The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Constitution

  • ‘We are ready to enforce Chapter Two of the Constitution’

    ‘We are ready to enforce Chapter Two of the Constitution’

    You were recently elected chairman of the human rights institutions in West Africa. How do you feel about this and what do we expect from you in this respect?

    Well, the election of Nigeria and, invariably myself as the chairman of the Human Rights Institutions in West Africa, is a mark of the recognition of the role Nigeria is playing in the West African sub-region in relation to the protection of human rights. During this period, we will ensure that Nigeria champions the cause of human rights protection. Very soon, we are going to embark on a tour of all the countries within the sub-region and we are going to meet with governments at all levels to ensure that we adequately sensitise the governments about their obligations to the people within the sub-region. We are going to work closely with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to ensure that human rights are not only recognised within the Sub region, but that they are also observed and respected.

    How do you feel about the human rights condition of the country now?

    I am sure that you are aware of the current human rights situation in the country that whole international community is concerned about, beginning with the series of demolitions of residential buildings and forced evictions of the citizens by the various authorities or institutions of government to the killings that have recently taken place in the country.

    Can you mention some of these incidents to be specific?

    Well, you are aware of the present situation in the northeast where there have been reported cases of killings of people, you are also aware of what happened in Baga, where people have been alleged to have been killed by the security forces. You are also aware of what happened in Nasarawa State, where security agents were killed by unknown persons.

    Now, the international community, like the nation and Nigerians are concerned.

    There are cases and allegations of forced demolition of residential houses and forced eviction of Nigerians by different government authorities and institutions. What is your reaction to these developments?

    With respect to demolition and planned evictions in the country, we first received complaints from the residents of Mpape people here in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Abuja. We also received complaints from the residents of Rivers State, over the demolitions that took place in Water Front in Port Harcourt. We received complaints and petitions from the Makoko people in Lagos and, most recently, from the Badiah people there in Llagos.

    So, what is your reaction to all these petitions and complaints?

    We have been telling all the agents of governments and various authorities that the due processes of law must be followed before any demolitions are carried out or their planned eviction of Nigerians from their residence. First of all, government continues to justify these actions on the grounds that these people are either licensees or in occupation of these areas unlawfully. Our commission has taken a very giant step towards trying to put an end to these issues planned demolitions or forced eviction. I want to let you know that as a commission here on daily basis, we receive more than 200 petitions from all over the world, particularly from members of the Amnesty International with respect to these forced evictions and demolitions.

    So, what have you done in this respect?

    Well, I have led a team of investigators from the commission here and we went to Mpape, we went to Lagos, we went to Port Harcourt and to all these places where demolitions took place. We also engaged the governments and despite the various interventions by this office, most of which yielded fruitful results because we were able to prevail on various governments to stop such demolitions in Abuja here, Lagos and in Port Harcourt. Despite these efforts, there are still incidents of forced evictions in the country.

    What is the commission doing to address these?

    What the commission has been able to do in this respect will be to carry out a public inquiry, where all the various stakeholders will be invited, where the aggrieved persons will be invited, where the perpetrators, the government authorities will all be brought together and holistically, the issue will be looked into together and the commission will come up with very significant and fundamental recommendations. We are hoping that after the public inquiry, the commission will come out with policy guidelines which the government will adapt. We will recommend the same to the government to adapt, and this will become a working document for all government authorities to follow, in cases where they plan to remove people from where they are residing and then we will recommend the payment of compensation to all the aggrieved persons. We will come up with either policy issues and recommendations that we once and for all put the issue to rest

    Why has the commission not taken definite steps following the investigations that were carried out in some of those places?

    The reason that the commission has not taken definite steps following the investigations that were carried out was the fact that some of these complaints that were received, the complainants already decided to take them to courts, so, some of these matters are before the courts and as a result of that, he is very hesitant in coming out with final determinations. So, as not to interfere with the proceedings in the courts. For that reason, we are carrying out these public inquiries and we are hoping that these efforts by the commission will bring to an end, cases of forced demolition in our country.

    Kidnapping of innocent citizens has become almost a daily occurrence in the country. Recently, the wife, daughter and driver of a Justice of the Supreme Court were kidnapped. How do we overcome this national challenge?

    This commission has continued to engage the Nigeria Police and other security agencies with regard to the need to protect the lives and properties of Nigerians. Recently, the commission called upon the Federal Government to take steps that will ensure the safety of Nigerians and to provide security for Nigerians. Security is very vital to human rights protection and it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the protection of the human rights of all citizens and all persons living here in Nigeria. To this end, we do consider it as a principal obligation that the government owes, it is a duty that the government must undertake for the interest of the populace. So, we are a national human rights institute that is charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights of people have continued to ensure that the government lives up to its obligations. Despite that, most of these incidents that have occurred, we have called on the Police that they must ensure that not only that the perpetrators are found, but that the rights of the victims are protected in a way that the perpetrators are found, the victims are released. So, it is one major challenge that we have in this country but apart from the fact that we ask the government to take prompt steps to have these kidnapped victims to be released and to ensure the protection of Nigerians, we also engage the government to ensure that the root causes for some of these activities are addressed. You may find that these activities can also be linked to the general insecurity and the general factors that today are responsible for what is happening in the country. Most of them stem from the high rate of unemployment in the country, the high rate of poverty in the country, of cause poverty cannot be used as an excuse for people to engage in criminality. You do find that when people are unemployed, when people are so poor, they have no food on their table and all that, they can engage in engage in all manner of activities. So, it is the responsibility of the government to take all these factors into consideration and look at the whole situation holistically and then adopt the strategies that will bring to an end all such incidents. But again, as a commission, we call upon all Nigerians to work and to support the government in this area. It is the responsibility of every Nigerian to rise and then support the Nigerian government because this situation is such that we cannot fold our arms and allow the government alone to take actions. We owe the responsibility to every Nigerian to report such incidents to the appropriate authorities and law enforcement agents. Most of these criminals who are responsible for these activities are living among Nigerian and some Nigerians do know them. So, Nigerians must cooperate with security agencies and support the government

    In which ways can we co-operate with the government to tackle these menace?

