The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Constitution

  • Cross carpeting under the 1999 Constitution 

    Cross carpeting under the 1999 Constitution 

    • By Akintayo Balogun

    Since the restoration of democratic structures in May 1999, there have been cases of serving legislators defecting to another party other than the party under whose umbrella they contested and won elections. This act is known as cross carpeting. In the political space, it is popularly known as decamping or defection.

    The issue of the defection of serving legislators had become a stigma, an embarrassment, and a form of dishonour to parties that sponsor candidates to victory in an election. To reduce the rate of defection of serving legislators, the constitution was further amended to checkmate how serving legislators jump from one party to another, particularly after being elected into office under a particular party. 

    Following the general elections held in February and March, there have been cases of defection. Senator Ifeanyi Ubah, representing Anambra South Senatorial constituency, crossed from the Young Progressives Party (YPP) to the All Progressives Party (APC), and recently, 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly moved from the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressive Congress (APC). 

    Cross carpeting had been a regular practice by serving legislators and governors and even a vice president at some points. Despite the amendment to the constitution however, legislators still flout the express provision with reckless abandon, based majorly on the political advantage they get once they defect to another party.

    Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution provides thus:

    “(1) A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if – . . . “

     ”(g) being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected; Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a DIVISION in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a MERGER of two or more political parties or FACTIONS by one of which he was previously sponsored;”

    Section 109 of the Constitution provides thus: 

    (1) A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if –

    g) being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of any other political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected: Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored;

    It is the duty of a serving legislator who defects from one party to states/to show explicitly that there is serious division in the political party where he is decamping from or a merger of two or more political parties or a faction by which he was previously sponsored. Where the legislator fails to provide these decisive constitutional issues, his defection to another political party is tantamount to vacating his seat. 

    Sections 68(2) and 109(2) of the Constitution provides thus: 

    “2) The President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall give effect to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, so however that the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House concerned that any of the provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of that member.”

    “The Speaker of the House of Assembly shall give effect to subsection (1) of this section, so however that the Speaker or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House that any of the provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of the member.”

    Read Also: Yuletide: Don’t think of vacation this season, we’ve burden of Nigerians on our shoulders, Shettima tells NEC

    The burden now is on the president of the senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives or any of the Speakers of the various Houses of Assembly to ensure that a defector fulfils the constitutional requirement before defecting to another party.

    This constitutional position of declaring the seat of a defector vacant was given life in the case of  Hon. Ifedayo Abegunde V. Ondo State House Of Assembly (2015) 8 NWLR 314, where the court held thus:

    “…is to the effect that only such FACTIONALIZATION, FRAGMENTATION, SPLINTERING or “DIVISION” that makes it impossible or impracticable for a political party to function as such will, by virtue of the proviso to section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, justify a person’s defection to another party and the retention of his seat for the unexpired term in the house in spite of the defection. The division must affect the entire structure of the political party at the centre, that is to say, national leadership. Otherwise, as rightly held by the trial court and the Court of Appeal, in this case, the defector automatically loses his seat…”

    Ordinarily, it is the duty of the president of the senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or any of the speakers of the various 36 Houses of Assembly to declare the seats of such defectors vacant, and ordinarily, the Independent National Electoral Commission ought to act immediately upon being notified by the Speaker, by conducting a fresh election into the seat. However, this takes a lot of political will for such to happen in Nigeria particularly when the defector is joining the speaker or senate president in his political party.

    In some quarters, it was argued though erroneously, that a court order is needed to determine the vacation of the seats by the serving members of a legislative house. This is incorrect. Nowhere in the constitution was it stated that an order of the court be required to declare a seat vacant or to prove that the defector has fulfilled grounds for defection. The court only comes into play when an aggrieved political party goes to court by itself and in its name, to seek an order of the court, mandating the speaker or president of the senate to declare the seat of the defector vacant as well as ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission to conduct a fresh election. This is where the court comes in. Putting the court ahead of this would be delegating unconstitutional powers to the court. 

    Analysts and pundits have further argued that there should be freedom of association, as guaranteed under section 40 of the Constitution.

    Yes, while I agree that no legislator should be forced to stay in a political party against his will, however, a legislator, who has been elected on the platform of a political party cannot just wake up one day, due to political interest, political bias, the order of a godfather, or the future of his political interest, decide to defect to another political party that did not sponsor his election, particularly without providing the grounds for the defection to another political party. The vote belongs to the party. It was the party logo and name that was on the ballot boxes and not the name of the contestant. 

    In the words of Honourable Justice Taiwo Taiwo (now retired), while delivering judgment in the case of the legislators in Cross Rivers State House of Assembly that defected from the PDP to the APC, he held that it was disheartening that politicians in the country treat citizens as if they do not matter once they get into office. According to him, we cannot continue in sin and expect grace to abound. 

    It is obvious that jumping from one political party to another, particularly for serving legislators is in bad faith, having been sponsored by one political party. The courts have consistently held that the votes of a party cannot be transferred to another. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, the game of politics and political interest has taken precedence over constitutional provisions. We can only hope to get it right in Nigeria. 

    •Balogun Esq is a legal practitioner based in Abuja.

  • Thinking and rethinking the constitution

    Thinking and rethinking the constitution

    • Tribute to Ben Nwabueze

    Constitution-making is the handmaiden of nation-building, and it is just as well that this column should begin with a tribute to Ben Nwabueze who passed recently at the ripe old age of ninety four. A nation without a healthy constitution is on life support machine. This is why, like friendship, a nation’s constitution must be kept in a state of constant repairs.

       Ever since the First Republic, Nwabueze has been the star of our constant constitutional curfews as well as their leading and misleading light.  Yours sincerely is an ardent intellectual fan of the late legal titan but not his political admirer. Nwabueze is one of those great men you cannot ignore no matter your reservations about his constitutional flip-flopping and political aggravations.

    Read Also: Adebanjo seeks constitution review

    Unarguably the nation’s foremost constitutional theorist and finest legal pundit, he was also one of its most conflicted and complicated statesmen. As an ancient Nigerian general famously noted of one of his colleagues, he was capable of good and evil in equal celerity. He was an intellectuals’ intellectual and a scholars’ scholar.

     No one who has ever put pen to paper will fail to be dazzled by the amazing fecundity of his mind and imagination, the sheer forensic brilliance of his argument, the dialectical rigour of his submission and the rousing aplomb and finesse with which they are put together. He was without any doubt a constitutional colossus and a renaissance man in every material particular.

    A non-church going Christian, it was said that in 2013, Nwabueze asked his maker for five more years to complete his earthly labour. It was like Oscar Wilde thanking God for the fact that he was an atheist. In the event, Nwabueze was granted a renewal lease of a whopping decade. Let the great man now depart in peace.

  • Case for ditching 1999 Constitution

    Case for ditching 1999 Constitution

    The call for a “people’s” constitution to replace the one produced by the military in 1999 is not new.

    There have been demands for a constitution that will be a genuine product of “we the people”.

    Associated with such calls is the need for restructuring and devolution of powers.

    Recent constitutional amendments have addressed some of the power devolution demands, but the call for a new constitution persists.

    A former Commonwealth Secretary General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, re-ignited it while delivering the 2023 Convocation Lecture of Afe Babalola University.

    He believes the only way to address Nigeria’s many challenges is through a new Constitution.

    Anyaoku said: “I call on the Presidency in consultation with the National Assembly, instead of continuing to tinker with the 1999 Constitution, to acknowledge the urgent necessity of a new Constitution to be made by the people of Nigeria.”

    He called for a constituent assembly to work out a new Constitution.

    Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) agreed with Anyaoku, saying: “Until we change the Constitution, there is no way we can achieve what we ought to achieve.”

    Does Nigeria need a new Constitution to address its challenges, and are the calls realistic, especially given the complicated nature of producing a new constitution?

    Anyaoku explained what the new constitution should entail.

    He said: “The essence of the new Constitution should, in recognition of the crucial principle of subsidiarity in every successful federation, involve devolution of powers from the central government to fewer and more viable federating units with strong provisions for inclusive governance at the centre and in the regions as was agreed by Nigeria’s founding fathers…

    “I believe that Nigeria is still salvageable. The country can still be restored to greater peace, greater security, a renewed sense of national unity, greater political stability, and a more assured pace of economic development.

