence of a virile, fearless and independent Judiciary that can guarantee an enduring democratic government, and the maintenance of law and order.”

    On NGF, Wali said: “Let me say that the 1999 Constitution, as amended, does not provide for a body such as the Nigeria Governors Forum. I, however, agree that Nigerians have a constitutional right to form or belong to a body, group or association of their choice.

    “This Forum is modelled after the National Governors Association in the United States of America, but unlike their own Association in the U.S which is good governance and policy driven, ours is highly politicised and it is heating up the polity in Nigeria.”

    The NBA president confirmed to the NEC that the Building Committee would hit the site of the NBA House on June 21 when the ground breaking will be performed.

    It was also reported to the NEC that the NBA had gone to court to challenge the provision of the law on Money laundering which requires lawyers to report any transaction above $1,000 to law enforcement agencies.

     

  • Is six years the way to go?

    Is six years the way to go?

    The Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution (SCRC) has recommended, among others, a six-year single term for the president and governors instead of the present four-year two-term practice. The proponents believe the six-year tenure will make the Presidency go round the six regions faster, enhance unity and remove the tension arising from seeking re-election. But the opponents argue that the four-year tenure should be retained so that non-performing officials can be voted out after their first term rather than being in office for six years. A six-year tenure, according to them, can encourage corruption on a grander scale; dictatorship and voter disenfranchisement. Which is the way to go? JOSEPH JIBUEZE sought lawyers’ views.

     

    Should the proposal by the Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution (SCRC) scale through, the president and governors will serve only a non-renewable term of six years.

    This is contained in the SCRC report presented last Wednesday by its Chairman, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, who listed devolution of powers, creation of states, recognition of geo-political zones, local governments, fiscal federalism, mayoral status for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and executive immunity as other highlights.

    On the six-year single tenure, the panel noted that considering the financial expenses often associated with re-election, and to ensure that executive heads are freed from the distractions and are able to concentrate on public policy issues, “a provision for a single term of six (6) years for president and governors is made in sections 135 and 180 respectively.”

    It added that “Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of the section, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of six years commencing from the date—(a)in the case of a person elected as president under this Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office and (b) in the case of the person elected to the office under this Constitution took the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office or would, but for his death, have taken such oath.”

    The committee recommended that: “If the Federation is at war in which the territory of Nigeria is physically involved and the President considers that it is not practicable to hold election, the National Assembly may by resolution extend the period of six years mentioned in subsection (2) of this section from time to time; but no such extension shall exceed a period of six months at any one time.”

    The House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review retained the subsisting four-year tenure for president and governors.

    Last Thursday, the implication of the recommendation became clearer.

    Ekweremadu, who spoke on the details in Abuja, said the six-year single tenure may exclude the president and governors from contesting the 2015 election. Asked when the six-year single term tenure will take off, he said since the recommendation did not provide any particular date, “it means as soon as the constitution is passed, it will start.”

    He said governors are expected to make the sacrifice of not seeking re-election, if the recommendation is adopted.

    His words: “We don’t want Nigerians to say that we colluded with the executive to elongate the tenure of some governors. But we decided that those who are currently serving should excuse themselves for the system to run. But if our colleagues think otherwise and feel that those who are serving should benefit, we will put it there.”

    He added: “We believe that the best thing to do in the circumstance is that if you have had the opportunity of serving as a chief executive, so be it, so that you concentrate and do your work and finish instead of going to worry yourself scheming how to succeed yourself … and then start heating up the system and applying some rough tactics.

    “So, these are some of the reasons why we felt that it is better if you just have the opportunity of being the president then, that should be it. You just concentrate on your job and do it and history will record that you were once a president. We don’t believe that the number of years you spend there as President translates to performance.”

    But the Presidency is not taking the proposal lightly. Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters Ahmed Gulak was quoted as saying: “It is not a fair amendment to target a particular group of people. That proposal will not scale through because Nigerians are wiser. You can’t short-change some people in the name of amending the Constitution. I am sure there will be some considerations and the proposal will fail.

    “The President and some governors were elected under a constitution that allows them to contest two terms of four years each. You can’t change the rule midway.”

    Should this proposal be adopted? Is it what Nigeria needs? Will it scale through? Opinion is divided on the issue.

    Some observers agree with the view that six-year tenure will enhance focus for those in office; the president or governor will not bother with the intrigues and distraction of scheming for a second term while state matters suffer.