    One way of co-operating with the government is by reporting the activities of such people, people that we know that do these acts must be reported and people must take steps to co operate with the security agencies so that the perpetrators of this evil act will be apprehended and punished, accordingly, when they are punished, then this will serve as a deterrent to future occurrences

    The President recently declared state of emergency in three states, namely, Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states. How do we ensure the protection of the rights of civilians in those states?

    Yes, we have for a long time been advising the security agencies to adapt and to comply with the rules of engagement, particularly when dealing with insurgents. There are two issues here, first, the security agencies must accept, as stated by the President, when he said, in those areas, the activities of those unknown persons constitute a war being declared against the sovereignty of Nigeria. If we do agree today that there is a war being declared then we must comply with the rules of the law of armed conflicts.

    What does the law on armed conflicts say?

    The law of armed conflicts states that where a person is not participating in an armed conflict, such a person must be spared and must not be attacked. So, in this regard, we have called upon the security agencies to ensure that humanitarian law is made applicable in this kind of situation, that is to say, innocent people must be spared by all means and then if engagement is made, it must be directed only at the combatants that is the people who have taken up arms against Nigerians and against the security agencies. It is only in this way that you will ensure the protection of the rights of the people in that place. In a situation where members of the so called armed groups lay down their arms, then it becomes obligatory for the security agencies not to attack them. But to arrest them and have them properly prosecuted in the manner accepted by law. And again, if we take it that there is no armed conflict in that place, it then means that we must comply with human rights law and human rights law dictates that people should only be treated in accordance with the provisions of the law. Now that we have a state of emergency and the rule of law temporarily seemed to be modified, the modification of the rule of law in this area should not extend to a point whereby the rights of the people are completely ignored. The rule of law must be looked upon and the combatants must comply with the rules of engagement.

    Some Nigerians, civil society groups and rights institutions have consistently called for the provisions of Chapter Two of the constitution to made justice able to enhance better life for the people. What is your position on this?

    We have said it before, as an institution that is responsible for the protection of the rights of Nigerians, there are ample provisions in the constitution that makes Chapter Two of the constitution justiceable because if you look at Section 13 of the same Chapter two that we are talking about, it states clearly that all organs of government must ensure the implementation of the provisions of that Chapter which then means that for the Courts, they are under a constitutional obligation to bring into meaning and effect the provisions of Chapter two. So, the fact that there is another Section in the constitution that says yes, the provisions of Chapter two are not justiceable, another provision in the constitution still says that the organs of state are under an obligation to ensure that Chapter is implemented. But apart from that, Nigeria as a country that has acceded to international instruments for the protection of rights of the people and for the fact that we are bound to apply customary international law, some of the provisions of the said Chapter two today constitute law in terms that they have become part of the customary international law which our Courts are bound to apply. So for us as an institution that has the obligation and a mandate to enforce these rights, we will at any given point in time, when we receive a complaint in this direction, we shall proceed to enforce such rights that are contained in Chapter of the constitution by virtue of the fact that this do constitute part of the customary international law, but again, much of this provisions of Chapter two are contained in some of these international instruments like the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), which Nigeria acceded to and which Nigeria has ratified and of which, Nigeria is under an international obligation to ensure the implementation and enforcement.

     

  • Mixed signals from constitution amenders

    Legislators are not giving clear signals on amending the 1999 Constitution

    It is becoming more difficult by the day to know what the lawmakers amending the 1999 Constitution are up to. Just a few weeks ago, they released results of votes on areas suggested by the assembly for amendment. It is clear from the list that the amendments to be expected from lawmakers are likely to push the country further into the pit of unitary rule. But the lecture by the Speaker a few days ago in Lagos suggests that the assembly is also contemplating pushing most items on the Exclusive list to the Concurrent list.

    When Nigerians called for a national conference to create a people’s constitution to replace the one foisted on the nation by the country’s last military dictator, lawmakers quickly came out to say that the legislature embodies the people’s sovereignty. They argued that it is not proper to jump over their heads to create another group to amend the constitution, claiming that they were duly voted into legislative office by citizens. On the contrary, federalists argued that lawmakers were not given a mandate to write a constitution, arguing further that the 1999 Constitution is too far from the constitution upon which Nigerian communities agreed to become an independent nation in 1960. Critics of lawmakers’ position also stressed that the constitution the legislators wanted to amend had no input from citizens and that it was at best a document to support transition to democracy superintended by General Abdusalaam Abubakar. The proper thing to do, citizens affirmed, is to extend the rights inherent in democratic governance to citizens to elect their representatives to negotiate a post-military constitution.

    Apparently, the National Assembly has been calculating in handling the amendment exercise. It has used the media to give the impression that the amendment is driven by a truly democratic process. First, the Assembly invited self-appointed spokespersons to come to their zonal headquarters to indicate what citizens slated for change in the constitution. It did not matter if such spokespersons consulted with anyone in their constituencies. It did not matter to lawmakers if citizens could afford to travel to zonal headquarters in large numbers or if they could afford accommodation away from home. What mattered was the fact that some persons showed up at each venue to discuss the 1999 Constitution with elected legislators from their zone. Another thing that mattered was the informal voting on issues by unelected participants at the public hearing. One other thing that mattered was that lawmakers were able to publish the results of the voting they conducted over constitutional provisions. At least such open communication with the electorate enabled legislators to show the weight of evidence in favor of further de-federalisation of the polity.

    Moreover, it mattered to lawmakers that they were able to publicise their own voting on items determined principally by them. It did not matter if such items are related to worries of citizens about overconcentration of powers at the center in the 1999 Constitution. But legislators felt obliged to demonstrate to citizens that there is correlation between voting patterns at the public hearing and in the hallowed legislative chamber, especially to show evidence that lawmakers agreed on most issues with positions of unelected spokespersons at the zonal public hearings. At best skeptics would call this process good packaging and at worst working to the answer.

    What the legislators are now invoking is the principle of majority rule. But what they are missing is that the distribution of legislative seats in the 1999 Constitution is one of the issues that citizens believe should be subject of negotiation at a sovereign national conference or an ordinary constitutional conference. They also appear unaware of the fact that a constitutional conference could have led to a different way of distributing legislative seats among the federating units known for having starkly different attitudes to census figures for the country. Optimists on the issue of lawmakers’ amendment of a constitution believed to be bereft of citizens’ input must have expected legislators to come up with a more federal constitution, to assuage the feelings of federalists who had been calling since 1993 for a sovereign national conference to negotiate a people-authored Union Charter. It is looks like the pessimists might win: the amended constitution is now likely to be more unitary than the 1999 Constitution itself.