    “To arrest the ongoing deterioration of the situation in the country and to achieve the desired transformation for the better, we need a system of government that not only addresses our diversity but is also based on a Constitution that can correctly be described as a Nigerian people’s Constitution.”

    He advised the Federal Government to “first, convene a national Constituent Assembly of directly elected people on a non-party basis representatives whose task would be to discuss and agree on a new Constitution, taking into account the 1963 and the 1999 Constitutions, as well as the recommendations of the 2014 national conference.”

    He added: “The management of the work of the Constituent Assembly should be entrusted to a six-member Steering Committee of equal individual powers (possibly the two co-chairmen, two vice-co-chairmen, two joint-secretaries) elected from each of the six geopolitical zones by members of the Assembly themselves.

    “The agreed draft Constitution should be put to a national referendum for adoption by a majority of the voters, after which it should be signed by the President.

    “In my view, the essence of the new Constitution should, in recognition of the crucial principle of subsidiarity in every successful federation, involve devolution of powers from the Central government to fewer and more viable federating units with strong provisions for inclusive governance at the Centre and in the Regions as was agreed by Nigeria’s founding fathers.”

    Chief Babalola, who condemned the state of affairs in Nigeria, noted that in the last 30 years, he had been calling for a new constitution that would address many problems inhibiting development.

    He urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to listen to the voice of wisdom and begin the process of a new constitution without further delay.

    He said the perception of politics as a lucrative business rather than a service is among the things the new constitution would address.

    “Until we change the constitution, there is no way we can achieve what we ought to achieve,” Aare Babalola said.

    Senior lawyers back call

    Eminent lawyers, including a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN); Chief Wale Taiwo (SAN), Godwin Omoaka (SAN), Wahab Shittu (SAN), George M. Oguntade (SAN), Chief Babatunde Fashanu (SAN) and Dr Fassy Yusuf weighed in on the issue.

    Dr Agbakoba aligned with the submission of Chief Anyaoku.

    He said: “Ayaoku is absolutely correct. Nigeria needs a new political arrangement in order to move forward and I trust President Tinubu is clear on this.”

    Omoaka agreed with the calls for a brand new constitution.

    He stressed that the 1999 Constitution was crafted by the military, not the Nigerian people.

    “Hence, it is fundamentally defective in many areas, leading to the perpetuation of injustice and inequality in the country,” he said.

    According to him, a new constitution, which will be the product of negotiation and consensus by the people, will address many of the ills threatening the existence of Nigeria as a corporate entity today.

    “I must hasten to add that such a constitution will not be the complete panacea to our many problems,” he said.

    Shittu believes that the current constitutional framework is inadequate for the complexities of Nigeria.

    One reason, he said, is that the country cannot claim to operate federalism when our Constitution is essentially unitary in orientation

    He noted that the options proposed by many include either a regig of the present constitution or a brand new constitution altogether.

    Shittu said: “My take is a return to a plebiscite or a referendum of the Nigerian people to answer two basic questions.

    “First, do we really want to live together as one united and indivisible people? If yes, under what terms?

    “The answer to these two questions will determine the nature of constitutional framework that will be suitable for Nigeria.”

    He said until this reality is faced, the polarisation of the polity will continue.

    “Current constitution can’t take us to the Promised Land,” Shittu added.

    Dr Yusuf said every patriot must subscribe to the fact that Nigeria needs a new constitution, a new structure and a new direction.

    He believes the current constitution foisted on Nigerians by the Abdusalam Abubakar junta is not capable of taking the country to the promised land.

    Yusuf said: “With the peculiarity of the Nigerian situation by now, we must realise that the Presidential system of government is not only wasteful, it is irrelevant to our society.

    “So, it is in our own interest to go back to the structure we were operating before the military intervention in January 1966.

    “We must in trying to do that, embark on developing a zero-based constitution that will take into consideration the peculiarities of our situation, the lessons we have learnt over the years 60 years so that every part of this country can develop at its own pace.

    “Power should not be concentrated at the centre. There must be devolution of power and at the end of the day, let us have a constitution that we can all be proud of and that will satisfy the yearnings of Nigerians, we deserve a new constitution.”

    ‘Faulty constitution must be changed’

    Chief Fashanu also agreed that the 1999 Constitution is faulty and must be changed.

    According to him, the 1999 Constitution is, on the face of it, a fake document because it has as its introduction: “We the people…do hereby make, enact and give to ourselves the following Constitution” when the constitution was not made by the people of Nigeria but by a few people in a military regime.

    According to him, this is the main reason the Fourth Republic is the worst by any measure in the annals of Nigerian history because something built on nothing cannot stand but crash.

    Fashanu said: “It is obvious that this fake contraption called the 1999 Constitution must be discarded for Nigeria to make progress.

    “But the recipe being prescribed by these two very honourable men presupposes the authentication of a National Assembly that evolved under this selfsame fake constitution to midwife a Constituent Assembly and a new constitution. Is the foundation of that new constitution not also faulty?

    “A Yoruba saying goes thus: ‘Amukun eru e wo, o ni oke le nwo…e o wo isale’. Literal translation: A shout out to a K-legged person carrying a load on his head that the load is bent, he replies back by saying you are focusing on the top alone and neglect the below meaning contextually that a faulty foundation brings about a faulty structure built on it.

    “What is then the answer to obtaining a new constitution? A revolution is the answer and it doesn’t have to be bloody.

    Read Also: Fed Govt committed to free, fair electoral system, says Akume

    “The 1999 Constitution and those who evolved officially under it must be swept aside and the several nations within Nigeria must get together under the watch and guidance of their notable leaders (maybe with the assistance of external bodies like ECOWAS, AU and the UN) and organise an election into a Constituent Assembly from which a new Constitution made by the Nigerian people themselves can evolve and a new Nigeria will be born.”

    For Oguntade, it is not debatable whether Nigeria needs a new constitution.

    He said: “It is indubitable that the current Constitution has now become an anachronistic relic that is creating more problems for the country daily. It is no longer fit for purpose if it ever was.

    “The Constituton requires an urgent review and wholesome replacement such that it will reflect the realities of today.

    “I am not talking about intermittent alterations of sections as is the current style and practice, but a fundamental replacement.

    “The making of a new and fresh Constitution reflective of the wishes of the majority of Nigerians is beyond the work of the current National Assembly.

    “It must be the product of a representative constitutional conference where all the entities that currently make up the country can frankly and honestly discuss very salient issues affecting them.

    “It is only after such a crucial and indispensable exercise has taken place that the National Assembly can commence the process of complete replacement. “

    Oguntade said the biggest problem with the current Constitution, which he said is universally acknowledged, is that it is not reflective of the true federalism that Nigeria claims to practice.

    The SAN added: “There is simply too much power concentrated in the centre thus rendering the constituting units impotent and ineffective.

    “There can be no true federalism without fiscal federalism as generally understood. It is an aberration.

    “A look at the matters contained on the Exclusive, Concurrent and Residual Lists of the current Constitution will provide testimony to the fact of over-concentration of power in the centre.

    “Many states today are not viable and would have been declared bankrupt and liquidated if they were trading concerns.

    “On the other hand, because the centre is so powerful, particularly financially, the fight to control it is now tearing the country apart. It has created an existential threat that worsens daily.

    “The President and Commander in Chief who has sworn an Oath to protect and defend the country needs to take the bull by the horns, put politics and personal threats aside, and without delay, set in motion the process of convening a National Constitutional Conference.

    “Failure to act will in my humble view constitute an abdication of leadership responsibilities and may be tantamount to a brazen breach of the Presidential Oath.

    “I am sure our President understands these challenges more than anyone else, given the role he has played to date in the development of this country. I am hopeful and expectant that he will act in due course.”

    Agabi: nothing wrong with 1999 Constitution

    Some believe a new Constitution is not necessary.

    One of them is former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Kanu Agabi (SAN).

    To him, there is nothing wrong with the 1999 Constitution.                                          

     Speaking at an event by the Forum of Former Deputy Governors of Nigeria (FFDGN), he called for a national integration commission.

    Agabi argued: “There are some of us who feel that the Constitution is an invalid document, it is illegitimate, and that it is a product of the military. That is a wrong position. We have a constitution and must observe it.

    “However good the constitution is, it is not a self-enforcing document; it requires good people to enforce it.

