The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Constitution

  • Southwest states united on constitution amendment

    Southwest states united on constitution amendment

    South West states will adopt a common position on the proposed amendment to the constitution, the governors said yesterday.

    Governors Abiola Ajimobi (Oyo), Akinwumi Ambode (Lagos), Rauf Aregbesola (Osun); Rotimi Akeredolu (Ondo) and Ayodele Fayose (Ekiti) met in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, to ratify their common stance on all the issues billed for amendment.

    The National Assembly last month transmitted the items it is proposing for amendments to the state houses of Assembly.

    Two-thirds of the 36 Assemblies –which is 24  -must concur on any particular issue before it could be accepted.

    The National Assembly will then transmit such items for President Muhammadu Buhari’s assent after which they become laws.

    According to the programme, the Assemblies are expected to submit their records of votes on the items to the National Assembly in the first quarter of next year.

    Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, who spoke on behalf of his colleagues after the meeting, said the Yoruba is one with the same destiny, hence party politics would not be allowed to divide them on such an issue.

    He said: “As you can see, all of us are one from Oduduwa. All of us, being brothers, are presenting the same position on matters that are of common interest of all of us and we are doing it together.

    “If you are talking about specific issues, one of the issues that we tried to look at is the issue of constitution (amendment). There are many things that we have endorsed, but it is so clear to us that there is more on the issue of amendment of the constitution.

    “And as expected, we know what will be our interest.

    “So, we want to send a common position to our Houses of Assembly and other stakeholders who we believe can come along with us on the issues that we have agreed on, that we believe that are of our common interest.”

    But Akeredolu did not disclose the position taken by the governors on the issues to be amended.’

    The National Assembly Constitution Review Committee formulated 33 bills out of which 29 were passed. Four were rejected.

    The four rejected critical proposals are: devolution of power to states, deletion of Land Use Act from the constitution, state creation and boundary adjustment and 35 per cent affirmative action for women.

    Also rejected was the recommendation to alter Section 25 of the Constitution to guarantee a married woman’s right to choose either her indigeneship by birth or by marriage for the purposes of appointment or election.

    President Muhammadu Buhari has said that he will be willing to assent the Constitution Amendment Bill whenever it is transmitted to him by the legislature.

  • ‘ Constitution should be amended to emphasise revenue generation’

    ‘ Constitution should be amended to emphasise revenue generation’

    Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and Bi-Courtney Chairman Dr. Wale Babalakin, in a paper yesterday at the annual public lecture of the Government College, Ibadan Old Boys’ Association, speaks on why the Constitution should be amended to place emphasis on wealth generation and collective wealth creation, among others.

    Our Constitution, that is the 1999 Constitution, apart from the obvious flaws that it  was not the product of a democratic engagement but a creation of the Military has many issues that require enhancement. I have heard a lot of cries that the system is too expensive. I believe that the cost of running it can be pruned down. However I disagree with the suggestion that we should scrap the bicameral legislature that is the existence of two Legislative Houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The membership of the House of Representatives is based on various parameters including population. The Senate is made up three members per State and one for the Federal Capital Territory. The membership of the Senate for each state is the same irrespective of the size of the State or its population. This is the concept of the equality of state within a Federation. This composition gives the smaller State a sense of belonging in the Federation. It offers them protection from the larger States. I do not see how the states with smaller population and size can feel comfortable if there was no Senate to counter balance the House of Representatives. Apart from this, I strongly believe that a simple legislature in a country with such diverse interests can on the spur of the moment take wrong decisions that may be difficult to reverse. The presence of another avenue to ventilate the position and aggregate ideas is likely to lead to a more sober legislation.

    It is my position that one of the weaknesses of the various states today is that the State Legislature have been taken over by the State Governors. As recently mentioned by President Obasanjo, State Governors have become emperors in their domain. The time has come when we need to have a second legislature in the states which is composed in a manner that places them beyond the control of the State Executive. And do not burden the states further financially. Most of the State Governments’ are spiraling out of order.

     

    Nigerian constitution and the distribution of largesse

     

    One aspect that seriously baffles me about the Nigerian Constitution is that although it is unusually detailed for a Federal Constitution, it appears to unduly place emphasis on sharing of revenue. From the beginning to the end of the Constitution, I did not see any reference to creating the revenue. We have to create the revenue before we can share the said revenue. We have inadvertently through improper constitutional making created a community where the emphasis is on how to share government largesse. This culture has led to the poverty of the whole nation. Please, do not be deceived, Nigeria is not a rich country. A country of about 170m people with a Federal budget of N7.4 trillion, out of which N2.5 trillion is a debt, is a struggling country. In this year’s budget, all Government earnings are to be spent on recurrent expenditure. All capital projects are to be funded by borrowing. This is how stretched the finance Sof Nigeria is today. Most of the State Governors believe that they are to fund the expenditure of their states largely from Federal allocation from Abuja. They have not been able to generate any substantial revenue. It is my thesis that this happened largely because of the structure of our Constitution which places a lot of emphasis on the distribution of largesse rather than the creation of collective wealth.   There is no provision in the constitution that makes it mandatory for the Government to save money for a rainy day.  According to the Constitution every amount of money accruing to the Government must be paid into the Federation Account from where its shared accordingly. Does this not explain today why Nigeria with a total of N170m people has a reserve of about N33b (thirty three billion dollars) and a Sovereign Wealth Fund of about $2 billion (two billion dollars) while Norway, another oil producing nation now  reserves  in excess of  N900 billion..

    We have to refocus our Constitution. I call on the members of the National Assembly who are currently seeking to amend the Constitution, to place emphasis on revenue generation and the creation of collective wealth. A situation where state governments can barely pay salaries is wrong. It is either the states bureaucracies are too large and inconsistent with the revenue profile of the states or the states are not doing well enough in the creation of wealth. More incongruous is that most states today spend their entire revenue derived from the Federation account received on salaries of the civil servants. In effect, they spend the commonwealth of the state on 2-3% of the population and leave the masses in the state who they have sworn to serve and protect in a bottomless abyss. This cannot be described as appropriate governance.