    Amendments are likely to allow local governments to be divorced from the states to which they belong. The issue of a third tier of government created by military dictators without any reference to the federating units is now likely to be strengthened by amendments by legislators, as funds to local governments may go directly to local governments. The federal monopoly over securing of life and property of citizens is now more likely (than not) to be reinforced in the amended constitution. The provision for State Electoral Commission is also likely to be removed from the current constitution, thereby creating a centralized electoral commission to conduct election to federal, state, and local offices.

    If the claim by the Speaker that there are plans to push most items on the Exclusive list to the Concurrent is true, how will that fit into the items already approved by legislators? Federalists need to be more attentive at this point. If lawmakers are shooting for emptying most exclusive items into the concurrent list with the ultimate goal of creating a residual list, this may be a ploy to change states into glorified sites for Lugardian-type of indirect rule. With the principle of federal supremacy intact in the constitution, transferring more items from the exclusive to the concurrent list may be another working to the answer. The provision of federal legislative supremacy over items on the concurrent list in the current constitution can be used to render states irrelevant. State governors and legislators may be reduced to the status of traditional rulers under indirect rule: allowed to do whatever the overlords approve of and prevented from carrying out responsibilities that federal government wishes to seize from them. This is already happening. The federal government has succeeded in preventing Lagos State from installing surveillance devices to protect life and property of citizens in the state, on the flimsy excuse that the federal government has the intention to install similar cameras in the country’s major cities.

    As federal lawmakers continue with the amendment exercise, they need to be made aware of two principles inherent in federal democratic system: the principle of Federal Loyalty and the principle of Federal Comity. The former refers to commitment on all sides to achieve the objectives and fulfill the needs of the federal polity. Citizens including opponents of the 1999 Constitution showed this commitment when they bought the argument that legislators be allowed to amend the constitution. The latter principle is about willingness by all sides to compromise, exercise forbearance, and understand the point of views of others. The handling of the amendment process by the National Assembly does not show there is respect for such principle. Nobody should be surprised if after the amendments are finally out, they succeed only in refueling the call for a sovereign national conference.

  • A misbegotten constitution review

    A misbegotten constitution review

    The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha, has been all over the media this past week congratulating himself and his colleagues on executing what by his reckoning is one of the rarest political feats ever achieved in this clime.

    “We have kept faith with Nigerians,” he proclaimed, in an article detailing the exertions the House of Representatives put itself through in its self-serving and utterly misconceived task of fashioning a new Constitution for Nigeria (ThisDay, April 19, 2013).

    He recalled how, on December 10, 2012, all 360 members of the House fanned out across the country to their constituencies to stage town hall meetings at which various “stakeholders” deliberated on a 43-item template of issues they would like to see amended in the 1999 Constitution.

    Discussions at the sessions were not merely free and robust, Ihedioha wrote, they were resoundingly “participatory.” Thereafter, votes were taken and recorded in full view of all the participants. Each member of the House then presented a report, incorporating voting results from his or her constituency and backed by video evidence, to the secretariat of the ad hoc Committee on the Review of the Constitution.

    The reports were then deposited at the secretariat of the Constitution Review Committee, which again invited representatives of “stakeholders” to join with its staffers to collate the results.

    As Ihedioha sees it, the outcome of this process, presented to the House of Representatives last week, categorically represents “the voice” of the Nigerian people regarding what changes they would like to see an amended Constitution.

    He admitted that the process may not be perfect, but before you could give him high praise for candour, he declared without fear and without research that “it is the first time in the history of this country that Nigerians at the grassroots have been made part of the Constitution Review Process in a practical and transparent manner.”

    The process is nothing of the sort. In conception and execution, it is as incurably flawed as the 1999 Constitution it was supposed to modify. It is certainly not an improvement.

    To begin with, what the nation needs is not a trainload of amendments to a Constitution that may not be a grand forgery as some leading authorities have called it, but is so shot through with errors and omissions, and so constricted in its underlying assumptions, that it cannot serve as a useful guide for and resolving the conflicts convulsing the country.

    In undertaking to re-work that document, Ihedioha and his colleagues in the House of Representatives were laboring under a misapprehension

    Even if the House has a mandate to review the 1999 Constitution, the way it went about it belies Ihedioha’s claim that the outcome represents the “voice” of the people. For one thing, the people had no hand in preparing the agenda. They certainly took no part in designing the “43-item template” that constituted the substance of discourse – assuming it is not a case of unnecessary dignification to call what took place a “discourse”.

    For another, those whom House members railroaded from their constituencies into attending the town meetings were for the most part self-selected or induced by the prospect of free food and drinks and gifts from the abundant perks – the constituency and hardship allowances, among others — of the Honourable Visitor from Abuja. In no sense can they be said to represent the political tendencies or shades of opinion in the constituency, much less in the country.

    For yet another, there was no independent verification of the “collation” that followed each town meeting. The House member who staged the meeting and had a vested interest in showing that it was a “robust” grassroots deliberative forum, the kind of which Nigeria had never witnessed, was responsible for the “collation”. In this digital age, the “video evidence” presented with the report cannot authenticate an exercise that was at bottom a mockery.

    Or “a sham and a monumental failure,” as High Chief Rita Lori-Ogbebor, the influential minority-rights activist called it, in a withering critique (ThisDay, November 13, 2012) of the town meeting held in her Delta State constituency of Warri. The exercise, she said, was “nothing more than a ploy to rubber stamp the selfish agenda of those who organized it.”

    The Warri town hall meeting took place the day President Goodluck Jonathan was visiting to join in the birthday celebrations of the televangelist, Ayo Oristsejafor. Scheduled to start at 9 o’clock in the morning, it did not begin until 4 p.m. By then, many of those who had gathered for the event had left.

    Only one minute was allowed for indicating “yes” or “no” to 43 questions on the template. That was the sum total of the “discussions.”

    “How on earth do you expect people of my calibre and age to just answer ‘Yes or No’ about a matter that was not previously discussed?” Lori-Ogbebor asked in justified indignation.