    “It is not intended to be a perfect document. The nation must begin to respect the constitution.We should have a National Integration Commission. Once a nation adopts a presidential system of government, unity is no longer optional.

    “I appeal to the Federal Government to come to terms with people who dissent this administration. We have hope; we shall get there”.

    Chief Taiwo noted that the call for a new constitution has become a sort of ritual for restructuring and comes up with a change of government or transition.

    He asked: “What are the challenges we have identified and attributable to the extant Constitution? What are the causes of those challenges? Do they truly stem from the Constitution?

    “Can the Constitution be amended to correct and set right those challenges? If an amendment will not be a solution, how can we bring about a new Constitution?”

    To him, a Constitution is only as good and effective as its operators.

    Taking the argument further, he added: “Chapter II reinforces the generally held belief that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria (section 14(2)(a)). Will a new constitution espouse different fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy?

    “The answer is definitely in the negative. As I alluded to above, the constitution is only as good as its operators.

    “To give you an insight, take a look at the current set-up of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the apex of the third organ of government.

    “The constitution, section 230, fixes the number of Justices of the Supreme Court at 21, but we have just 10 justices presently. Is that the fault of the constitution itself or its operators?

    “Did the number of justices reduce to the current unacceptable number by accident? Isn’t there a laid down process for filling vacancies? Why have we failed to abide?

    “We may go through the constitution and probe inadequacies especially as to the governance structure like the current underutilisation of the local government administration system, but the problems are not worth ditching the current constitution for another.”

    Taiwo believes the current constitution should be retained even though further amendments or alterations may help invigorate the ideals which we seek for our country.

  • The resurrection of Christ and the 1989 Constitution: a lay, secular Easter sermon

    The state shall manage and control the national economy in such a manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of opportunity. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1989, Chapter 2, “Fundamental Objectives and Directive Policies of State”, Article 17B

    Brethren and sisters, readers and compatriots, the theme of our sermon for this Easter Sunday of 2019 is taken from the central theological message of the ministry of Christ himself – which is victory over death and the ravages of body and mind, flesh and spirit – together with the central ideas of Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1989.

    What in the world connects the resurrection of Christ with Chapter 2 of the Nigerian Constitution of 1989, you might ask? Well, as we know, in the Christian cultural calendar and symbolic order, Lent, the period of fasting and mortification precedes Easter, the promise of triumph and apotheosis. In other words, there is great suffering, there is unspeakable torment, there is even a moment of great doubt and insecurity. But after all that comes triumph and rebirth.

    You could apply the same order of discourse to the political and social context that produced our 1989 Constitution, especially its ideological and philosophical core, that 2nd Chapter from which comes the opening epigraph to this “sermon”. This Constitution was produced in the context of draconian and unjust military rule in our country. Specifically, military autocracy brought unfreedom, corruption and hardship to the country and its peoples, especially the poor and those who resisted military rule. If you want to get a sense of what the experience was for Nigerians in general and those who resisted in particular, you should read Kunle Ajibade’s prison memoir, Jailed for Life and the harrowing stories collected in the late Festus Iyayi’s Awaiting Trial. Torture, extreme arbitrariness and arrogance of the rulers, a terrible climate of fear and insecurity for the ruled, a future utterly bleak for the country as a whole. But right there in the midst of it all, the 1989 Constitution, especially that incandescent Chapter 2. Yes, you could say of it: after mortifications of Lent comes the promise of Easter.

    For readers who do not know this of me, my “sermons” are secular, “iwalesin” discourses; they are resolutely non-theological. This one is not different. Thus, the resurrection of which I speak in this piece is historical and symbolic, not theological. Theology of course interests me immensely, not as an index of belief and unbelief but mostly as a major current of human thought and an elaborate symbolic recasting of the things of this world. For instance, for me, at the heart of the sacred Easter sacrament of Christianity is the powerful myth of dying and resurrecting gods that exist in virtually all the religious traditions of the world. In this myth, which is essentially about the union of the body and the spirit, the human and the divine, gods are born in miraculous circumstances; they experience all the trials and tribulations of human life; they die and then resuurect. As symbolic anthropology and the field of comparative theological studies have taught us, this myth is itself rooted the eternal cycles of nature: spring; summer; autumn; winter. All that is born lives to die; and then new life is born.

    Beyond this cycle of life, death and resurrection symbolized in the Lenten and Easter sacraments, for me there is another actual, historical “resurrection” in the ministry of Christ. As a fact of history, a measurable cultural phenomenon, this “resurrection” is almost without parallel in human affairs past and present. Permit me to state what it was/is, simply, before making any commentary on it. First, Christ endures great and unmitigated suffering on the way to Cavalry. Secondly, in the capital punishment perpetrated on him, he experiences crucifixion, the most ignominious of the period and certainly one of the most horrific of all times. Thirdly and finally, in spite of all this, indeed against the logic of this unspeakably annihilating conclusion of his ministry, he “resurrects” into history as one of two or three of the most influential persons that ever lived and walked on this earth.

    This rigorously historical angle on the resurrection of Christ is all the more stunning if, dear reader, you bear in mind the also historical fact that Christ himself and early Christianity as a new religion arose from a colonized, oppressed people, a people to whom suffering and oppression on a colossal scale seemed their never-ending fate. With regard to crucifixion as a form of capital punishment at the time, it was reserved for the worst offenders, the most ignominious felons of the Roman Empire. And with regard to a metaphysics of collective guilt and punishment, Christ and the people from whom he came were thought to bear a sacrificial burden for all of humanity.

    But Christ sought to erase the barriers between Jew and Gentile and specifically made the multitudes of the poor of all races and nations the vast subject of his ministry, of his peerless parables and aphorisms. These were very strategically smart and inventive means to ensure the success of his mission. But in the end, they did not save him; they did not ensure the success, in his lifetime, of his life’s work. Why and how then did his historical and global “resurrection” come about? We shall come back to this question at the end of this piece. For now, let us take up the matter of the 2nd Chapter of the 1989 Constitution.

    Permit me to repeat the words of the epigraph to this piece, Article 17B of that Constitution: “The (Nigerian) State shall manage and control the economy in such a manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom, and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of opportunity”. Indeed, permit me to make another quotation from the same chapter of the Constitution, Article 15(1); “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on principles of democracy and social justice”. Remember, compatriots, these were drafted and adopted at the height of a military dictatorship when social justice, equality of opportunity for all and maximum welfare of all Nigerians were nowhere visible on the horizon of either existing realities or long-range future possibilities. Indeed, to read all of that 2nd Chapter of the 1989 Nigerian Constitution is to be in another world, another universe from the lived and suffered realities and conditions of life for most Nigerians at the time. On the one hand and in the Constitution, Nigeria can and should be a much better and infinitely more humane society than it was; on the other hand, in the Generals’ Nigeria, life was hellish and bleak. Seems like Lent and Easter kept completely apart, doesn’t it? Permit me to provide a context for this disjuncture.

    Let it be known, compatriots, that throughout the years and decades of the imposition of life-denying and life-destroying military autocracy in our country, great sacrifices and equally great acts of idealistic reimagining of what the country could be arose to confront the terror and oppression of military rule. There were many, many debates, colloquia and national conferences on what was happening to the country and where we could expect it all to end, negatively or positively. The debates were all-encompassing: the place of Nigeria in the world economy; the place of Nigeria in the comity of nations, especially with regard to freeing the remaining colonized nations of the African continent from imperial domination of the old order;  the specific case of apartheid South Africa as the last bastion of racist minority rule in Africa; the rise of neoliberalism as the fulcrum of global capitalism and the widening circle of debt peonage for the nations of the developing world, etc., etc.

    I remember in particular the so-called Political Bureau set up under the Babangida military presidency that supervised the most comprehensive countrywide political debate ever undertaken in the country, then and now, to decide which form of ideology and economic order Nigeria should adopt. The Bureau went everywhere in the country, covered every inch of territory, asking, consulting and weighing. Do you know, compatriots, which ideology, which form of political and economic order Nigerians chose in overwhelming numbers? Socialism, believe it or not! And in a related and also countrywide debate, Nigerians asked the government, the military not to borrow money from the World Bank and the IMF but to manage our substantial oil wealth in the interest of every Nigerian, present and future generations included. If, dear reader, you have been wondering where that incredibly idealistic and egalitarian Chapter 2 of the 1989 Constitution came from, look no further than these debates and colloquia as the breeding ground. And remember the promise of the sacrament of Easter: out of suffering, out of mortification comes hope and resurrection.