     

    The role of courts in a federal system of government

     

    he Constitution we have adopted places a lot of emphasis on the legal system. The judiciary plays a very pivotal role in the successful implementation of every Federal Constitution. There are endless battles for sphere of authority between the Federal and State Governments’ and also between the Government and individuals. It is very adversarial in operation.  Even the American Constitution which has now been in operation or over 200 years still has issues about Federal Government and State Government dichotomy. In the United States some of the landmark cases that have elaborated on this issue are:

    National League of Cities v Usery 426 vs. 883. 49 L Ed. 2d. 245 (1976)

    Garia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 vs 83 L Ed. 2d. 1016 (1985).

    In Australia, the cases of:

    Huddart Paker and Company Proprietary v Moorehead (1908) 8 CLR 330).

    The Commonwealth and Anor v. Attorney General of Tasmania and Ors (The Franklin Dam case) 1983 5 7 ALJ. R. 450.

    Unlike the American Constitution where the power of the court to declare laws inconsistent with the constitution invalid was inferred by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Marbury v Madison. In Nigeria, the power is specifically provided for by the Constitution:

    S.4 (8) of the Constitution provides:

    “…. as otherwise provided by this constitution, the exercise of legislative powers by the National Assembly or by a House of Assembly shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts of law and of Judicial Tribunal Established by law and accordingly, the National Assembly or a State Assembly shall not enact any law that ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of a court of law or a judicial tribunal established by law”

    This is a specific jurisdiction that must be taken very seriously by the courts. This is designed to ensure that the Legislative and the Executive conform with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Any Judicial officer that does not apply this provision properly would not be living up to his oath of office.

     

    How well have we fared in this area?

     

    ith the enormous powers, conferred on the Courts by this Jurisdiction, have we enabled the courts to perform this role? Have we created Judicial Institutions that is robust enough to undertake this phenomenal responsibility. It is my candid opinion that we have not been fair to the judicial arm of government. I will say that we started well but years of military intervention in the governance of Nigeria eroded significantly the status of the Judiciary.

    I would like to celebrate those who pioneered the judiciaries of Eastern, Northern and Western Nigeria. The three judiciaries were placed on a commendable footing through the effort of the members of the legal profession and the society at large I will highlight my point by using the Western Nigeria Judiciary as a case study. The legal society I knew growing up was very organized. Cases went on the dates they were scheduled for. There were hardly any adjournments then. Objections were raised and resolved immediately. There was no adjournment to consider any interlocutory issues. Judges were so knowledgeable and so versatile that lawyers knew that they could not play any delay tactics. Criminal cases were disposed of within a month of commencing the trial. The Assizes, which was the Special Criminal Court held for a specific period and loads of cases were disposed of during the period.

    An investigation was very thorough and the office of the Director of Public Protection was very active and versatile and would hardly proffer charges against an accused person without proper consideration of the merits of the case and the probability of securing a conviction. This was the legal society that I was born into. I was so fascinated by the Court that once I had the opportunity of obtaining information about how it was created, I seized it with both hands. In 1964, the salary of a High Court Judge in Western Nigeria was £3,400.00 (three thousand four hundred pounds) per annum. The salary of the governor of the CBN was £2,700.00 (two thousand seven hundred pounds) per annum. With this sort of comparatively high remuneration and reverence for judicial officers, it was very easy to attract the best minds to the Bench. It is sad that no judge today earns the salaries and allowances of a Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

    The Ministry of Justice was also a very formidable institution. The Military intervention in the governance of Nigeria was an unmitigated disaster in the development of the Nigerian legal system and the Legal profession. Initially, the judiciary stood its ground against the Military’s onslaught and targeted erosion of its powers. The celebrated case of Lakanmi and Kikelomo v. AG Western State (Nigerian Supreme Court Case 1969 – 1970 6 NSCC. 143.) was the hallmark of judicial courage. The Courts had the confidence to hold that the Military Government could not exercise judicial powers. The Court held that the Forfeiture of Assets etc. Validation Decree violated the principles of separation of powers provided for under the 1963 Constitution. The Decree was an exercise of judicial power by the Executive and Legislative branches of government. By promulgating the Decree, the Federal Military Government was passing a legislative judgment. Such an exercise of judicial power was ultra vires the Federal Military Government under the 1963 Constitution. The Court courageously declared the Military Law invalid being inconsistent with the Constitution. The Military Government invalidated this decision by enacting the Federal Military Government (Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers) Decree 1970.

    “any decision, whether made before or after the commencement of this Decree, by any court of law in the exercise or purported exercise of any powers under the Constitution or any enactment or law of the Federation or of any State which has purported to declare or shall hereafter purport to declare the invalidity of any Decree or of any Edict (in so far as the provisions of the Edict are not inconsistent with the provisions of a Decree) or the incompetence of any of the governments in the Federation to make the same is or shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever as from the date of the making thereof.”

    The sin of this law is not the promulgation of this Decree, but the support it received from some members of the legal profession and the society at large. We tend to celebrate bad laws in Nigeria as long as it is favourable to our position at that time, not realizing that a bad law remains in the books until it is repealed or overturned and thus a dangerous weapon in the hands of a bed Government

    With the raw show of power by government after the promulgation of the Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers Decree, there was no end to the draconian use of decrees and edicts. One example that continues to shock me till date is the case of JH Bassey v Federal Government of Nigeria. Chief Bassey’s properties were confiscated by the government. We challenged the confiscation in Court. While the case was still  pending in Court, and while I was busy blowing grammar in Court on behalf of my then boss who had kindly allowed me to continue working on the case, the Federal Government promulgated The Assets (Title Vesting and Validation) (Mr. J. H. Bassey) Decree 1992. S3 (1) which provided that:

    “1. – (1) notwithstanding the provisions of the Land Use Act, the title to the assets clearly described in the Schedule to this Decree, is by virtue of this Decree and without further assurance vested in the Federal Military Government.