    To be sure, not all the public hearings across the country were as shambolic as the one in Warri. But even where they were better organized, one cannot in good faith call them “consultations.” Asking members of the audience to answer “yes” or “no” to the questions on the template cannot be called “consultations” without doing great violence to language. Nor can it be honestly claimed that the outcome represents the “voice” of the people.

    What a good-faith exercise requires is a forum at which persons elected for the purpose of re-writing the Constitution meet over a period of time – certainly not one day – and deliberate, no options foreclosed, on a wide range of significant national issues in a spirit of give-and take, and come up with a document reflects a broad national consensus on which a healthier union can be founded.

    The town hall meetings provided no such forum.

    One of the issues that has been convulsing Nigeria is that federalism – the bedrock principle on which the nation was established — has over the years been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, to the point that Nigeria today is more or less a centrally administered state.

    The so-called public hearings evaded the problem altogether, or sought to perpetuate it. One of the items on its template required the audience to indicate by yes or no whether the electoral commissions in the states should be abolished, leaving it to the National Electoral Commission to conduct all polls.

    No one desirous of restoring true federalism would ask a question like that.

    Another item called for a vote on whether the states should establish a police force, without laying out the arguments for and against, and without outlining how potential abuse of the scheme might be averted or curbed.

    And in Lagos State of all places, a majority of attendees – the very people who stand to lose the most – reportedly voted to deny federal funds to local governments allegedly created outside the framework of the1999 Constitution.

    How plausible is this outcome? Did they really understand what they were voting on? Surely, the more fundamental question is whether Kano State, which allegedly has roughly the same population as Lagos State, should have three times as many local governments in Lagos State, and three times as many representatives in the lower house of the National Assembly.

    The foregoing, in sum, is the process Emeka Ihedioha and his colleagues in the House of Representatives are busy advertising as a great breakthrough. This is the product they want Nigerians to accept as an unprecedented act of keeping faith with the public.

    I see it as a grand evasion of the problems at hand, and a usurpation of the prerogative of the sovereign people of Nigeria to give themselves a new Constitution. Something tells me that it will go down as yet another exercise in futility.

    Meanwhile, the question needs to be asked again: Who is afraid of an authentic people’s Constitution, one truly warranted by the preface, “We the people . . .”?

     

     

  • Senate collates submission on Constitution review

    The Senate Committee on Constitution Review will begin the collation of submissions from the six geopolitical zones, it was learnt yesterday.

    A source close to the committee said the consultants, who began work after public hearings in the zones, are now in the last lap of their assignment.

    The source, who spoke in confidence, explained that the collation is a prelude to the submission of the final draft of the bill to the Senate for consideration and possible passage.

    He said the committee plans to hold a retreat in Lagos to consider the submissions next week.

    The source added: “Barring last minute changes, the Senate Committee on Constitution Review will hold a retreat in Lagos from April 25 to 28 to consider the submissions from the various geopolitical zones.

    “The retreat will afford the committee the opportunity to look at the submissions that emanated from the geopolitical zones. After looking at them, the committee will take a decision, based on the preponderance of evidence as to what aspects of the issues slated for amendment would make it into the draft bill on Constitution review to be submitted to the Senate for consideration.”

    Responding to a question, the source said: “You will recall that the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitution Review, Ike Ekweremadu, did promise that the committee would present its report to the Senate in the third quarter of this year.”

    In the sixth National Assembly, lawmakers tried to amend the Constitution but concentrated largely on issues relating to electoral reforms.

    The issues listed for the ongoing constitution review by the Seventh National Assembly, include: One term of five years for the President; governors and deputy governors; devolution of powers for true federalism; indigeneship; financial autonomy for Houses of Assembly; state creation; state police; immunity clause, Judicial reforms and autonomy for local governments, among others.

    It is, however, not clear how soon the report of the committee would be ready for presentation to the Senate after the retreat.

     

  • Constitution clear on maximum tenure, says President

    Constitution clear on maximum tenure, says President

    President Goodluck Jonathan yesterday drew the attention of the political class to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulate the maximum term for office holders.

    Jonathan, who spoke during the dedication of the All Saints’ Anglican Church built by Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu in Aninnri Local Government Area of Enugu State, said that politicians should be ready to subject themselves to the provisions of the constitution.

    It was not immediately clear whether President Jonathan, who has not declared his intention to run again in 2015, was responding to the criticisms that have followed his purported ambition.

    According to him, no individual could stay in office for life, even where the constitution does not stipulate the maximum term of tenures.

    Dr. Jonathan said: “There is no point fighting for political leadership that is transient, to the extent that you want to even burn a house down because they perceive you are not too comfortable with a particular situation, be it at the local level, be at the state and federal levels. These are transitional leadership.”

    “Today, we have a constitution that defines the maximum tenure that any individual can stay in office. And even if the constitution does not define, no leader will stay there for life. I think, collectively, we should think more about our own country, think more about leaving behind a society that our children will be happy with.”

    “I believe no leader can do everything for the society. But, think about some key things and do those ones, but try and do those ones very well. What I can promise Nigerians is that with your support, we will succeed. We have our challenges, no doubt about that, but we are committed that we will make these little changes that will make a different in our lives,” the President said.

    He enjoined prominent Nigerians, who enjoy dual citizenships, to join hands with his administration towards building a country everybody will be proud of.

    Corroborating the position of the Primate of the Anglican Communion, the Most Rev. Nicholas Okoh, that those who are well endowed should join hands to build the nation, the President said: “I want to concur with what His Grace said, that if we leave Nigeria and go elsewhere, you may have different passports that can take you to many countries without even visas; they will still regard you as a Nigerian. You cannot fit in properly, until you come home.”

    “So, let us join hands and build a nation that we, our children and children yet unborn will be happy with. Just like the Primate said, political leaders are transient; they come and go. As a leader, you always pray that as you go, you leave good footprints behind.”

    Commending the Deputy Senate President for building a church – in line with his covenant with God – the President said: “Ike has been able to build a church for Mpu community. We have to thank God for giving Martias (his late father) a son like Ike.”

    Dedicating the church, the Primate of the Anglican Communion, the Most Rev Nicholas Okoh, congratulated Ekewremadu for being chosen by God to build the church.

    “Of all you have ever done in your life, this is the best. You have applied your money to do something that brings glory to God,” he noted.