    Logically, the question arises: why did that 2nd Chapter of the 1989 Constitution disappear in the 1999 Constitution that is in force today? Well, in a very strict and narrow sense, it did not entirely disappear. This is because you can find traces of it in Chapter 1 of the 1999 document: words, phrases, faint echoes of ideas. The technocrats, the lawyers and the politicians had taken over completely, whereas idealists and philosophers had been quite influential in the drafting of the 1989 document. There is nothing short of a bitter irony here in the fact that by the mid to late 1990s when professional politicians became more and more certain that military rule was on its way out and they would soon be holding the reins of power, they turned their minds away from egalitarian and idealistic principles to the technocratic and formalistic aspects of “democracy”. Permit me to express this in very concrete terms.

    Prior to the drafting and adoption of the 1999 Constitution, all the exercises in constitution making under the military in the 1980s had been quite robustly influenced by some of the fiercest opponents and critics of military rule, mostly from the Left and the Center. Some names stand out: Segun Osoba (the historian, not the former governor), Yusuf Bala Usman, Eddie Madunagu. Others – many of them – worked underground or in the shadows, content to make their contributions through comrades and compatriots working in the open arena and the legal marketplace of ideas. These were the sources of the revolutionary and idealistic 1989 Constitution, especially that landmark Chapter 2. These sources were close to the people, close to the experience of great suffering and also to the knowledge that if your solidarity with the poor is not merely romantic, from your epistemic closeness to suffering can and should come a vision of how to end suffering and offer restitution to the poor. Well, all well and good, but the 1989 Constitution has been replaced by the 1999 Constitution and that 2nd Chapter of the earlier document exists now in the newer and current Constitution as a very faint echo or shadow. And the suffering continues, without the intimation of the resurrection in sight.

    This preceding observation leads me back to an earlier question that I promised to engage at the end of this “sermon”: how and why was the death and the utter failure of Christ at the end of his life and mission eventually led to the historical and global “resurrection” that is almost without parallel in the history of the world? Put differently, Christ died, in the most horrific and ignominious capital punishment of his time and his followers were then scattered to the four winds of the earth; and yet the religion based on his life and teachings moves billions and has been at the center of the cultural calendar of the world for more than a millennium now. How did it happen, this one-of-a-kind resurrection? Certainly, the adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine as a state religion from being the religion of the poor helped a lot, especially when considered in the light of how the rich and the powerful in many other places and times in the world followed the example of Constantine. But I would place my bet on the central place of the unbreakable link between suffering and redemption, death and resurrection, especially for the multitudes of all races, nations and classes. Just consider, compatriots: Lent without Easter?

     

    Biodun Jeyifo

    bjeyifo@fas.harvard.edu

  • Yayi: I’ll work for LCDAs’ inclusion in constitution

    Senator Solomon Adeola aka Yayi has pledged to work for the recognition and inclusion of the 37 Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) created by the Lagos State Government in 2003 in the constitution.

    Speaking during a meeting with stakeholders in Oshodi as part of his “House-to House, Street-to-Street” campaign in the area comprising Oshodi-Isolo Local Government, Isolo and Ejigbo LCDAs, he berated the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for frustrating moves to recognise these LCDAs all these years.

    He added that it was unjust for Lagos to have only 20 local governments, while Kano with a similar population has 44.

    “For me, the created LCDAs in Lagos State are legal as decided by the highest court in the land. The PDP-led Federal Government in the past frustrated the attempt for the inclusion of the LCDAs in the constitution. Now that we have an APC-led Federal Government, I am very hopeful that the LCDAs will be included in the constitution. Already they have enough structures to rival most local governments in the constitution” Adeola said.

    He urged the electorate to vote for All Progressives Congress (APC) candidates in the forthcoming elections, stressing that only a progressive APC government at the federal level could facilitate the recognition of the LCDA.

    The senator said: “As your representative from the largest senatorial district in Nigeria, I have delivered on core mandates of lawmaking with sponsorship of 15 bills, two of which were passed as constitutional bills.

     

     

  • ‘We need a real people’s constitution’

    Babafemi Badejo, a lawyer and seasoned multilateral diplomat, is an expert in peace operation and arbitration. He was a senior adviser to two former presidents and Senior Adviser to the Court of a Prime Minister. He retired from the United Nations (UN) after 24 years of service. He was Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Chief of Staff, UN Peace Operations and Head of Political Affairs at many UN Missions. Before his UN years, he taught at the University of Lagos (UNILAG) and the University of California, Los Angeles. Badejo is now a consultant for the African Union (AU) on disaster risk reduction and emergency preparedness. In this interview with JOSEPH JIBUEZE, he speaks on restructuring, corruption, leadership, judiciary, rule of law, 2019 elections, insurgency, foreign policy and lawyers’ role in tackling corruption.

    What is your position on calls for restructuring?

    Restructuring is being talked about  in a way  that  is a little bit unclear as to what people mean. It means different things to different people. Perhaps the clearest articulation might have been by Chief Olu Falae, who more or less said: ‘Return us to the Republican Constitution’. The problem is whether we can go back that easily. It involves a lot of discussions as to constitutional changes that are necessary. But it’s possible to have fiscal federalism in which, like in many federations, a number of responsibilities are given to the states. I also think that restructuring may not really be the main problem facing the country. None of the 36 states and the centre is corruption free. The main thing to focus on is corruption. If you can show a state among the 36 that is corruption free, then I can say, maybe, if you have more resources in the hands of the states, the lot of the people would be by far better.

    Do you agree with calls to revert to regional governments with autonomous constitutions to make the centre less attractive?

    It’s reasonable to consider every argument that is put on the table. We had four regions before the military intervened. Now, the complexities of the country resulted in 12 states, now 36. So, if we’re going back to the regions, it should be provided that we’re not going to be talking about states under the geo-political zones. We’re not thinking about the problem of rulership in this country. In many other countries, people are much more focused on governance and what they get out of it. We need to consider what it will cost to maintain a geo-political region and states under it. You are going to have increased cost of governance by creating four levels of government – central, regional, state and local government. It’s too much. I think that our focus should be on how to minimise the cost of governance and ensure that the money that is distributed is appropriately spent. Yes, you can use fiscal federalism to reduce what is in the hands of the Federal Government and its  responsibilities provided a set of potentates are not stealing the increase at other levels. There is no doubt military rule resulted in a situation where we became more centrist. But we need to address the question of quality of leadership and corruption before talking of going back to what we had before.

    Should there be a return to parliamentary system of government?

    That is a good question that you have posed. But for me, the issue is not about whether it is parliamentary or presidential or monarchy, because we have gone through a number of them. The same problems have been identified with them. We have a situation in which we see people who see governance as their birthright – to receive from the people and not give service to them. Whether we go back to parliamentary system of government or retain the presidential system, it is the overall leadership arrangement that we need to change. The successes that we had under the regional governments were situational. Sometimes I ask myself: If you wake Awolowo up and ask him to take charge of Nigeria today, he probably would run away and say we are beyond redemption. People talk as if we can just reverse all the decadence that we’ve gone through in one day through restructuring or a new system of governance.

    How pervasive is corruption and how can it be tackled?

    Corruption is a big issue. If you were to ask me the main problem that we face in Nigeria, I will say corruption, even though I could be forced to consider leadership. But you cannot talk about one without looking at the other. The tendency is to focus on the government. But we also have to look at what happens within the so-called private sector. When a private entity is going to the bank for a loan, and the bank manager is taking a portion of that loan, before the citizen gets the facility, that is corruption. We regularly oil the wheels for services in the private sector. Importantly for me is the addition of the social sector to our focus on corruption. Many religious institutions are worse than the government when it comes to corruption. They intimidate the poor and justify taking the little they have and encourage thieves by taking from them in exchange for prayers to free them from the sense of guilt and fear of punishment of entire family that made people avoid corruption and theft in the past. I can point to many aspects of our lives that is full of corruption. There is also the problem of nepotism which our constitution encourages through the haphazard implementation of federal character. Perhaps one of the major problems of the government is nepotism.