    (2) The title to the assets so vested by subsection of this section is hereby validated.

    1. The title of any claimant, real or purported, to the said assets referred to in section 1 of this Decree is hereby extinguished.
    2. – (1) No civil proceedings shall lie or be instituted in any court for or on account of, or in respect of any title vested in the Federal Military Government or validated by or under this Decree, or in respect of any act, matter or thing done or purported to be done by the Federal Military Government with regard to the assets which is the subject matter of this Decree or any act, matter or thing whatsoever done or purported to be done under or pursuant to this Decree by the Federal Military Government.

    (2) If any such proceedings referred to in subsection (1) of this section are instituted at any time before or after the commencement of this Decree, the proceedings shall abate, be discharged and made void and of no effect, and any right, interest or privilege, accruing, obtained, granted or purported to have accrued, have obtained or granted thereby is hereby extinguished.

    (3) Accordingly, any judgement or order of any court or tribunal delivered at any time on, before or after the commencement of this Decree shall by virtue of this Decree be made null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

    (3) For the purpose of this section, the question whether any provision of Chapter IV of the Constitution has been, is being or would be contravened by anything done, being done or proposed to be done in pursuance of the assets described in the Schedule to this Decree or in pursuance of this Decree shall not be inquired into in any court of law or tribunal, and accordingly, no provision of the Constitution shall apply in respect of any such question.”

    This was a rape on the Rule of Law and confirmed the depth of the collapse of our jurisprudence under the military interregnum.

    In order to create the sort of judiciary that is capable of discharging the enormous responsibilities placed on the Judiciary under the Constitution, the following actions should be taken:

     

    The way forward

     

    e must find a way of attracting the best mind into the Judiciary. The salary and allowances must be attractive enough to make a successful lawyer contemplate leaving the practice of law for judicial appointment as it was seen in 1955 and 1976. I had earlier mentioned what the salary of a High Court Judge of Western State was vis a vis the governor of Central Bank of Nigeria. It is instructive to note that a Judge of the High Court of England earns more money than the Prime Minister of England. This is the sort of high premium placed on members of the judiciary by a discerning legal system.

    The development of the law had always being anchored on the hierarchical system of courts.  The hierarchical system of courts had always being premised on the respect of the lower tier of the court system for the courts on the higher echelon.  This respect had been predicated on the intellectual superiority and comparatively higher practical experience of the members of higher court than the courts in the lower tier.  What does this mean?  It means that the high court Judges look up to the Court of Appeal for guidance and direction through their judgments.  Ultimately the Court of Appeal justices look up to the Supreme Court justices.  A pronouncement by the Supreme Court on any area of law is the final word on that area of the law. It is as expected to define the issues.  It is supposed to be a refined articulation of the law which resolves the issues and provide guidance for the entire legal system.  It cannot afford to be unintellectual.  The reasoning must be convincing.  It cannot leave loopholes.  Loopholes at the apex court create severe problems at the lower courts.  Amongst other things, it allows the lawyers to maneuver extensively. It may lead to conflicting judgments of the lower courts.

    We have to accord the right status to judicial officers. I grow up in the home of a judicial officer. I am always confused, if not perplexed when I try to make comparisons between the environment which I was brought up and the situation in the country today. I want to commend the National Judicial Council for all the effort so far in insisting that Judges are fairly treated and disciplined when necessary. However the National Judicial Council budget is dictated by the executives. It can only spend what is made available to it. I have listened to all Chief Justice of Nigeria since Honorable Justice Aloma Mukhtar GCON complained about the poor funding of the Judiciary. I have been told that some States are unable to pay the full allowance to judicial officers. This is totally unacceptable and unconstitutional S84 (7) of the 1999 Constitution provides that ‘ the recurrent expenditure of judicial offices in the Federation in addition to salaries and allowances of the judicial officers mentioned in subsection 4 of this section shall be  charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.@  We have to pay judicial officers appropriately and it is my submission that their salaries should be indexed link to inflation. In Nigeria today most people have lost 50% of the value of their earnings to inflation which implies that judges now earn less than half of their salaries in real value.

    The size of the High Courts in the various states is too large. I believe that most of the jurisdiction being exercised by High Court in the states can be handled as the magistracy. We need to enlarge the jurisdiction of the magistrate courts to take away some burden of the High Court so that the High Court can concentrate on issues that require great attention. We have to place serious emphasis on the hierarchy of courts.

    Appointment to the Bench must be based on merit. Law is essentially a profession that requires very serious intellectual capacity. The various levels of courts must look up to the courts higher than them in the hierarchy. The argument that it will offend Federal character is a non-starter. I have been to every part of Nigeria. Every corner of Nigeria has very outstanding people and they should be identified and appointed.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Constitution robs states of revenue, says governor

    Oyo State Governor Abiola Ajimobi yesterday said Nigeria should be restructured to allow states have access to the revenue within their domain.

    The governor said the nation’s subsisting political system was robbing states of revenue, adding that unless there is a reform, the second tier of government will continue to depend on handouts from the Federation Account.

    He said solid mineral deposits should belong to states where they are found, but the 1999 Constitution gives ownership rights to the Federal Government.

    Ajimobi noted that without a constitution amendment or restructuring, the states will remain parasites.

    He said amending the constitution would make states get involved in extractive industries and boost their revenue base.