    Calling on other wealthy individuals who have the resources to build a church to emulate Ekweremadu, he said: “We want to encourage you to spend money to the glory of God.”

    While praying for President Jonathan, Rev. Okoh said: “He came to this position through your grace, may he not be disgraced out. There may be people who are not happy with him, may you protect him from their powers. Give him the grace as the man who transformed this country. May he not go home empty handed. May our destiny as a nation be fulfilled.”

    Stressing that being religious remains a strong factor going for Nigeria, he said that it was a shame that the country was still being confronted with various challenges.

    His words: “It is a shame that we have not been able to harness this powerful resource to the benefit of our country. It means somebody is not sincere. We must all work hard to deliver our country together. We should have a new resolution to go out and transform our society. It is wisdom, therefore, to build this place (Nigeria) and this government in power should be a transition to the new order.”

    Ekweremadu said even as he saw homelessness while growing up, he made a covenant with God to build a church for him if successful in life.

    Recalling that he went through serious health challenge and that only God saved him, the Deputy Senate President said: “I said, God, because of these challenges surrounding me, if you make me successful in life, I will build a church for you.

    “And from that day, it has been one progress or the other. Today is a very important day in the life of my family. It is the most important day in my life because God has given us the opportunity to redeem our pledge and covenant.”

    The Senate President, Senator David Mark, took the first lesson from Exodus 12:14 to 36. The second lesson was read by the wife of the donor, Lady Nwanneka Ekweremadu, from Colossians 3:1 to 11.

    Other dignitaries at the dedication included Deputy Speaker of House of Reps., Emeka Ihedioha, Governors Theodre Orji of Abia and Peter Obi of Anambra, Ministers of Finance Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala; Aviation, Mrs Stella Oduah; Culture and Tourism, Chief Edem Duke and Minister of State I for Foreign Affairs, Prof Viola Onwuliri as well as presidential aides.

    Also present at the occasion were Senators Ayogu Eze, Tunde Ogbeha, Prof Dora Akunyili, Mr Frank Nweke jnr, Mr Osita Chidoka.

  • Presidential pardon under the Constitution

    Presidential pardon under the Constitution

    The sudden news of grant of prerogative of mercy by President Goodluck Jonathan, to some high profile ex-convicts in the country had sparked off angry reactions from well-meaning citizens, from all walks of life, particularly the elites and the civil society groups, principally predicated on the negative implication to the purported war against corruption and the image of the country before the international community, especially for a government that prides itself as a leading bastion of civility, due process and constitutionality, in Africa.

    The grant of pardon or prerogative of mercy is a right recognised under the 1999 constitution of Nigeria, as amended in 2011, and should ordinarily, if properly exercised, be greeted with applause and gratitude to the President when such is extended to deserving person or persons who have been tried and convicted of any offence and with no pending appeal against the conviction, irrespective of the gravity of the offence or the severity of punishment meted to the offender.

    This practice dates back to the medieval times when the King as imperial potentate in exercise of his temporal and ecclesiastical powers, administered both cannon and civil laws, extolling the divine qualities of mercy and forgiveness, as precondition for salvation.

    The reality and necessity for this long standing practice seeking to temper justice with mercy was most profoundly and unequivocally illuminated by the renowned wordsmith, Williams Shakespeare, in his book, The Merchant of Venice, thus, “The quality of mercy is not strained; it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath; it is twice blest; it blesseth him that gives, and him that takes;…”

    Ever since then till date the exercise of prerogative of mercy has become very popular as a legitimate component of the administration of justice underscoring its incorporation into the laws and constitution of most civilised countries, including Nigeria, which has extant legislations and statutory enactments at the state and federal levels making ample provisions for grant of prerogative powers in favour of a convict.

    This right provided for under sections 212(1) and 175(1) & (2) of the Constitution for the Governor and the President, respectively, is legally assessable and available to all classes of convicts in Nigeria and is obtainable by a convict applying either personally or through a solicitor, or even through the prison authority where he or she is incarcerated, to a Governor or the President as the case may be, for grant of the prerogative of mercy or pardon, in his favour.

    Under the forgoing provisions of the constitution, a State Governor or the President of Nigeria has constitutional powers to grant conditional or unconditional pardon to a convict, or to substitute, reduce, commute or remit the length of sentence and/or the severity or quantum of punishment and penalty or forfeiture, imposed on that person by a court of law.

    The legal effect of a pardon is very profound and far reaching to a beneficiary, as it exempts, frees and releases the convict of all liabilities or disabilities flowing from his said conviction and is therefore completely purged and cleansed of the pariah status, infamy and ignoble toga of an ex-convict under the law.

    However, as a special kind of power held in public trust by the Governor or President, it ought to be exercised with the highest sense of responsibility, probity and circumspection by the person vested with such powers.

    This is to ensure that the critical balance between the rights of the individual concerned and the corresponding right of the public to good order, decency, peace and security, is maintained, to meet the ends of equity, justice and good conscience at all times.

    The pristine quest for substantial justice and a wholesome criminal justice system is at the root of the practice of prerogative of mercy. It is therefore a product of genuine desire to remedy or ameliorate the effect of a conviction perceived not to have reasonably met the standards of justice, the rule of law and due process, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the particular case, especially, where such trials were targeted at perceived enemies of a particular government or military junta, not necessarily for any plausible infractions of the law but as a punishment for speaking the truth to power.

    State pardon is a discretionary power to be exercised judiciously and judicially and not meant to be used as an instrument of patronage for political benefactors or for self enhancement and aggrandizement but must be exercised in a reasonable manner devoid of bias and public umbrage and strictly consistent with the letters and spirit of the law and the code of conduct for all public officials.

    The fundamental obligation and primary purpose of government under section 15(5) of the 1999 constitution is the abolition of corrupt practice and abuse of power, a provision strongly reinforced in the fifty schedule to the constitution (Part 1) dealing with Code of Conduct for Public Officers. Section 1 hereof forbids any conflict of interest with official duty and provides that, a public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities.

    The president had with the approval of the Council of State, exercised the powers conferred upon him by the provisions of Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to extend presidential clemency, amnesty or pardon to his former boss and ex-Governor of Bayelsa State, Mr. DSP Alamieyeseigha and six others, who have been tried and convicted of various offences in the past ranging from official corruption, grand larceny to alleged coup plotting and treasonable felony by Nigerian courts.