    But some analysts are of the view that staying six years in office will not suddenly make a bad leader good or effective. If he turns out to be bad, there will be no opportunity to vote him out. Nigerians or citizens of the state will endure the leader for two additional years. In effect, the masses suffer as a result of ineffective administrators as tenure protects. The process of removing them is not simple or swift.

    Besides, there are fears the six-year tenure will encourage looting and general abuse of office. The thinking is that since the President or governor knows he has only one chance to serve, he may be tempted to grab as much loot as possible without a care.

    Analysts think the fact a president or governor will seek re-election will probably spur them to work harder during the first term so as to earn a second term. Remove the chance for a second term, and there will be no motivation to perform.

    Furthermore, the knowledge that a re-election will be sought and that they could be voted out for bad leadership could also serve as check on the excesses of elected officers. With nothing to lose, some observers fear a leader may become autocratic and assume absolute power.

    But, more fundamentally, some critics argue that there are more pressing issues confronting Nigeria, which a Constitution review should have addressed. These include the critical national question, which should have been brought to the front burner. The issues cleverly avoided, analysts said, include the restructuring of the polity, devolution and decentralisation of power, state police, true fiscal federalism and lopsided federal-state relations.

    Many, including lawyers, think that the tenure of office, as currently enshrined in the Constitution, is not the problem. The problem appears to be the operators of the system.

    They believe the vision, ideological world view, integrity, credibility and capability of the President and governors, as well as their performance, good governance, observance of the rule of law and fulfilment of campaign promises to Nigerians, are more important than the number of years they spend in office.

     

    Some lawyers back proposal

     

    Lawyers are divided on the issue. Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) Mallam Yusuf Ali, Mike Igbokwe and other senior lawyers backed the proposal.

    Ali said he had always supported a single six-year single-term tenure as it would remove problems associated with re-election and succession.

    “Let everybody go for a single term of six years and then you go. My argument is that something you cannot achieve in six years, you won’t achieve it in 60 years. So, the proposal is an affirmation of my position.

    “If we are matured to practise second term, why should we not be mature enough for someone to serve for six years and leave? The attendant tension associated with second term electioneering will be reduced.

    “It will also reduce the number of years each region will wait to get to the Presidency if we want to do it that way. Now, you have to wait for eight years, but if it’s six years, you would have reduced it by two years – from one zone to the other. It is going to work in favour of making the thing go round every part of the country. Instead of waiting eight years, people will wait six years,” Ali said.

    For Igbokwe, the merits outweigh the demerits. “I believe the merits of adopting it are that it would reduce the tension, acrimony and usual violence associated with elections and cost of organising presidential and gubernatorial elections due to the fact that elections would now be once in six years instead of four.

    “Lazy presidents or governors would now be forced to work hard and perform because they would realise that they have only one term and not two terms to perform. Aspirants to the offices would have a shorter time of six years instead of eight years to wait to contest or re-contest.

    “Demerits are that geo-political zones whose extractions are yet to serve two terms of four years each would be spending less time than their counterparts from other zones which is, therefore, unfair; and a performing president or governor would not have enough time to do more for Nigeria or his state.”

    A North-based lawyer, Mr Mike Edegware, called to bar over 30 years ago, also backed the six year tenure.

    He said: “The proposed single six-year term may just be another ‘doctrine of necessity’ that may save Nigeria from being torn to shreds by political hawks. Our experience so far is that after each (s)election, the victor spends half of his tenure on fence-mending and controlling the damage resulting from the circumstances of his election. Once that is achieved, the pressure is on for a second term and again, actual governance is relegated to the back burner.

    “If adopted, therefore, the proposed six-year single term will give the occupants of the seat of power more time to focus on his job. What will be left to be addressed is when and how to implement it. In my opinion, this should be in 2015 and should apply only to those who will be elected for the first time then.”

    Lagos-based constitutional lawyer Mr Ike Ofuokwu is of the view six years is enough, saying: “The issue here is neither about the existing two terms of four years each, nor the proposed single tenure of six years. To make it an issue is simply reductionist. The problem is the quality of politicians we have.

    “Our supposed leaders have chosen to be rulers whose only interest is their personal interest and self-aggrandisement. Hence, they believe that the longer they stay the better for them to indulge themselves in primitive acquisition. Any quality mind will make a lasting and positive impression in government even if he is spending just one year.

    “However, if one puts into consideration the level of distraction in government that is associated with re-election, both pre- and post-election here in Nigeria, then one is compelled to agree with a single term of six years. Moreover anyone who cannot deliver and make meaningful impact in six years, even with 10 years the person will still have no impact. That is to say a bad leader is incurably bad and it has nothing to do with how many years spent in office.”