    Ajimobi, who was represented by his Chief of Staff, Dr. Gbade Ojo, spoke in Ibadan, the state capital, at the third annual Dauda Adegbenro Foundation lecture, with the theme: Transparency in the Extractive Industries: Driving Wealth Creation and Sustainable Revenue as Solution to Economic Recession.

    The governor also said Nigerians must decide on the federalism they desire, since no two types are the same.

    He urged the Federal Government to diversify the economy, saying Nigeria’s continued reliance on a mono-product economy would not bode well for the nation.

    In his lead paper, Executive Secretary of Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) Waziri Adio listed areas Nigeria should focus on to drive growth and development on the extractive industries.

    He said the nation should leverage on opportunities offered by resource endowments by pursuing value optimisation.

    Adio called for more openness in the industries, especially in revenue transparency, ownership transparency, con

  • Constitution amendment worthless without devolution of powers to states

    Lagos State House of Assembly Speaker Mudashiru Obasa yesterday said the failure to include devolution of powers in the National Assembly’s amendment of the 1999 Constitution will make it worthless.

    Obasa spoke yesterday during plenary while reacting to a report presented by Deputy Speaker Wasiu Sanni-Eshinlokun after the Conference of Speakers’ Forum in Yola, the Adamawa State capital.

    The Speaker debunked the rumour that the conference adopted local government autonomy as part of the proposed amendments of the constitution.

    Vice Chairman of Conference of Speakers of State Legislatures and Enugu State House of Assembly Speaker Uchenna Ubosi was reported to have said the conference supported autonomy for local governments and state legislatures.

    Obasa said the forum did not pass such a resolution, adding that there was no such discussion during the meeting.

    He said: “We did not discuss anything relating to autonomy for local government. We were only given the privilege to go back home and get the feelings of our people.”

    Reiterating the general amendments to the constitution, Obasa said the proposals would only favour the National Assembly.

    He said: “The states have nothing to rejoice about without devolution of powers. It is not something we should be cheerful about, especially now that people are clamouring for restructuring.

    “The National Assembly should do something meaningful; something that will be acceptable to Nigerians. The amendments proposed so far are not what we should be talking about now. We will register our grievances.”

    Sanni-Eshinlokun said the conference started last Thursday and ended on Saturday.

    He added that of the 33 items proposed for amendments, 22 will be transmitted to the legislatures for debate.

     

  • Lagos titled chiefs call for devolution of powers to states

    Lagos titled chiefs call for devolution of powers to states

    The Association of Lagos Titled Chiefs has commended the National Assembly for the successful completion of the first step towards the amendment process of the 1999 constitution and demanded for devolution of powers to states.

    In a statement by its President, Chief Mrs Iyabo Foresythe the association noted with delight that the depth of work done would deepen democracy and improve on the quality of governance at all levels in the country.

    It said it agrees with diverse opinion leaders who in their various contributions have noted that the 1999 constitution is an anti-development framework that unhealthily endowed the government at the centre with all economic power, in direct contravention of the most basic tenets of federalism, which presupposes the broad distribution of economic rights and powers within a federation.

    “We are not in doubt that the States have assumed a beggarly status, transformed into dependent serfs who depend on monthly releases and regular bailouts from Abuja for their subsistence.”

    The Association wondered why the federating units should be precluded from performing several important constitutional responsibilities most listed in the Exclusive Legislative list.

    “As key stakeholders with varied interests in the cosmopolitan city of Lagos and the economic capital of Nigeria, we are of the strong view that there is a need to identify and address the provision in the 1999 constitution as amended that had become a stumbling block. One of such provisions is the “Devolution of Power to States”, vide decongesting the Exclusive Legislative list.

    “For us, an Association of prominent members of the Lagos Community who have served the State and the Nation meritoriously, our request to revisit the position on devolution of power is borne out of our realisation of the potentialities of Lagos State, germane to enhancing its economy and revenue.

    “Our position is that if Nigeria is to make progress economically and achieve its goal of a sustainably diversified economy and revenue base, it must reform its political economic institutions in order to reflect the legitimate aspirations of the different groups of Nigerians that are voluntarily resident in cosmopolitan Lagos.

    “The less subjugation of the federating units nay states, that are the engines of our march to economic development, the more the bondage that has shackled Nigeria’s economic potentials will be loosened. Again sincere leaders will be needed to manage this new found state resources for quick and rapid growth in the federating. units. Each state has its comparative advantage and must therefore struggle to raise its revenue profile in order to meet the needs of the people.

    “Until the states are strengthened and made viable, the federal government cannot be strong. Every state has its own peculiarity as we are all naturally endowed. The endowment might not be in equal proportion, but each federating unit sure needs the other.  Kebbi State is a good pointer to improving internal revenue by harnessing abundant available resources through rice production and processing for the Lagos market.

    “Also, the recent proposal between Lagos and Kano States for a joint economic summit we applaud as an initiative in the right direction towards stronger federating units, repositioning to harness its economic potentials.
    “What is needed is for a constitution that will: i) Provide for the healthy and broad distribution of economic power to the states with incentives to encourage the active participation of the states to bolster and sustainably expand the Nigerian economy via harnessing of their comparative advantages. Arising from this will be a diversified economy and revenue base, not susceptible to the volatile, cyclical and dwindling energy market in which present day Nigeria depends.

    “ ii)  Ensure social cohesion, devoid of “resource control” agitations, attacks on oil and gas facilities, pipeline vandalisations and militancy. This can only be possible if the states and its residents are given a sense of ownership of both the resources and facilities domiciled in the federating units.

    “Our appeal for the revisit on the devolution of power to the federating units should be viewed from the point that this is another path at reworking the country for greater efficiency. Indeed we are in support of the clamour for devolution of power to states as a means for the provision of quality services and dividends of democracy to the residents of Lagos.

    “It is a rightful call whose time has come to amend the constitution to vest the control of the revenues derived from Value Added Tax, Minerals, Ports charges, inland waterways and other revenue sources to give the much needed impetus and realism to the Lagos quests for economic and revenue diversification.”