    How best should corruption be fought?

    To fight corruption is more than a focus on what the anti-graft agencies do. It should be fought at a holistic level and should go beyond punishment. The punitive measure is necessary but we see that it has not worked because nobody is scared. The corrupt can also settle with those with state authority to carry out the punishment. So, what do we do? We need a total change of orientation. I’m not going to suggest that we go to the level of the Chinese who have been serious about fighting corruption. All they need is just a bullet aimed at the right place so as not to destroy vital organs that can be harvested and given to needy people in the society. The problem is that we are becoming more and more accepting and living with corruption and not wanting to do anything about it. So, it’s a societal, cultural thing. It is beyond a focus on one man as President.

    What do you make of the Federal Government’s anti-corruption strategy?

    The present administration put in place a national strategy against corruption. I have confidence in Prof Bolaji Owasanoye, Executive Secretary of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, who was to be the chairman of ICPC. But what can that Presidential Advisory Committee achieve when they obviously have little or no power?  The problem is always implementation. Part of the holistic approach is the socialisation of people daily against corruption. When I was a kid, if your father is accused of being a thief, everybody turns against you. Nobody wants to marry into your family. They will sing about your name. Today, as Fela said, we no longer call a thief a thief. We say he’s a money launderer. It doesn’t give the image of a thief. If we start shouting ‘ole’, ‘barawo’ at many of them, their children will ask them questions. When this government came to power, the President said he was not going to have in his administration anybody that is corrupt. But the money that enabled him to be president came from corrupt people. He knows it himself. We were carried away when he said ‘I belong to everybody, I belong to nobody’. But all the people who had cases at EFCC became his ministers and he smartly told us they have not been convicted. Please look at the number of people the ruling party, with the endorsement of government, has received, with unexplained wealth, just because they decided to join the ruling party from the opposition.

    Let’s zero down on the role of lawyers. What is their role in the fight against corruption?

    A lawyer must be allowed to defend who he wants to defend. Rule of law means you must allow someone to defend himself even when it is clear that he is a very corrupt person. But can’t the state have the best lawyers? It is obvious that there is a problem with prosecution. EFCC has secured some convictions, but how many big cases have been concluded in court?

    Should lawyers question the source of their fees?

    There are many things that we need to streamline. Many of our governors feel they can spend whatever has been allocated as they wish. We do not implement whatever rules we have. We shut our eyes. We should blame the system that allows a governor to pay a lawyer with state resources for a private matter. Rather than focus on lawyers, we should focus on our society. A lot is wrong about it. If we raise the bar on what is propriety, integrity, which is the most important thing for leadership, even the lawyers would not want to be seen with such persons.

    Do you agree that corruption is fighting back with stolen resources?

    If the state is serious, it can look for lawyers who are very good. Executive Order 6 should have led to a lot of asset confiscations. What have you heard about the order’s implementation in spite of the fact that there was support for the President from a court? The government ought to have seized a number of unexplained wealth, especially from people who are consistently on the Panama and Paradise Papers. But nothing seems to be done to them because they are powerful. If you’re a corrupt person in the opposition party and you declare for the ruling party, your case is forgiven. There are many instances.

    Should Nigeria continue to retain Federal Character principle in the Constitution?

    Federal Character principle is something that I had gone to the Supreme Court against. It involved my daughter Yinka Badejo vs Federal Government, which, with now Justice Doye Olugbemi and the late G.O.K. Ajayi, was fought up to the Supreme Court. There is no doubt in my mind that Federal Character hurts this country from moving forward and developing the way other countries have. It is one of the things that continue to breed mediocrity and fan nepotism. For me, there is a lot that needs to be done about our Constitution. It needs to be thrown away and replaced with a real people’s constitution. Our problems and proper values for a good developmental society must be addressed and not just cries of restructuring.

    Does Federal Character not enhance inclusion?

    What do we mean by exclusion? We have to stop making some parts of the country feel they have less brain endowment than the other. It is a question of what you put into developing the brain. It’s not because you come from a part of Nigeria that makes you necessarily weaker. Some kids from those parts now beat their counterparts from other parts of the country. But don’t give me the impression that someone who has a weaker performance should be given an advantage from primary school till university and on the job through to the grave. That is outrageous. You can selectively arrive at an inclusive process if a careful effort is made.

    You consult for the African Union (AU). What is it about?

    Right now, I’m working on a contract for the African Union through my consultancy outfit. The whole idea is that the heads of states met on 30 January 2016 and came to the conclusion that we have a number of disasters on the continent – some man-made, some natural – and that there is the need for the AU to be at forefront of supporting regional mechanisms and national governments to meet the challenges that we face, and that we should not always be running to Europe and America begging for help when we have not done anything for ourselves. They came to the conclusion that there was the need for an agency that could carry out the responsibility that AU can show to its own people, that it cares for them when they face any disaster. It’s not a question of only being prepared, it’s about reducing disasters. It’s about being proactive rather than reactive. If you know that a place is prone to earthquake for instance, then you don’t put heavy structures that will kill people if an earthquake occurs. In places like Los Angeles, they use wood for much of the housing. They only plaster the outside.

    How far have you gone?

    I’ve been at it now for two-and-a-half months. The decision was made in 2016. But the AU appointed me following my submission of contract bid in competition with others in January 2018. I got a contract to sign after winning the bid on 25 of September. I started work on October 1. I am expected to travel widely, to consult many of the regional mechanisms and to also look at some of the best practices in the world. The Asians have a mechanism in Jakarta that is similar to what we want to do. There’s another in Barbados. The heads of state in this instance want to have the resources for humanitarian support on the African continent come from Africans. This has been happening. When there was Ebola in West Africa, the chairman of AU called a number of high net-worth individuals – don’t ask me how they got their money – and was able to get some money to mobilise support for governments in tackling Ebola. It is to put forward an organisation that is able to ensure inter-operability of the different mechanisms in different countries so that you can have a set of experts from Mozambique move to Sierra Leone for instance, under the AU auspices, and make the AU more relevant to people at the grassroots level.

    With your peacekeeping experience, what would you say about conflict and peace on the continent?

    I should point out that a lot of effort has gone into handling conflicts in Africa. When I joined the United Nations, there were so many conflicts on the continent. That was when Sierra Leone was raging; Liberia was raging, Cote D’Ivoire joined, as well as Somalia, Mozambique and others. But there is reasonable reduction. There are a number of efforts in trying to ensure that causes and drivers of conflict are understood and addressed. Everybody understands the importance of rule of law as being very crucial in reducing conflict. We’ve also gotten to know that conflict is also a developmental problem. When there is inequality in the distribution of wealth, people are more likely to engage in conflicts. The process of negotiations has resulted in building the capacity of nation states and regional organisations, such as ECOWAS, which added protocols to address governance issues in their operations. So, these efforts have helped.

    Do you see an end to insurgency in Nigeria and is negotiation an option?

    One of the things I have learnt is that to solve conflicts, patience is required. There are several conflicts around the world, some as old as 70 years. Those that began at the end of the second world war, the conflict between Palestine and Israel, and even Cyprus, come to mind. I’m not saying Boko Haram has to remain for that length of time before we address it. No. We need to constantly find ways to address the problem. We must analyse the root causes of the conflict itself. You can reduce the number of people they have to fight for them by taking care of youths in the area. But that will not take away the problem until you are able to find the fundamental root causes and the drivers of that particular conflict. If you’re able do all that, then it will be possible to sit down and have a dialogue. You should always open the line of communication in order to find if there will be an opportunity for peace.

    How can the issue of Shi’ite movement be handled to prevent it from escalating?

    The government should not allow any particular group to be a law unto itself. At the same time, the government cannot afford to be high handed and refuse to respect the rule of law. There is much that can be done to enter into a negotiation phase to find some accommodation, because it’s not every time that you fight to finish.

    How do you rate this government on rule of law?