    Principal partner of Lagos-based law firm, T.C Akanwa and Co, Mr Theophilus Akanwa, said: “I support the proposal. If adopted, it will eliminate the fierce politicking we have always seen by a sitting person to succeed himself by all means. Virtually nothing is done by these groups in their second terms. One wonders whether the allocation is reduced during a second term to warrant the poor performance seen.

    “If some of the governors achieved so much in the first four years, six years is time enough for anybody who has the country/state at heart to deliver good governance to Nigerians.”

     

    Those who oppose plan are:

     

    Three Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Emeka Ngige, rights activist Femi Falana and Dr Joseph Nwobike; Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Chairman, Lagos Branch Taiwo O. Taiwo and others opposed the proposal.

    Ngige said: “No matter how altruistic the recommendation may be, single tenure option is not the solution to our political problems. Instead it will worsen it. One of the beauties of democracy is the provision for re-election of elected officials.

    “Once an elected official is conscious of seeking another term, there is always the tendency to excel, tendency to do good; to produce results which will be used as campaign issues during re-election. It also offers the electorate the opportunity to assess the elected official. Non-performing ones are rejected at the polls while those that performed are reelected.

    “Now, a single tenure option promotes the opposite: complacency, impunity, corruption, non- accountability. The worst aspect is that it also promotes tyranny and dictatorship.

    “If you want a typical illustration of evils of single tenure system, come to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). Since 1998 when NBA opted for a single tenure option to promote peace and unity, we have seen how some presidents (past and present) and even branch chairmen have desecrated the office with acts of impunity, lack of accountability and outright dictatorship.

    “For a fledgling democracy like ours, a single tenure option will kill the experiment. Nigerians should learn from the failure of the NBA experiment and reject the Senate’s recommendation.”

    Nwobike said the lawmakers should rather concentrate on improving transparency in governance.

    His words: “There is nothing magical about single tenure with particular reference to good governance and accountability of elected officials. I really do not see any objective which the proposal would achieve or drive.

    “I think that rather than amend the provisions of our Constitution relating to tenure of elected officials, specific legislative agenda, which would ensure and enforce executive responsibility and continuous assessment, should be developed and implemented.”

    Falana described the single term tenure debate as “so diversionary and irrelevant.” He said: “The proponents of a single tenure of six years are of the view that it will reduce tension and eliminate the use of incumbency by those who are in power. It is not a well thought out idea. Infact, it is a superficial proposition.

    “The Senate should have addressed the culture of impunity which allows a sitting president to seize the state apparatus of violence, overrun all institutions including the legislature and political parties, distribute largesse and engage in executive lawlessness.

    “If you have a president who has unrestrained access to the nation’s wealth it is irrelevant whether he spends six or eight years. The Senate just found that Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, the late Umaru Yar’Ádua and Goodluck Jonathan misappropriated N1.52 trillion.

    “In 2011, alone about N2 trillion was cornered in the name of fuel subsidy. Do you know any president in any oil producing nation who can give oil blocks to friends and family members? Do you know any elected president in a modern state who assembles his ministers every week to share contracts?

    “By virtue of Decree 24 of 1999 otherwise called the 1999 Constitution, the President of Nigeria is the most powerful ruler in the world. The decree merely transferred the absolutist powers of a military dictator to an elected president. President Barrack Obama’s salary and allowances can be found in the internet. You can’t find those of our president anywhere.

    “He receives the highest estacodes and travels with the largest delegations in the world. He can deploy soldiers to kill unarmed people as was the case in Odi and Zaki Biam. He connives with the police to rig elections as we witnessed in the ‘do or die’ wuruwuru (fraudulent) elections of 2007. He controls the political party that sponsored him. He disregards court orders and violates the law with impunity. He is accountable to no one.

    “The debate on the single term tenure is so diversionary and irrelevant. The debate should centre on how to democratise powers with a view to reducing the enormous powers of elected officials which enable them to exercise incumbency powers to remain in office or install their surrogates to spend six or eight years in power.”

    Taiwo said Nigeria’s problem goes beyond tenure. “The problem is quality leadership and commitment to combating corruption. What has been achieved in four years? Give a bad leader 10 years; he will still fail. I do not support one term of six years. Two terms of four years is okay for Nigerians to vote out a rudderless government. Let Nigerians make up their mind every four years!”