    The Association noted that 55% Nigeria’s VAT is collected in Lagos State with 15% of this located to Federal Government, while the States and Local Governments get 50% and 35% respectively.

    “It is not in doubt that Lagos State accounts for 70 per cent of maritime trade in the country and hosts 60 per cent of industries that help generate the VAT that is shared among all the states. Aside from accounting for 86.2 per cent of Companies Income Tax in 2008, according to the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Lagos is also the manufacturing hub of Nigeria.

    “Figures from the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria also indicate that the Ikeja Industrial Zone alone – not even the entire Lagos – accounted for 55 per cent of goods manufactured in the country in 2016. This also means sustenance of jobs for Nigerians from all parts of the country. The narrative on the abnormal and unacceptable interrupted electricity supply situation in Lagos State and indeed other federating units can be changed if the issue of electricity is devolved to the states allowing each state to generate from several sources, transmit and distribute to consumers within the federating units for manufacturing/industrial and domestic consumption.

    “These are issues we suggest must be revisited for justice and equity as Lagos State need not go to Abuja monthly to share from Federation Account Allocation as VAT is a sufficient and veritable internally generated revenue for development. There is sure no justice in the current system where wealth is sitting there in the federating units to be shared and not created.  It is wrong and unjust for states to have an entitlement to a share of other people’s efforts rather than a reward for their own efforts. Surely, this tripod of injustice is a source of concern in the polity.
    “It is the humble submission of the Association to the 8th Senate to revisit its position on devolution of powers to the federating units. The Association of Lagos Titled Chiefs made up of prominent members of the Lagos community who have served the state and nation meritoriously is making the call in the national interest and fairness to Lagos State especially, a mini-Nigeria, multi-cultural federating unit with a projected population of 40million residents in Year 2025 and an emerging ‘African Dubai’.

    “ Decongesting the exclusive legislative list and devolving power to the states will no doubt enhance the management of its endowments, potentialities and resources, boost the revenue base and provide quality services and the necessary dividends of good governance to the residents of Lagos, “ the association stated.

  • Constitution amendment battle shifts to state assemblies

    Constitution amendment battle shifts to state assemblies

    •National Assembly transmits proposals for consideration
    •Buhari to get clean copy in December

    The 36 State Houses of Assembly will begin work on the proposed amendment to the 1999 Constitution any moment from now, The Nation gathered yesterday.

    They are to consider the bills already adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in respect of the amendment.

    National Assembly sources said the adopted proposals have been transmitted to houses of assembly for consideration and concurrence.

    The National Assembly Constitution Review Committee led by Senate Deputy President Ike Ekweremadu formulated 33 bills for the purpose of the constitution amendment of which   29 were adopted while four were rejected.

    The source said that with the transmission of the adopted proposals to the state houses of assembly “the battle to amend the 1999 Constitution has shifted to the states.”

    He said: “Any proposal that meets the approval of at least 24 state houses of assembly will be processed and transmitted to the President for assent.”

    The panelist who does not want his name mentioned explained that the National Assembly does not have to “vote on proposals that meet the mandatory approval of 24 state houses of assembly.”

    The fear now, he said, “is what the state houses of assembly will do with the adopted recommendations transmitted to them by the National Assembly for concurrence.”

    He said: “The fear becomes even palpable when it is recognized that state houses of assemblies are fundamentally in the pockets of the state governors. The implication is that no proposal passes without the approval and endorsement of the governors.

    “During the 2010 amendment bid for instance, state assemblies were granted autonomy by the National Assembly. The proposal was rejected by the same state assemblies the National Assembly wanted to liberate from the strangle hold of state governors. They elected to remain tied to the apron string of state governors.”

    The source said that though talking about rejected items is important, “what is even more important to the country is to mount pressure on state houses of assembly to pass all the items transmitted to them.”

    “There are many approved amendments, which are critical for restructuring and reforming the way we do business of government, and strengthening critical institutions of democracy to promote efficacy, transparency, accountability, and checks and balances.

    “For instance, if we devolve powers to the States without strengthening the state legislatures for effective checks and balances, then it will be business as usual.

    “You would also see that the authorization of expenditure before a budget is passed has been reduced from six months to three months. The Office of the Accountant General of the Federal Government has been separated from Accountant General of the Federation. Also there is financial autonomy for the Auditor General of the Federation.

    “As for local governments, the alterations are aimed at strengthening local government administration in Nigeria by guaranteeing the democratic existence, funding and tenure of local government councils.

    “Take the issue of distributive pool account as an example. We sought to alter Section 162 of the Constitution to abrogate the state joint local government accounts and empower each local government council to maintain its own special account into which all allocations due to the local government council shall be directly paid from the Federation Account and from the Government of State and also to make provisions for saving in the Federation Account before distribution to other levels of government.

    “All these will enhance accountability and war against corruption and engender development.

    “Also, the way we recruit leaders matters even more. There are approved amendments to set a time-frame for determination of pre-election matters. You know that while all elections petitions (post-election matters) have since been determined in line with the amendment of 2013, some pre-election matters still linger. Even the reform of local government for autonomy is a critical arm of restructuring.”

    Nigerians, he said, should follow the process of the constitution review to the state houses of assembly to ensure that all recommended resolutions transmitted to them are passed.

    “Going forward, constitution amendment all over the world is open ended. That a particular proposal fails to sail through does not mean it is the end of the proposal. Constitution making is work in progress all over.”

    The leadership of the two chambers of the National Assembly has already pledged to deliver a clean copy of adopted resolutions to the Presidency for assent before the end of the year long before the commencement of electioneering activities for the 2019 general elections.