    There are a number of cases in which the government appears determined not to respect court decisions. Two of them easily come to mind – Dasuki and El-Zakzaky. Anybody’s right that is violated is a slap on all of us. If the government could not support its case before the judiciary, then I don’t think the government should continue to defy the courts. But that’s not enough to suggest a total absence of rule of law, because it’s in degrees. However, there is no doubt that our country, with Boko Haram, disrespect for decisions of the judiciary, the level of corruption, our country is being seen as a failed state. It’s among ourselves that we try to drink our beer and forget about what the world is saying. A friend who is very strong on Wall Street called me from the US and said he was reading in the Financial Times that Nigeria is being described as a failed state. But those are facts that have significant impact on our development prospects. If you’re seen as a failed state, who wants to come and invest? And the people who have stolen your money are also not investing. They are hiding it outside. Read the names in the Panama and Paradise papers and we’re not asking questions. I don’t want to say we’re all corrupt but it’s getting to that stage. What’s happening in the society affects all of us. For instance you want to get a licence for N6000. But they put all manner of clogs on your way and you’re forced to pay extra to facilitate the process. So, we’re co-opted into the system and we’re not doing enough to fight it.

    What about the anti-graft agencies?

    Our focus should be holistic, not focus on the lawyers, judges, police. But it was not this bad and it did not start with this government. The degeneration had been on a gradual basis that today, people don’t think twice to take out of national patrimony. And we’re hailing them, which is the unfortunate thing. We’re no longer calling them thieves as it was before. There are fundamental cases. How did Maina return and even got promoted, and what has happened? Can he not be found to account for what he did? The Attorney-General never gave any explanations. The President has a style, which is to keep quiet and allow things to go on and on. How many allegations are on the table about people in the current government? How many are being seen to be handled seriously? How many people are being accommodated by the ruling party and cases against them pushed under the carpet? The President’s wife told us we’re no longer men. She said we are docile, and that two people had made all of us irrelevant. And you (the media) are not writing about it by making an analysis on who are the two people. Did we elect them? And more importantly, what can we do to halt the slide towards being a celebrated failed state?

    Ahead of 2019 general elections, what are your expectations?

    There will be election. And there will be selection. There will be violence. At the end of the day, it is looking like you cannot avoid either Buhari or Atiku being President. I feel unhappy and ashamed that our choices as a people are so limited. I’m sure that many of the younger candidates outside of these two, when they go to bed at night, know that they’re not going to be President come 2019. If you look at the geo-political situation of the country, the ethnic issues that affect our elections, the distribution of resources, the level of consciousness of the voters, your choices are reduced to two. The younger candidates are talking nicely. But even if they all agree to join forces and have one of them join Buhari and Atiku, their candidate will come a distant third. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the reality. Whether we like it or not, we have two guys to choose from. It is like 1999 when the choices were between two Yorubas. This time, it’s between two Hausa-Fulani. I am against that kind of situation. I am against rotation. I am against federal character. I wish people could come forward on the basis of merit and we build this country together.

    Why is this so?

    Even if you have a brilliant Hausa-Fulani youth as a presidential candidate, he’s still going nowhere, because of the people who grabbed the control of this country from Abdusalami Abubakar. They have developed such formidable war chest and organisational arrangements that you end up either in APC or PDP. We thought there was going to be an alternative when it appeared that PDP was going down, but PDP resurrected fantastically and unbelievably. All the other options are disappearing. APGA for instance is fielding a presidential candidate that I think people who own APGA will not even vote for.

    Are you endorsing any of the candidates?

    I’m political, but not partisan. As a result, I would easily say that I can assess the two. I have registered to vote, but I will not vote, because I do not feel comfortable with the two choices that I have.

    If you and many others don’t vote, how can the right choice be made?

    Each individual should assess the two and choose the better of two evils as I see it. But I am very political. I have always been. But I only voted once, and that was in the 1983 elections. I am happy that Lateef Jakande won in that election and I am one of those who feel that he set Lagos State into the better position that it is in today from those efforts. I am not in a position to know whether the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo won the election and he himself said he was not going to court. The reality of it is that the hopes that people like me had as university students, that we would transform this country and even got into ASUU – much of that has been rendered useless by the reality that we face today. But at the same time, I am not saying we should give up. When former President Olusegun Obasanjo came up with Coalition for Nigeria Movement (CNM), I was very excited. I registered to be part of it because I was hoping for a strong pressure group that would put anybody in power at check, that would use that kind of platform of Nigerians coming together to say no to day light robberies that we face. Unfortunately, it was not possible to have CNM growing as a strong pressure group but transformed to a political party. I did not move with it because I did not think the answer was another political party.

    What are your thoughts on INEC?

    I have not paid a lot of attention to the person of the INEC chair. But I don’t think he has the calibre of Attahiru Jega. He is already in office with his commissioners. So, there is little we can do about his appointment. But we can only hope that the people will build viable grassroots efforts to checkmate any attempt to affect the expression of the will of Nigerians. And I don’t want to go into this question of the will of Nigerians, because I used to say that you need to think about how you have come to think what you think you think. For most, it’s about what they will get, or about ethnic relationships and where their group would go.

    What can you say about Nigeria’s foreign policy thrust?

    I would say that I am as disappointed in our foreign policy as I am disappointed in much about Nigeria. We were taken serious on this continent at a time. We stood up for many things. But now we’re a laughing stock in the large part. We used to have a very strong Nigerian peacekeeping capacity. And we were respected at the international level. But the reality today is like we once had an army. Their performance outside has been radically affected by the corruption at home. You send them out there, you sit on their allowances paid for by the UN; you sit on the facilities UN had paid the country for. You’re supposed to have a composite battalion that has its feeding arrangements taken care of, that has its utensils and everything, but you “chop” the money and they would go and be cutting trees to make their fire, again destroying the image of the country with respect to the environment.  I saw that in Liberia. David Mark visited as Senate President. We told him about some of that. But what happened?

    Are you saying Nigeria is no longer giant of Africa?

    When you look at several indices of power, we deceive ourselves when we still continue to say that we’re the giant of Africa. Imagine the brains that went into our foreign policy in the past, but today you find one or two persons sitting in their cabal and deciding our foreign policy without looking at several factors. We fill positions on the basis of nepotism and they fail at the international level. We have candidates that we could put forward and that the rest of the world will say: ‘This is formidable.’ But what have we been doing?

    Do you agree with Amnesty International’s assessments of rights abuses by Nigerian soldiers?

    In my experience in Sudan, there was a particular case in which Amnesty was talking and made fabrications of their own that was far from the truth. So, I cannot make a blanket endorsement of what Amnesty is saying. But the government can work with the UN office for human rights, throw its doors open and allow an interaction. If there are errors, which can happen in wars, accept them, apologise for them, compensate for them, and put in place measures to stop them.

  • Conflicting expectations (1)

    A bill to amend the Constitution to provide for state police scaled the first reading at the Senate on July 11. But is Nigeria ripe for it? Is state police the answer to the prevailing security challenges? Are there no chances that governors would abuse such an institution? These are some of the posers raised in this report by PRECIOUS IGBONWELUNDU.

    FROM Borno to Ebonyi, Zamfara to Cross River and Plateau to Benue, it has been an orgy of killings. There have been growing security concerns across the country with Nigerians wondering if it had become a slaughter slab. A day hardly passes without reports of killings arising from herdsmen-farmers conflicts, armed marauding terrorists, kidnappers, communal clashes, rivalries among politicians, sponsored assassinations and militancy, among others. The situation assumed a frightening dimension this year as reports indicate that no fewer than 1,500 persons have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced as a result of various crisis across the country. Amnesty International on July 1, posted on its official Twitter handle that 378 persons were killed between January and June in Benue, 340 in Plateau and 217 in Zamfara states. Aside the above, 20 persons were killed during the clash between Ukele and Izzi communities of Cross River and Ebonyi States. The list is endless.

    The nation’s security apparatus, particularly the police, charged with the responsibility to maintain public peace, order and protect lives and properties have not adequately responded to these issues, no thanks to insufficient manpower, equipment and logistics; such that, the military, whose primary function is to protect the nation from external aggressions, was drafted in and currently runs operations in 30 states of the federation.

    As of today, the police have a population of about 300,000 to secure almost 200 million Nigerians. More than 20 per cent of the service’s strength are guiding the rich and politically exposed persons (PEPs). By the United Nation’s benchmark, a police man is expected to watch over four persons. But that is not the case in Nigeria where one officer is saddled with the responsibility of looking after 600 citizens.

    That notwithstanding, this year’s Global Peace Index (GPI) ranked Nigeria 148th in peacefulness out of 163 countries surveyed. The survey measured three indices—level of safety and security in society; extent of domestic and international conflict, and the degree of militarisation.