    The propriety or otherwise as well as the real motive behind the President’s action, has generated so much furor and criticisms in the domain of public opinion, especially in the case of his said former boss and kinsman, and Mr. Shetima, the former Managing Director of Bank of the North, both of whom were convicted by the court for official corruption and misappropriation of bank funds.

    The public outrage and controversy foreshadowing the above pardon granted to corrupt politicians calls to question the government’s sincerity in its avowed determination to truly tackle the menace of corruption in the country, as the survival of the people including the government itself depends on stamping out this systemic scourge in our body politic.

    The government rather than heckle, intimidate and antagonise those opposed to its actions should instead embrace the merits of these well-meaning concerns for positive change, even in the face of emerging fresh facts that most of the beneficiaries of the pardon had earlier been pardoned by a previous regime which undermines the propriety of the entire exercise seen by many as a mere hoax or stratagem foisted on the people to achieve a predetermined end.

    • Chief Agbedo of Crown Law Chambers is based in Lagos.

  • ‘Constitution review is window dressing’

    ‘Constitution review is window dressing’

    Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi spoke with reporters on the defects of the constitution review by the National Assembly. To him, the public hearing on the amendment is a road show, reports EMMANUEL OLADESU

     

    Many Nigerians have expressed reservations about the constitution amendment by the National Assembly. Opinion of the stakeholders is divided. The Senate President, David Mark, has said that the legislature has the power to review the constitution. But other stakeholders are of the view that what Nigeria needs now is a peoples constitution, instead of the review of the flawed 1999 Constitution.

    Ekti State Governor Kayode Fayemi is among leaders who have frowned at the way and manner the public hearings on the review were conducted by the National Assembly. In his assessment, the process was not people-driven. Therefore, it is not appropriate. He wondered why people failed to learn from history.

    “When the last constitution review process got halted at the altar of third term or no third term, many of the issues that Nigerians were passionate about were lost in the process of that debate”, he recalled. Judging by his background, the governor, like many Nigerians, is worried by the faulty structure of the Nigerian state. Thus, he opposed those opposing devolution of powers to the component units of the federation. “Many feel that the federalism that we claim to practice is fake and that ownership is not in the hands of the Nigerian people and that whatever we are going to do, we will ensure that we focus on that”, he told reporters.

    Other core issues that ought to shape the amendment include state police, principles of derivation, and revenue allocation formula. The governor acknowledged the disagreement triggered by state police. But he pointed out that the same feud is not assailing the call for decentralisation. Fayemi said public hearings on the review process looked like a road show because of the manner of approach.

    The governor frowned at the stiff opposition to the clamour for referendum at the end of the process. He doubted if that gap can be bridged by the claim by the House of Representatives that it has held 360 mini-conferences across the federal constituencies. He criticised the so-called mini-conferences, saying that legislators took a short-cut route. “If you saw the way and manner that went, it was really not a people-driven process and it is going to be very difficult to collate the results of that exercise, if we can call it an exercise at all. As a matter of fact, there are those who feel that what happened at the zonal level, driven by the Senate, was much more robust and authentic. And even at that, it is still not a product of the people”, he maintained.

    Fayemi, who holds a doctorate degree in Political Science, berated the antagonists of referendum. He explained that, although there is nowhere in the British Constitution where a referendum is said to be the defining and ultimate determination of any issue, but when a matter becomes critical, the referendum is always the process used in unlocking a gridlock.

    “Even, in the most recent America presidential election, there were almost a 100 issues in some states; same-sex marriage, the use of cannabis, abortion, death penalty and other series of issues that are local to a particular state that we didn’t talk about because the main issue was the election. I think we just have to be honest with ourselves. What is this country called Nigeria? And who are we, the inhabitants of Nigeria? Are we subjects or are we truly citizens with right and responsibilities? To a large extent, we are being treated as if we are subjects to some people that we have no control over and I think the essence of democracy is to let the people take ownership”, he added.

    Fayemi maintained that the current process cannot produce a popular and laudable outcome worthy of overwhelming acceptable. However, he conceded that “whatever it produces will be the result of elite consensus rather than the people’s wish”.

    The governor cautioned against the elite gang-up, warning that the thinking in some quarters that any deal by the Presidency, governors and National Assembly could resemble the popular wish contradicted the popular clamour for real national dialogue among the people of Nigeria and process of mass mobilisation.

    On the front burner is the state creation. At issue is their viability and financial implications. Lending his voice, the governor submitted that it is counter-productive to create states that would not be viable. Instead of state creation, Fayemi said: “We should be moving towards regional compact. I think we are seriously at risk as state because very few states are viable on their own. That is the fact and when people make the comparison, they don’t just stop as if that is a game of number.

    “If you take Akwa Ibom and Ekiti states, what Akwa Ibom gets in a year from the Federal Government, Ekiti State does not even get 10 per cent of it. Ekiti State gets about N36billion a year and yet, if you compare N36 billion to about N400 billion, you will understand what I mean. But, it is not the fault of the person that collects N400 billion. I think what is fundamentally wrong is that the sharing nature of this federation is what undermines and leads to this relentless yearning for state creation because you feel that, once a state is created, your share will come”.

    The way out, said Fayemi, is to allow the states to control their resources and contribute to the federation purse, adding “that there must however, be a decision on what represents an irreducible minimum that we must contribute as taxes to the federal coffers, which in turn get shared to states that are not endowed as others”.

    Shedding light on this alternative, he added: “I think what we need is for regions to gain control and manage their resources and then for the federation to have an equalisation fund that enables us to cater for the weak. This will do two things. It will make us more innovative and creative. It would ensure that states like Ekiti or Ondo where proceeds from cocoa were used in developing the whole of the Western Nigeria, take agriculture more seriously because we have no choice. And I still believe that our greatest resource is the human capital that we have rather than this over-dependence on oil and all sorts of mineral resources that are wasting assets. So, I think state creation is not the solution, regional compact is the way to go”.

    Given the political diversity of Nigeria and its peculiar brand of politics, would such a policy of controlling resources by states and remitting percentages to the Federation Account work? Fayemi said it could be possible, if it is premised on collective resolve. But he said problem may still continue to rear its head because there is no transparency in the way the nation’s funds are being managed”.