    The National Assembly rejected moves to devolve powers to the states, removal of the Land Use Act from the Constitution, states creation/boundary adjustment, 35 per cent affirmative action for women and a recommendation to alter Section 25 of the Constitution to guarantee a married woman’s right to choose either her indigenousness by birth or by marriage for the purposes of appointment or election..

    The Senate  however adopted the followings: inclusion of former Presidents of the Senate and former Speakers of the House of Representatives  as members of the National Council of State; authorization of the president  to continue withdrawing funds from consolidated account after expiration of the annual budget has been whittled down from six to three months; financial autonomy for state assemblies; financial autonomy for local governments; guaranteed tenure for local government chairmen and councillors; as well as immunity for legislators for anything they say on the floor during Constitution amendment
    battle shifts to state assemblies ng plenary or when they hold committee briefings.

    Also adopted are: empowering the Independent National Electoral Commission to de-register any political party that fails to meet some criteria, including  failure to win at least one elected seat from councillorship to presidential after a general election; stopping the president’s power  to reject, veto or refusal to sign a bill passed by the NASS after 30 days of transmitting such to him; compelling the president to announce his cabinet within 30 days of his inauguration and attach the portfolios of ministerial nominees to their names;  compelling state governors to do same; and independent candidates for elections.

  • Restructuring: Buhari can’t violate constitution, says lawmaker

    A member of the House of Representatives, Hon.  Olajide Jimoh, has said President Mohammadu Buhari cannot act outside the constitution in a bid to restructure the country.

    He told reporters in Lagos that agitators for restructuring must be sensitive to the existing constitution and consulty widely.

    Jimoh, who represents Lagos Mainland Constituency, said: “President has not said he would not restructure. This issue should go through constitutional processes. There are ways and methods to go about restructuring.”

    he explained that the National Assembly turned down the 2014 National Conference Report on power devolution because it was not carried along by the previous administration.

    Jimoh said the conference was held in a hurry because of the motive behind it.

    He added: “Former President Jonathan did not wait for the National Assembly to give order before he went ahead. A  huge amount of money was wasted.

    Jimoh said those clamouring for restructuring are looking for avenues to position themselves for relevance.

    The lawmaker said the issue of budget padding raised by Hon. Abdumumin Jubrin must not be swept under the carpet.

  • Who is afraid of a new Constitution?

    Who is afraid of a new Constitution?

    Last week, the House of Representatives adopted 27 of 33 proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution.  The Senate adopted 29 of the same number of proposed amendments.  The process was more than five years in the making.

    It reached a high point on December 10, 2012, when 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 43 extant provisions of the Constitution they think should be reviewed.

    Discussions at the sessions were not merely free and robust, they were resoundingly “participatory,” Emeka Ihedioha, a stalwart of the ruling PDP, deputy speaker of the House of Representatives at that time and coordinator of the scheme, exulted.   “We have kept faith with Nigerians.”

    Votes were taken thereafter 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 deposited with the secretariat of the Constitution Review Committee, which again invited representatives of “stakeholders” to join with its staffers to collate the findings.

    The outcome of this process, unveiled before the House of Representatives in April 2013, categorically represents “the voice” of the Nigerian people regarding what changes they would like to see an amended Constitution, Ihediora said.  The process might not be perfect but it marked, Ihediora claimed, “the first time in the history of this country that the people have been made part of the Constitution Review Process in a practical and transparent manner.”

    The process was nothing of the sort.  In conception and execution , it was just as flawed as the 1999 Constitution it was supposed to modify.

    For one thing, 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 resolving the conflicts convulsing the country.

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

    For another, those whom House members railroaded from their constituencies into attending the town hall 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.”  Nor can “video evidence” presented with the report 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 of the town hall meeting held in her Delta State constituency of Warri.

    It 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 walked out.

    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 indignation.

    Even if the House had 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.”

    Not all the public hearings across the country were as shambolic as the one in Warri. But even where they were better organised, 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 could it be honestly claimed that the outcome represented 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 that reflects a broad national consensus on which a healthier union can be founded.

    The town hall meetings provided no such forum.

    Yet they were the primary source of the documents that more or less constituted the substance of last week’s debate and discussion that led to the adoption of major amendments to the 1999 Constitution.

    Over the decades, Nigeria has steadily retreated from federalism – the bedrock principle on which the country was established — to the point that Nigeria today is more or less a centrally administered state.

    The so-called public hearings evaded that issue altogether, or sought to perpetuate it.  Five years later, and with the demand more clamorous, the House and the State were just as remiss, voting down a proposal for devolution of powers from an all-powerful Center to the constituent states.

    One of the items on the 2013 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.  The former would further erode the federal principle

    Five years later last week, the Senate voted to abolish state electoral commissions and to have the National Electoral Commission supplant them.

    Another item on the 2012 template 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.

    Five years later, it is not clear whether the lawmakers seem to have sidestepped the issue of state police, a crucial element in a federation.

    All in all, the House of Representatives and the Senate have for the most part evaded some overarching issues in Nigeria’s existence while pretending to move it towards a harmonious existence.

    The basic architecture of the Nigerian Constitution is incurably defective. The way forward is a new constitution faithful to the federal principle and truly warranted by the preface “We, the People…”

    Who is afraid of a such a constitution?

  • How religious, ethnic interests marred review of Constitution

    How religious, ethnic interests marred review of Constitution

    Proponents of devolution of power, Land Use Act, state creation, boundary adjustment, indigenship and affirmative action in the ongoing constitution review have to wait for another opportunity. Assistant Editor ONYEDI OJIABOR, who followed the process from the outset, writes on what informed the senators’ voting pattern on core issues during the amendment.

    It is no longer news that core proposals slated for amendment in the ongoing constitution review were rejected by the National Assembly. What baffled many was the motive behind the lawmakers’ action.

    The lawmakers have come under scathing criticism for being selective with the amendment, which stakeholders described as self-serving and not in the general interest.