    Rising cases of mindless murders and sacking of commuters have continued unabated with victims largely accusing the federal government controlled security agencies of conniving with killers, thus, reawakening the clamour for state police. The cries reached a crescendo with last month’s killing of over 200 people in Riyom, Barkin Ladi Local Government Area of Plateau State, as well as the massacres recorded in Zamfara, Taraba, Nasarawa, Benue, Ebonyi, Cross River and Rivers states, among others. The National Assembly (NASS) was called upon to, without delay, begin the process for the establishment of state police by amending Sections 214 and 215 that stipulates the existence of only the Nigeria Police Force (NPF).

    Heeding the call, the Senate asked its standing committee on Constitution Review to kick-start processes for a Bill to amend the Constitution for the establishment of state police. The House of Representatives’ Majority Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila, had earlier sponsored a bill to that effect.

     

    What the bill seeks to address

    The bill, if passed, would amend relevant sections of the constitution to allow for a decentralised Police Force. It seeks to establish the National Police Service Commission (NPSC), thereby, giving room for the creation of the federal and state police. Like in the judiciary, it implies that there would be a State Police Service Commission (SPSC), which would be vested with the powers to review the activities of the state police bi-annually, recommend the appointment of a Commissioner of Police (CP), Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) to the NPSC in addition to appointment, discipline, and removal of members of the state police below the rank of ACP.

    The proposed law indicates that whereas the CP of a state may be removed on the grounds of misconduct, serious breach of policing standards, conviction by a court of law or tribunal, indictment by a judicial body or tribunal for corruption, participation in political activities, among others, such removal must be approved by two-thirds majority of the State House of Assembly.

    It provided details of the composition of the NPSC, indicating that it shall comprise a chairman, representatives of the National Human Rights Commission, Public Complaints Commission, Labour, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), and the Attorney-General of each state. The commission shall also have six retired police officers not below the rank of Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG), and all members must be confirmed by the Senate.

    For the SPSC, the bill stated that it shall comprise a representative of the federal government appointed by the NPSC, two members to be appointed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), who must be indigenes of the respective states, a representative of the Public Complaints Commission (PCC), one representative each from Labour Union, appointed by the chairman of the state chapter, NBA and NUJ.

    Others include three retired police officers to be appointed by the governor from the three senatorial districts and the commission’s chairman who must all be confirmed by the State House of Assembly.

    It stated thus: “The Federal Police shall be responsible for the maintenance of public security, preservation of public order and security of persons and property throughout the federation. The appointment of the Commissioner of Police of a state shall be by the Governor on the advice of the National Police Service Commission and subject to confirmation of the House of Assembly.

    “The term of office of the Commissioner of Police shall be for a period of five years only or until he attains a retirement age prescribed by law, whichever is earlier. The Governor or such other Commissioner of the Government of the State as he may authorise in that behalf may give to the Commissioner of Police such lawful directions with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order as he may consider necessary, and the Commissioner of Police shall comply with those directions or cause them to be complied with.

    “Provided that where the Commissioner of Police feels that any order given under this subsection is unlawful or contradicts general policing standards or practice, he may request that the matter be referred to the State Police Service Commission for review and the decision of the State Police Service Commission shall be final. prescribe a bi-annual certification review of the activities of State Police by the National Police Service Commission to ensure they meet up with approved national standards and guidelines of policing and their operations do not undermine national integrity, promote ethnic, tribal or sectional agenda or marginalize any segment of the society within the state.”

    The National Police Service Commission,  according to the bill, shall be responsible for the appointment of persons to offices (other than the office of the Inspector-General of Police) in the Federal Police Service; exercising disciplinary control over members of the Federal Police; recommend to the Governor of a State the appointment, discipline or removal of the CP, DCP and ACP of State Police, as well as supervise the activities of Federal and State Police, prescribe standards for all police forces in the country in training, criminal intelligence databases, forensic laboratories, and render assistance to the State Police in areas as may be requested by such State Police.”

    However, the issue has remained controversial with proponents and critics making valid points to support their arguments.

     

    The case against state police

    In August last year, the Inspector-General of Police (IG) Ibrahim Idris; Chairman, Police Service Commission (PSC) Musiliu Smith and former IG Sunday Ehindero were at a function in Lagos where they all spoke against the creation of state police.

    Their argument was that the country was not ripe for it and therefore, should concern itself more with ensuring adequate funding for the police. The security chiefs were also of the view that the police had tried the concept in the 1980s and early 1990s without success.

    To them, the concept failed when it deployed officers from the rank of Deputy Superintendent (DSP) and below to their respective local governments but they were caught between performing their constitutional roles and aiding their kinsmen who found themselves in one criminal situation or the other. They were of the view that a Security Trust Fund like that of Lagos, be established at the national level as to cater for funding, manpower, technological and scientific support, among others currently plaguing the force.

    Idris had said: “The police need the collaboration and synergy of the community where they are to effectively deal with crime in the policing space. We need the populace to give us information, intelligence and other supports in this crime fighting efforts. The police under my watch is committed to defeating all security challenges confronting our dear country, Nigeria.

    “We need the support of all Nigerians. We need more funding, we need manpower and we need technology and scientific support. Police officers and men need motivation, welfare and incentives to tackle bandits. We must eventually win the battle with your support and collaborative efforts and synergy.”

    Critics of the establishment of state police believe the concept is good but the timing is wrong. To them, it would become a ready tool in the hands of intolerant governors against their perceived enemies or opponents. They are also of the view that the country should focus on strengthening the existing police structure through capacity building, equipment, motivation and the freedom to function professionally, rather than duplicate 36 miniatures of a dysfunctional service, which would amount to more problems.

    They believe the way out would be to identify the problems of the Nigeria Police, such as “what is it that makes the police ineffective? Why are they not delivering on their mandate? Are they adequately trained? Do they have the required tools to function? Are they trained for purpose? Is the institutional structure right and do they have the guidelines for that function?” asked a Nigerian Air Force retired Wing Commander.

    He continued: “Let us assume the answers to these questions are no. Then, we have to look at how to solve them to make the police more efficient. How do we improve on their training? It is not about bringing state or community policing. If you like, make it house policing, that is for an individual to police his own house, if the requisite training is not given, that person would fail.

    “Until we solve the issue of capacity, structure, funding and governance of the police, we will not make a headway. We would have the same issues again and, this time, it will not be just one police force but 36 other police structures, and the problem would be compounded.

    Similarly, senior lawyer, Sylva Ogwemoh (SAN) said he does not subscribe to the creation of state police in the country because it would not provide the needed solution. He believes the important factor was to build institutions and develop processes in the conduct of our affairs.

    He said: “A crude governor will see the state police as a tool for dealing with political opponents and perceived enemies of his government. There is no doubt that the Nigeria Police of today does not have the required manpower, equipment and appropriate training to deal with organised crime in Nigeria. This is where the problem lies.

    “The police must be well equipped and the right physical, mental and psychological training provided to the officers to enable them effectively deal with our security problems. Until this is done, a resort to creation of state police will amount to a waste of precious time. God help Nigeria.”

    Former Minister of State, Defence, Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, shared a similar view using the July 14 elections in Ekiti State as a reference point. As beautiful as the idea is, Obanikoro said, creating state police would be the first step to Nigeria’s disintegration.

    He said: “The truth is that we are not matured enough to run state police. Look at the mismanagement of powers at the state level concerning local government elections and administration. The rate of human right abuses will go through the roof, particularly where political opponents are prominent in terms of grassroots support. We should do community policing and restructure the police command to give more control to state governors. Promotion and dismissal should have state governors’ input.

    “Imagine Ekiti with state police and what the federal police did to him (Fayose) during the last election. Granting state police will be the first step towards the disintegration of Nigeria. This is not an isolated situation. Rather, it is the norm under every administration in Nigeria.

    “The present police structure should not stand but it can be modified to create opportunities for the states to have a say in the recruitments and control. Therefore, there is need for radical police reform.”

    Despite the failings of the police, legal luminary, Dele Belgore, SAN, argued that decentralising the police is not the most important thing at the moment.

    He said: “The Nigeria Police Force today is a badly demoralised service and does not command the respect of Nigerians. If the Police Force is not properly repositioned through good training, orientation and improved conditions of service, creation of state police would merely localise the existing decay and the consequences could be more oppressive on the populace.