    Lagos lawyer Emeka Nwadioke described the proposal as dead on arrival. “It has been said that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Nigerian Constitution. I agree. The same is true of the four-year renewable tenure as currently obtains. That arrangement has served other countries, notably the United States, well. However, the Nigerian politician has characteristically distorted this otherwise harmless provision, to the effect that campaigns for re-election starts immediately one is sworn in. So, fundamentally, what is required is an attitudinal change.

    “However, to the extent that the Senate Committee has proposed a single six-year term, this may look attractive at first glance. As argued, it may curb the tensions generated by re-election tussles. It has been argued that the current arrangement rewards performance, as the single tenure may encourage embezzlement.

    “But, who says that the office holder may not focus on embezzlement during his second tenure, having hoodwinked the electorate with ‘stellar performance’ during his first term? What we also need are strong institutions that make office holders pay fully for any malfeasance, whether during first or second term.

    “I am not certain that one option is fundamentally better than the other insofar as politicians refuse to see public office as an instrument to promote the commonweal. Otherwise, we will only be going round in circles. We need integrity within the political elite and transparency in the electoral process.

    “What is even more worrisome is the clause which seeks to “ban” incumbents from recontesting. Section 4(9) of the very Constitution we seek to amend frowns on legislations that tend to retrospectively ‘punish’ persons, though this relates to criminal matters. It would seem that this extends in principle to even civil matters.

    “It is equally ludicrous that the proposal seeks to bar a Vice President who has only served out, for instance, two months of a joint ticket from contesting. These issues touch on the fundamental rights of citizens and must not be treated lightly, as they have far-reaching and long term effects. We must pull back from our propensity towards expediency.

    “The spirit of every constitution enlarges than shrinks basic rights. A better option may be to encourage the political parties to dissuade such persons from running. At any rate, with The Presidency already kicking against the clause and incumbent Governors pulling strings at the various state Houses of Assembly should the proposal sail through the National Assembly, it seems to me that the proposal, whatever its merits, is dead on arrival.”

    President, Coalition of Lawyers for Good Governance (CLGG), Mr Joe Nwokedi, said rather than six-year tenure, the present four years should be reduced to three.

    “I don’t think we need a single term of six years. We cannot because of the challenges we usually face during re-election, delve into an issue that will spell immeasurable doom to us. It is tantamount to throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Single term of six years will produce more embezzlers, insensitive and incorrigible leadership in our country.

    “It will also extirpate the little checks and powers the electorates often exercise during re-election of our leaders. Proponents of such ideas should also consider its enormous demerits. They can reduce the tenure of governors to three years instead of four years. Re-election is a very essential component of any successful democracy.

    “Our leaders can grow wild, ruthless, heartless and dangerously arrogant with single term of six years. Some will embark on ceaseless embezzlement from the day of swearing in to handover. In my humble opinion, I think it is not a welcome initiative to our democracy. We can triumph over our present challenges with time.”

     

     

  • Jonathan: Judiciary should uphold constitution at all times

    President Goodluck Jonathan yesterday urged members of the Judiciary to uphold the Constitution by following its ethical codes.

    He stressed that these are the hallmarks of the branch of government.

    Jonathan spoke in Abakaliki, the Ebonyi State capital, when he inaugurated a Federal High Court complex in the town.

    The President noted that the Judiciary cannot afford to fail in carrying out this important task, especially in this trying period of the nation’s history.

    Represented by Vice President Namadi Sambo, the President said this is the only way members of the Bar and Bench could erase the negative impressions the public have of them.

    He said Nigeria needs its political elite and opinion leaders to channel their intellectual energies into an objective understanding of the Judiciary for national development.

    Jonathan said: “I wish to call on all well-meaning Nigerians, especially the elite and opinion leaders, to galvanise their intellectual energies in the direction of deepening an objective understanding of the workings of the Judiciary in national development.

    “I wish to call on their lordships and other operators in the body of Benches and the Bar to pursue those ethical codes that are the hallmarks of judicial practice. This will, to a large extent, dispel every form of unfavourable perception regarding your line of duty.

    “I am aware that these are indeed the trying times in our national journey, having sworn to uphold the letters and spirit of the constitution. You cannot afford to fail this time when we have sworn to deliver in all spheres, especially on the rule of law and natural justice.

    “Let me also add that the Judiciary is leaving up to the expectation of Nigerians in dispensing justice and it deserves our applause. This does not, however, mean that it should play to the gallery. Rather, it is to serve as a morale booster to earn more praises from Nigerians.”

    Jonathan said his administration would deliver on its electoral promises in the areas of infrastructural development, job and wealth creation, economic stability, transparency, good governance and national security.