    The Nation learnt that overarching regional interest guided the amendments.

    Right from the conception of the idea for the fourth alteration of the 1999 Constitution, primordial interest wrapped around suspicion, mistrust and even pessimism about the whole process ran riot.

    It was a battle of wits from the outset. It was also obvious that some senators merely played along and waited for the auspicious time to frustrate the process.

    The voting pattern, especially on vital proposals poignantly depicted the true character of the National Assembly.

    All the items northern senators, led by senators Adamu Aliero and Danjuma Goje, kicked against during the clause by clause debate of the proposals, failed to pass the amendment tests.

    Aliero, a one-time governor of Kebbi State, did not hide his disdain for the proposed devolution of power to the states.

    The Kebbi Central Zone senator bellied his disapproval for the devolution of power in his insistence that devolution of power without first tinkering with the revenue allocation in favour of the states would be meaningless.

    Underneath his argument for allocation of more resources to the states was the fear of the unknown.

    The former Kebbi governor, it was discovered, was actually anxious not to endorse restructuring of the country under any other guise. It was ploy to buy time since reworking the revenue allocation formula was not on the card.

    Also, the northern senators opposed the removal of Land Use Act from the Constitution to free land for massive development including agriculture. The proposal crashed because the senators (from the north) felt that delisting Land Use Act from the constitution could be another way of endorsing resource control.

    The proposal for the devolution of power to the states that would have paved the way to rework the country for greater efficiency was opposed by the senators.

    State creation and boundary adjustments proposed to make for equity, equality and give a sense of belonging to the federating units also failed to scale the amendment hurdle as the clause was shot down by the northern senators.

    The indigeneship proposal to allow married women to choose either their state of birth or state of marriage for the purpose of appointment or election was rejected by the senators.

    They also opposed the proposal to institutionalise 35 per cent affirmative action for women aimed at creating more opportunities for women in appointments and elective positions.

    But less than a week after the contentious amendments, details of who did what have started unfolding.

    The leadership of the Senate and House of Representatives have invested a lot of hope in the nearly-aborted amendment.  Both chambers had promised to deliver a clean copy of the constitution long before the commencement of electioneering activities for the 2019 general elections.

    That promise informed why the constitution amendment formed a key issue in the legislative agenda of the Eight National Assembly.

    To achieve this, the leadership of Senate and House of Representatives were periodically briefing by Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu and Deputy House of Representatives Speaker Yussuff Lasun on the progress made.

    An insider gave an account of how northern senators perfected their plot to ambush the process.

    The account said: “Last Monday, when all seemed set for the debate and voting for the 33 items on the agenda, a meeting of the joint leadership of the federal legislature held in the Maitama home of the chairman of the National Assembly, Abubakar Bukola Saraki.

    “The meeting, which went on till past midnight was for the purpose of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. At the meeting, it was agreed that the debate on the 33 items would hold on Tuesday while the voting would be done on Wednesday so that the process could be completed before the legislators commenced their annual recess which began at the weekend.

    “However, it dawned on the legislative leadership that early Tuesday morning when they were supposed to commence the debate on the floor, the Senate President, House of Representatives Speaker and Deputy Speaker were all expected to attend the 16th Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers’ Conference at the ECOWAS secretariat in Abuja.

    “This would mean that nobody would preside at the plenary. The matter was resolved that the Senate President and Speaker would attend while their deputies should preside at the plenary. It was also agreed that since Nigerian parliamentarians are the organisers, they should ensure the event began on schedule by 9am and end within two hours.

    “Eventually, the need to get the conference opened by the Acting President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo delayed the commencement of the event till 10.30am. However, by 11.30am, the opening was done with. Speaker Dogara, who was the presiding officer at the conference, had to stay back while the Senate President returned to the National Assembly complex.

    “However, on getting there, the Senate President met a tensed atmosphere. The northern senators having observed that their southern colleagues were enthusiastic about the constitution amendment voting process scheduled to begin that day were suspicious that something against the interest of the region might have been inserted into the constitution.

    “They further calculated that since Senator Ike Ekweremadu, a southerner with 11 years’ experience in the position with two previous experiences in constitution amendments, it was possible for him to sneak in a few things not in their interest.

    “Led by Senator Goje, the northern senators at an executive session of the Senate had requested for time to consult with their constituents. That was a delay tactic. Knowing that the Senate was due for recess in the next forty-eight hours, any further delay would put the amendment on hold till after the recess and by that time, the enthusiasm about constitution amendment would have died down.

    “Immediately the Senate President came in and was briefed about what transpired at the executive session in which the Senate seems divided on regional basis (North pitted against South), he immediately started persuading the northern senators that voting would be transparent. He also assured them that the rest of the country was waiting for the amendment as a way of dousing tension and agitations across the country. With his assurances to both sides, he moved from his holding office in the White House wing to the plenary to take charge of the proceedings from his deputy.

    “The controversial issues that created the division along regional lines are the removal of the Land Use Act from the constitution, the affirmative action in which at least 35 per cent of people in the executive council of states and Federal Government would be women and the devolution of more powers to the states.

    “The northerners see devolution of powers as indirect way of importing restructuring into the constitution and turning Nigeria into a confederal state with strong confederating states and a weak centre.

    “The Senate President assured all of them that the process would be transparent and give every lawmaker to fully himself. He then presented the various items as bills so that the issues can be voted upon separately. In that case, the rejection of one issue will not lead to the failure of all the issues as it had happened in the past when the issues were lumped together.

    “That was why voting were done separately on issues to be removed from the constitution, even though such issues came under the same bill. Thus, votes were taken separately on the issue of whether to remove the National Youth Service (NYSC) Decree, Public Complaints Commission and Land Use Act Decree from the constitution. While the first two passed, the latter one failed. And so, the former two would be passed.