    “However, if there is genuine desire to reform the police, a decentralised Force would be easier to manage and can be made more effective. But creation of state police is simply for the sake of giving more powers and control to governors. That’s a recipe for disaster.

     

  • Fake news violates constitution, say Olanipekun, Abati

    Fake news violates the 1999 Constitution and is therefore a criminal offence, former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and former presidential spokesman Dr Reuben Abati have said.

    They spoke at a roundtable discussion on Fake News and the Future of the Media, organised as part of activities marking the launch of  the book: Brands In News, written by Raheem Akingbolu.

    Olanipekun, who chaired the event, lamented the damage fake news has caused in the society.

    The former NBA president, who claimed to have been a victim of fake news in the past, urged media practitioner to rise up and eliminate fake news.

    “I have been a victim of fake news before and it wasn’t a pleasant experience. This is the reason why media practitioners must sit up and eliminate the virus called ‘fake news’, which has eaten quite deep into the society since the invention of social media,” he advised.

    According to Olanipekun, the introduction of ‘Citizen Journalism’ has not helped matters, rather, it has been a key factor in the spread of fake news.

    He noted that fake news is thriving because Nigeria has not been abiding with the Constitution.

    He made reference to Freedom of the Press Law in Malawi and Section 152 of the Ghanaian Constitution that have provision for free reportage of news as well as providing sanction against fake news.

    Dr Abati, who was the keynote speaker, identified conscience, values and responsibility as salient weapons in fighting fake news.

    “In virtually every country of the world there is a presence of fake news”, which he described as fabricated news intended to “mis-inform, dis-inform, sensationalise, hurt, achieve a specific objective either for profit or mischief”.

    According to him, globalisation and technology have contributed to the spread of news stories rapidly although in different perspective.

    He said: “We are in the age of citizen journalism. However, fake news creates confusion, misleads and  is a form of distortion, which has raised questions  about media and its responsibility.”

    This, he noted, can cause a lot of damage when used with the wrong medium.

    According to him, “the media should act as an instrument of nation building. The media is to set agenda and establish standards, provide leadership and not to cause damage or tell lies.

    “Section 39 of the Constitution allows freedom of expression and the right of ownership, but Section 15 is for the media to provide security and welfare of the people.

    “Our job as journalists is to stand for the people, but the same media is being used to cause damage,” he lamented.

    Dr Abati, a former Special Advicer on Media and Publicity to former President Goodluck Jonathan, urged journalists to stick to the truth and not publish fake news in order not to breach the trust of the people.

    The author, Akingbolu, said his experience as a journalist, since his student days up to professional life, motivated him to write the book, which is his first.

    He said: “This is my own contribution to national development and the growing media”.

    Others present at the event included  Publisher of This Day, Mr Nduka Obaigbena; Publisher, Marketing Edge, Mr John Ajayi; former Editor, The Nigerian Compass, Mr Gabriel Akinadewo; Book reviwer, Mr Tony Kan; Managing Director of Precise Communication, Mr Bolaji Okusaga; President Premium Eagle Publications, Mr Dotun Oladipo; former Vice Chairman, Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR) Lagos Branch, Mrs Bolanle Olatunde; Managing Director, Proshare, Mr Femi Awoyemi and Mr  Lolu Akinwunmi, who was the moderator at the event.

  • Looters: FG plots to arm twist judiciary, says Orbih

    A Benin based legal practitioner, Ferdinand Orbih, has accused the federal government of plotting to arm twist the judiciary by labeling people as looters of public fund.

    Orbih said the publication of the supposed looters was a strong statement from the FG that it either has no confidence in the process initiated in court or it is calculated to arm twist the judiciary to get conviction at all costs.

    In a press statement issued to newsmen in Benin City, Orbih said it was irresponsible for the Federal Government to label as looters, persons who are undergoing trial over corruption allegations.

    Orbih stated that such persons were presumed innocent until proven otherwise, by the Constitution the President swore to uphold.

    According to the statement, “It does appear that the Federal Government does not understand what the rule of law entails or the dynamics of due process. The case against Nenadi Usman is still pending in court. The Federal Government that has labelled her as a looter of public funds is yet to prove the allegations against her in court.

    “The publication by the government portends grave danger to democracy and the rule of law. Surely, there will be a legal response to this Executive gross misbehaviour.”

    Read Also: Looters list should cut across parties,says ex-ICPC Chairman

  • Constitution review: Governors mount pressure on Assemblies

    Constitution review: Governors mount pressure on Assemblies

    Governors are mounting pressure on House speakers over the planned review of the constitution, The Nation has learnt.

    Some of the speakers have been threatened with removal, should they remain adamant.

    The Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) has invited speakers to an emergency meeting  tomorrow in Abuja.

    The session, according to sources, is designed to abort the consideration of the amendments to the constitution by 20 Houses of Assembly on Wednesday.

    The Conference of Speakers has given a December 20 deadline to all Houses of Assembly to conclude debate on the proposed amendments sent to the states by the National Assembly.

    Some governors are said to have mandated their states’ speakers to either halt the consideration of the amendments or face the consequences.

    It was learnt that the governors and the speakers have disagreed on four major components of the proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution as passed by the National Assembly.

    The areas of disagreement are:

    • Autonomy for Local Government Councils;
    • Abrogation of State Joint  Local Government Accounts (JAAC);
    • Financial autonomy for state legislatures(House of Assembly autonomy); and
    • Critical amendment to facilitate fast dispensation of cases at the Supreme Court of Nigeria and other courts; election petition, front loading of briefs on jurisdiction etc

    A source, who spoke in confidence with our correspondent, said: “The two parties have not been able to reach a consensus on these four areas. They have been holding series of meetings in the past few weeks.

    ”The speakers met in Enugu about three weeks ago and raised a seven-man committee comprising a Speaker from each of the six geopolitical zones to be led by the Speaker of the Kwara State House of Assembly, Ali Ahmed.

    “The speakers have decided to uphold these four areas to save local government administration from collapse and end non-payment of workers at the local level.

    “They observed that there had been gross abuse of JAAC.”

    “ The governors also set up a seven-man team headed by Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola to guide the NGF. While consultations were ongoing, some State Houses of Assembly endorsed the amendments passed by the National Assembly.

    “About 20 states are expected to approve the amendments on Tuesday, including the upholding the four points of disagreement. But the governors have vowed to resist them,” the source said.

    Another source said: “Some of the Houses of Assembly were hasty because they had not recognized the governors’ input. They acted as if they harbour a pre-determined agenda against the governors.

    “The governors wanted the Houses of Assembly to step down the four contentious areas for a broader understanding with the Governors’ Forum.

    “Some Speakers said the governors ought to have prevailed on senators and members of the House of Representatives to influence these four areas instead of killing the amendments at the state level.

    “Alternatively, they have asked the governors to throw the four amendments open to the public and let Nigerians decide on these four critical amendments.”

    The NGF has summoned the 36 Speakers for an emergency meeting tomorrow.

    A December 15, 2017 notice by the Director-General of NGF, Mr. A.B. Okauru, said: “The Governors Forum at its meeting of 13th December, 2017 resolved to consult with the Honourable Speakers of the 36 State Houses of Assembly on the above subject matter( Amendment of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria).

    “Consequently, we write to invite the Honourable Speakers of the 36 State Houses of Assembly to a meeting with the Nigeria Governors’ Forum( NGF) scheduled as follows: Tuesday, 19th December, 2017by 3pm at the Banquet Hall, Presidential Villa, Abuja.”

    A Speaker said: “Some governors have been threatening a few of our colleagues to reject the four amendments or forget their jobs.

    “We are seriously under pressure. In fact, a mail was secretly sent to the governors to attend Tuesday’s meeting with their Speakers as if we are small boys.

    “We are surely heading for a stalemate after spending over N7billion to effect the latest amendments to 1999 Constitution.”

    Section 9(2) and (3) provides the guidelines for alteration to 1999 Constitution.

    The section says: “The National Assembly may, subject to the provision of this section, alter any of the provisions of this Constitution.

    “An Act of the National Assembly for the alteration of this Constitution, not being an Act to which Section 8 of this Constitution applies, shall not be passed in either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of that House and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the states.”