    He added: “However, it is imperative for us to say that all hands must be on deck and that as citizens we should all strive towards contributing our quota in whatever level of socio-economic involvement so that together we shall attain our lofty aspirations as a nation.”

     

  • ACN: Boko Haram’s ban violates Constitution

    ACN: Boko Haram’s ban violates Constitution

    The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) has said that the recent proscription of Boko Haram and Ansaru, desirable as it may be in tackling the terrorist organisations, violates the Constitution.

    According to the party, the proscription stifles the press and tampers with the fundamental human rights of Nigerians.

    In a statement yesterday by its National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the ACN said the order also makes it easy for an increasingly intolerant government to clamp down on the opposition, which it sees more as an irritant than an indispensable part of democracy.

    It urged professional media organisations to challenge the Order in court to save journalists from long jail terms “simply for carrying out their constitutional duties”.

    The ACN urged the Federal Government to clarify “the knotty and vague areas” of the open-ended Order, that may end up punishing journalists and infringing on the civil liberties of the citizens more than it will curtail the activities of the sects.

    ‘’Against the background of insinuations in government circles, let us be clear that we do not condone the activities of these sects that have killed and maimed innocent Nigerians and turned a section of the country into a battle field. Terrorism in all its ramifications is condemnable, and no responsible government will allow any group, no matter its name, grievances or ideology, to carry out terrorist acts unchecked.

    ‘’But we believe that whatever action government takes – even in an emergency – must pass the Constitutional test, especially since the relevant sections of the Constitution have not been suspended,’’ the party said.

    It said the offensive section of the Order is Section 5 (1), which prescribes a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years ‘’for any person who knowingly, in any manner, directly or indirectly, solicits or renders support for the commission of an act of terrorism or to a terrorist group’’.

    The ACN said “support”, as defined by the Order, includes ‘’incitement to commit a terrorist act through the Internet, or any electronic means or through the use of printed materials or through the dissemination of terrorist information.

    ‘’Is this subsection not in conflict with Chapter II Section 22 of the Nigeria constitution, which says ‘The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media, shall AT ALL TIMES BE FREE (emphasis ours) to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people?’

    ‘’By stifling the press, is the Order not abridging a part of the fundamental human rights guaranteed every citizen under Chapter Four of the Nigerian Constitution in Section 39 (1), which states thus: ‘Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference?’(emphasis ours).

    ‘’Can journalists escape being sentenced to 20-year jail terms for publishing statements issued by the sects? Can they freely report on videos periodically posted on YouTube by Boko Haram leader Shekau? Can the media freely report the kind of massacre that took place in Baga in April without being held liable for ‘supporting’ terrorism? Can radio and television stations organise talk shows on terrorism without the discussants being held liable for ‘supporting’ terrorism?

    ‘’Can the opposition criticise the government’s strategies against the terrorist sects, through its regular intervention, without being perceived as offering support to the sects? Does this Order cover the satellite broadcast channels that can be accessed in many homes across the country? Who determines when this Order has been breached? These are some of the questions that arise under the proscription Order,’’ the party said.

    It said the government must take a cue from what obtains in other countries, especially in the US, which are also battling terrorism, adding that the media in those countries have continued to report freely on the activities of the global terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda, despite the horrendous attacks it has carried out in the US and Europe, among others.

    ‘’In a statement we issued on May 5th, we said inter alia: ‘The Jonathan Administration is steadily descending into despotism with a brazen assault on the freedom of expression and the press, the use of national institutions against perceived enemies and a growing inclination to denigrate opposition leaders.

    ‘’The Jonathan Administration is anchored on a Transformation Agenda. But the only transformation that we can see is the one from a democratically-elected

    President to an Emperor, a despot…If the President is not prevailed upon to change course, Nigeria may be in for another season of anomie, reminiscent of the days of the maximum ruler who took the country to the brink before his sudden demise.’

    ‘’We hate to say this has turned out to be prescient, in view of the dangerous provisions of the Boko Haram’s and Ansaru’s proscription Order. The Order’s assault on the press freedom and the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of ordinary Nigerians is unprecedented in the country’s history. We call on the Federal Government to take a second look at this Order, with a view to resolving any conflict it may have with the Constitution,” the ACN said.

    In a reaction to the AC N statement, House of Representatives Minority Leader Femi Gbajabiamila said: “You make a controversial butb an interesting and valid point. The order itself is in order but for the word support which is ambiguous n needs interpretation.”