    “Still in the early hours of Wednesday, the Northern Senators refused to go into the chamber without having a caucus meeting to articulate their positions on key issues.  They refused to allow northern senators who are members of the leadership to attend the meeting. Thus, Saraki, Ahmed Lawan and Bala Ibn N’Allah, were excluded from the meeting.

    “Eventually, the voting on the controversial issues like the devolution of powers to states, removal of Land Use Act from the constitution, Bills for women to claim either their state of origin or state of origin of their husband, 35 per cent affirmative action in the and federal and state’s executive councils reflected the division in Nigeria – the North versus the South.

    “The sharp division reflects the state of the country. The agitations for resource control in the Southsouth, the Biafran secession threat in the Southeast, the restructuring and true federalism campaign in the Southwest as well as the Fulani herdsmen/farmers clash in the Northcentral seem to have tainted the debate.

    “There is serious level of suspicion, mistrust, and pessimism about the purpose of the contentious issues. “It may be correct to say that the Senate President and other members of the leadership of the Senate were able to get the process through due to their political sagacity, maturity, confidence building ability, consensus building efforts and expanding the middle ground while rejecting extreme measures or positions.

    “In dealing with the issue, the Senate President recognised the need to allow members to express the wishes of their constituents. It is believed that no member could force the other to accept the positions that are contrary to the viewpoints of his or her constituent.”

    “Another factor that worked for the Senate in driving the constitution amendment process is the unity among members on the non-controversial issues and the huge respect for Saraki’s leadership”, the insider source said.

    But the hope of many Nigerians for a restructured may have been sacrificed on the altar ethno-religious interest. Some have described the failure of the National Assembly to pass the critical proposals as insensitivity to the aspiration of greater number of Nigerian.

    Nigerians, who desired and clamoured for true federalism are not the only the losers. The Eight National Assembly, which had an opportunity to writte its name in gold, is also a loser.

    It is obvious that even northern senators who blocked devolution of power to states know that over centralisation of virtually everything, including policing, education and health services, has not served the interest of the country well.

    However, constitution making is a work in progress as Saraki spoke of the possibility of the senators to revisit devolution of power.

    It is not over until it is over. The ayes can still have their way when the two chambers resume in September.

  • Constitution reform: Senate removes President’s power

    Constitution reform: Senate removes President’s power

    Senators have passed 29 of the 33 items slated f an r amendment to the 1999 Constitution.

    The lawmakers unanimously voted to strip the President of powers to assent to amendments made to the constitution, thereby giving the legislature sweeping powers to alter the constitution.

    They voted 92 against four to pass the amendment seeking to whittle down the power of the President to veto amendments to the constitution.

    The lawmakers also unanimously passed the amendment seeking to include past Presidents of the Senate and former House of Representatives Speakers as members of the Council of State.

    Also passed was parliamentary immunity to lawmakers in the federal and state legislatures against prosecution over words spoken or written during debates or at committee assignments.

    They also passed an amendment to compel the President to attend a joint session of the National Assembly once a year to deliver a State of the Nation address.

    The length of time given to the President to spend funds from the consolidated revenue in the absence of appropriation was reduced from six to three months.

    Henceforth, the President must lay the nation’s budget proposal before the National Assembly within 90 days before the end of a fiscal year. Governors are to lay their states’ within the same time frame at the state assemblies.

    Local governments have been freed from the grip of state governments, with the scrapping of the Joint State/Local Government Accounts. The local governments are to get their allocations directly from the federation account and other sources.

    State assemblies are to get financial autonomy. They are also to enjoy a right to funding from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the states. The amendment had been rejected by state assemblies during previous constitution amendments that collapsed.

    Names of appointees of the President and governors for cabinet offices are to be submitted to the Federal and State parliaments within 30 days of taking the oath of office by the President or governors.

    Portfolios to be assigned to each appointee will also be indicated in the nomination letters forwarded to the Senate or the state assemblies as the case may be.

    The Senate approved also a provision for independent candidates at all levels of election, as a way of expanding the political space beyond conventional parties.

    The lawmakers voted in favour of the separation of the office of the Accountant General of the Federal Government from the office of the Accountant General of the Federation.

    Similarly, the office of the Auditor-General for the federation and state Auditors General are to be on first line charges in the consolidated revenue funds of the federation and the states.

    The Senate voted in favour of separating the office of the Minister of Justice and commissioners of Justice from that of the Attorney-General of the Federation and that of the State.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was empowered to delist non-performing registered political parties.

    The amendment affects any political party that fails to win any seat at the federal, state or local government level

    Another aspect in the amendment seeks to restrict a person who was sworn in as President or governor to complete the term of an incumbent from contesting for the same office for more than one term.

    The Senate also passed the bill on the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, which seeks to reflect the establishment and core functions of corps.

    The amendment sought includes national security and civil defence as an item in the exclusive legislative list under the second schedule of the constitution.

    Also passed was the bill on procedure for overriding presidential veto in constitutional alteration. It seeks to provide a procedure for passing a constitution alteration bill in the absence of the President.

    Going by the bill, every amendment approved by the National Assembly with corollary support from the state legislators will automatically become law, even without the assent of the President.

    The Bill seeking to set time lines for determination of election disputes also scaled through as Senators Voted 97 in support.

    Another amendment proposed on age qualification by altering Section 65, 106, 131, and 177 of the constitution, affected the age limits for president, governors, senators, Reps and state assembly members.

    For the House of Representatives and state assemblies, the age limit was pegged at 25; Senate, 35; president, 35; and governors, 35.

    The NYSC Scheme was deleted from the Constitution through a Bill to that effect. This is to enable the lawmakers subject the Scheme to regular process of amendment.

    The Public Complaints Commission Act also got the same treatment.

    The Senate also overwhelmingly voted to delete the National Securities Act from the constitution for the Act to undergo regular process of amendment.