    “That is why we need Accountant-General of the Federation, to handle the nation’s finances and the Accountant-General of the Federal Government that will handle that of the central government. However, the present situation whereby one person performs the two roles does not encourage transparency in the way the federation funds are being handled”, he added.

     

  • Intrigues threaten constitution review project

    Intrigues threaten constitution review project

    As the two houses of the National Assembly put finishing touches to the committee reports on constitution review efforts, Assistant Editor, Dare Odufowokan, takes a look at the issues stalling the process

     

    A  subtle but deep struggle is currently going on at the National Assembly. Sources close to the hallowed chambers say the rumpus, which has to do with the ongoing constitutional review process, may soon blow into the open as a very serious political crisis that will cut across party, regional and even ideological divides.

    Though the reports of the nationwide referendum on the constitution review conducted by both the House of Representatives and the senate are yet to be made public, there are already indications that the lawmakers may find it difficult to speak with one voice on the matter.

    While the House of Representatives took the survey on the review to the 360 Federal Constituencies in the country, members of the senate conducted similar surveys in the six geo-political zones of the country all in a bid to make the planned amendment as reflective of the desires of Nigerians as possible.

    But there are now fear that the outcome of the said surveys may have torn the National Assembly apart ahead of the public presentation of a report on the ongoing constitutional review process.

    Already, there is a failed attempt by the Constitution Review Committee of the House of Representatives to present its result on the review. The Speaker, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, who rose from a marathon meeting of principal officers that lasted over three hours, announced the cancellation of the event.

    He based the cancellation on the need to put certain things right by doing more consultations on the issue. Later, the leadership of the lower House said the presentation was stalled because there “were hitches here and there.”

    “As leadership, we have reviewed the process so far and realised that we cannot go ahead with this programme today. Just like any other things associated with humans, there are hitches here and there- that is normal,” Tambuwal said.

    But findings by The Nation suggest that the cancellation may not be unconnected with the wrangling among the lawmakers over certain portions of the report. According to inside sources, the legislators are yet to agree on a number of issues as at the time the committee attempted to push its final report into public domain.

    The Speaker and some other principal officers, excluding the deputy Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, who is the chairman of the committee, are said to have strongly disagreed with the Constitution Review Committee over certain provisions suggested in the report.

    And after several efforts to reach a compromise failed, Tambuwal and his men chose to stop the unfavourable report from becoming a public document as they feared that such presentation may further complicate the already fragile situation amongst lawmakers.

    Tambuwal, according to sources, is uncomfortable with the position of the Ihedioha-led committee on issues like state creation and immunity. It is believed that the Speaker and his deputy disagreed on several occasions when attempts were made to reach a compromise on the grey areas.

    “The Speaker is not hiding the fact that he is not comfortable with the content of the report. The problem however is that his deputy is the chairman of the same committee. The leadership of the house is currently divided into two halves with each supporting Tambuwal or Ihedioha on the matter.

    The point the Speaker is making is that should the committee go ahead to present the document, the House could suffer more serious embarrassment because lawmakers, including the house leadership, could publicly contradict themselves over the content of the report.

    The Spokesman of the House, Zakari Mohammed, at a press briefing, admitted that Tambuwal had to cancel the public presentation because most lawmakers had complained that they were yet to scrutinise the final document.

    “But because of the short time we have and the fact that a number of our colleagues have not been able to go through the reports from their various states we had to postpone the presentation ,” Muhammed said while explaining why the event was abruptly cancelled.

    The House of Representatives is not the only chamber heated up by the rumpus generated by the constitution review process. According to sources, the arguments for and against the need for new states has caused a sharp division among the principal officers of the senate.

    While Senate President David Mark and his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, are for new states; a number of other principal officers, especially those from the north, are opposed to the creation of more states.

    On the floor of the senate, it is difficult to determine what the result would be should the lawmakers decide to vote on the contentious issue of state creation. This is because while a good number of senators from the south and north central support state creation, most lawmakers from the north are strongly opposed to the idea.

    “The fear that the process is aimed at creating just one more state for the southeast to balance the number of state per zone is ripe in the minds of northern lawmakers. For this, they are opposed to the idea while most senators from the south will support the call for more state should a public debate arise,” our source said.

    It is believed that it is this inability of the lawmakers to reach a common ground on some of the contentious issues contained in the reports that is stalling the public presentation.

    “Most members of the House of Representatives from the North are not in support of the creation of an additional state for the southeast. The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha, wants a new a state in the Southeast. Speaker Tambuwal is not favourably disposed to the idea.

    Right now, the leadership of the National Assembly is in a dilemma over how to manage the situation, not only concerning state creation but other issues like state police, immunity, local government autonomy among others.

    The truth is that principal officers and members are divided on a number of these issues. For instance, President of the Senate, David Mark, his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu and Deputy Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, are in support of new states. Many of the other principal officers hold contrasting views on state creation. There is currently a stalemate on the reports,” a lawmaker from Kogi state told The Nation.

    Given the current scenario, analyst are of the opinion that unless care is taken, issues like the proposal for state creation, immunity and local government autonomy might derail the ongoing constitution amendment process

    “There is need for us to stop and take a closer look at the whole process. There are many other burning issues Nigerians are hoping will be addressed by the ongoing constitution review effort. But as things are now, the lawmakers may allow their selfish interests in a few issues to thwart the entire process.

    Already, there is a cold war in the House. The Senate will soon follow suit as disagreement are also rife among its members on some issues. And if care is not taken, it will become a north versus south situation.

    ‘Once that happens, we should all bid constitution review farewell once again. This is why we feel the public should be let into what is going on within the hallowed chambers concerning the review process. Continued silence will not be to anybody’s advantage,” Barrister Modupe Oduguwa of the Citizens’ Right Project (CRiP) cautioned.

    Recently, while reacting to a statement credited to Senator David Mark, a senator from the core north has said northerners will oppose the plan to create more states in the south with all their might.

    “We are ready for whatever will happen on this state creation issue. The rumour is that the presidency is behind this agenda. For us, it is an agenda against the core north, especially Hausa-Fulani. We will north allow it to go unchallenged. Already, it is causing serious rumpus here at the National Assembly,” the Senator said.

    Mark was reported to have said: “The argument of those opposing state creation is based on whether existing states are viable or not. But they forget that a state might be unviable just because the administrator is not ingenious with internal revenue generation or the people are not united and the administrator has to spend the available resources on achieving peace.

    “I am for the creation of Apa state and any other state that may fit the conditions. I have never shied from my agitation for creation of additional states just as I have always called for the creation of roles for traditional rulers in the Constitution.”

    To further complicate the matter for the lawmakers, Governor Rotimi Ameachi, in his capacity as the chairman of the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) said his colleagues would resist any attempt by the National Assembly to grant autonomy to local governments.

    “There is no country in the world that there are three federating units; there are only two all over the world. Why should you then say that there must be a third federating unit in Nigeria?

    Of course yes, let a state governor or let the states create as many local governments as they want to create. Don’t put it there as a constitutional issue,” Amaechi said.

    But Chairman, House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Zakari Mohammed, stated that the governors do not support the amendment because it will put a stop to their siphoning of resources meant for the development of local government areas.

    “Local government autonomy as far as Nigerians are concerned is long overdue. As true representatives of the people, our constituents do not agree with the current status where local government funds are being pilfered by governors at the expense of the people and chairmen who are seen as mere boys for the job. We would certainly not accept a situation where governors turn themselves to demi -gods in the name of joint accounts.

    But if Mohammed thinks it would be easy to ignore the governors, he may have to beat a retreat because, determined to have their ways, the governors are said to have recruited some national lawmakers to ensure that the autonomy clause never make it into the constitution.

    “The current rumpus at the National Assembly is not without some external prompting. For example, state governors are now cajoling and threatening elected national lawmakers from their states into rejecting the autonomy clause. They are using their hold on party machineries as a bait to lure the lawmakers to their sides.

    ‘We are already hearing tales of how governors vow to stop any lawmaker who supports the clause from getting re-elected in 2015. This explains why some of our colleagues are now singing new tunes. But I can assure you that we will not jettison the demand of the majority of Nigerians because of a few selfish governors,’ a principal officer of the Senate said.

    Given this confusing scenario, the question on the lips of most observers of the ongoing brouhaha over the constitution review process is whether the much awaited reports will survive the rumpus in the National Assembly.

     

  • Umar to Boko Haram: Forget Sharia if ….

    Umar to Boko Haram: Forget Sharia if ….

    Former military governor of Kaduna State, Col. Abubakar Umar (rtd) has told leaders and members of the Boko Haram sect to forget their demand for the institutionalization Sharia law for states in northern Nigeria if they are serious about dialoguing with the Federal Government.

    On the other hand, Umar also charged the Federal Government to show commitment in the fight against corruption and unemployment if indeed the government is sincere in its quest to end the spate of insecurity in the land.

    In a telephone interview with our correspondent on Thursday, Umar blamed both the Federal Government and Boko Haram for the number of deaths and destruction of property brought about by bombings across many states in the north, particularly in the north east.

    According to the radical former military governor, it would be futile and unreasonable for Boko Haram to insist on Islamisation of any part of the north as the sect had often demanded as one of the conditions for peace.

    He reminded the sect members on the secularity of the Nigerian state as enshrined in the Constitution, stressing that there is no state in northern Nigeria that does not have its own fair share of indigenous Christian and Moslem population.

    Umar said, “They should not forget that the Constitution says Nigeria is a secular state. That means we cannot run the country as a theocracy, otherwise we cannot remain as one.

    “They should also know that the north is neither a purely Islamic territory nor a Christian territory. So if they are seeking to impose Sharia on any part of the country as a condition for dialogue, it will never work.

    “Let them imagine what Nigeria will be like if every religious organisation seeks to impose its own doctrine on any party of the country. If that happens, then we can no longer remain as one country. Northern Nigeria cannot be cut off from the rest.

    “So if the institutionalization of Sharia in the north is one of the conditions the leaders of Boko Haram are projecting for dialogue, then they should perish the thought because that is not achievable.”

     

  • Memo to Senate constitution review committee

    Memo to Senate constitution review committee

    We say no to autonomy for local councils. We also wonder at the apparent zeal to create more states despite prevailing realities. If our distinguished senators insist on autonomy for local councils as a third tier of government, let the states be abolished.

    Enlightened opinion has rejected attempts by our legislators to amend a fundamental document guiding their operations. Such exercise should be more appropriately handled by an independent ad-hoc body so constituted. Only such a detached assembly can produce a thorough, dispassionate and enduring constitution. The Nigerian state glaringly slides downwards as it now exhausts 70% of its annual budget on recurrent expenditure, a clearly unsustainable profligacy. For a nation dangerously tottering on the brink, autonomy for local councils, creation of additional states, should only be treated as incidentals after much more critical and urgent agenda. Our distinguished senators need to rise above narrow partisan interests to produce a befitting document.

    The only genuine reason for constitutional review now is to redefine our nationhood, so that a proper nation-state can evolve to give Nigerians hope. We want devolution of power back to the regions, or zones, as it was in the First Republic. We want to control our own resources, insignificant as they may be. We want to determine our own future within the context of a properly structured federation. In short, we want a truly peoples’ constitution, so that the Nigerian project can stand. Only our elite who earn their living directly from government may be pretending all is well, when the house has all but collapsed.

    A properly structured federation cannot tolerate the cynical, derogatory six-zone imposition which the committee has assumed as sacrosanct. Nigeria consists of over 250 ethnic nationalities. The southern minorities herded into the so-called south-south zone number over 100, with as many distinct cultures and languages. If, for example, Izon land were geographically contiguous, nothing prevents Nigeria’s 4th largest ethnic group from having its zone. The Mid-West Region stood on its own in the First Republic. It can do so now. So also can the minorities of the former Eastern Region. Your amendment should, therefore, incorporate a minimum of five regions from southern Nigeria alone, please.

    The argument between indigene and resident should never arise. The distinction between them is clear and should be left as already constitutionally provided for. Our worry is that abrogating one for the other suggests a subtle attempt to impose unitary government through the back door. A multiethnic secular state should forever abhor and reject the unitary system of government. Let the review committee prove its critics wrong. We plead with our distinguished Senators to strive to let the authentic wish of the people prevail, so that Nigeria can celebrate her centenary in one piece, and in peace.

    John Ingwu,

    4, Winners Way,

    Calabar, Cross River State