The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Constitution

Issues for Constitution review, by rights group

The Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS), founded by a former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) president Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), has identified issues that should be included in Constitution amendment.

They include restructuring the political arrangement to strengthen the states and local governments through devolution of powers, and reviewing the Exclusive List which confers too much power, responsibilities and wealth on the centre.

According to HURILAWS, the Concurrent List, which it said gives the Federal Government more say in matters that ordinarily should be the exclusive domain of state governments, should also be amended.

The group believes the amendment should have provisions that strengthen key institutions that support democracy, such as the courts, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the police, anti-corruption agencies, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the National Human Rights Commission, Accountant-General, Attorney-General, Auditor-General, among others.

HURILAWS’ Senior Legal /Programme Officer, Collins Okeke, said the major cause of political and economic tension is the inability to build consensus on the Constitution.

The group urged the lawmakers to introduce a declaration of a nullity clause in the Constitution, clarify appropriation procedure for the judiciary and its jurisdiction, and strengthen key institutions.

On the nullity clause, HURILAWS said the Constitution should expressly declare unconstitutional acts null and void, adding that it is not enough for the Courts alone to declare something a nullity.

It said: “Evidence of violation of constitutional provisions should be enough for acts to be considered null and void.

“The Courts would only play a narrow role of declaring invalid, any breach of the Constitution. Section 1 of the Constitution should be altered by inserting immediately after subsection (3), a new Subsection ‘1(4)’, which should read: ‘If any act is inconsistent with the Constitution, that act shall be null and void…’”

On judiciary’s funding, the group said Section 81 should be altered by inserting immediately after subsection (2), a new Subsection “81 (2) A & B” which would read: ‘(A) Notwithstanding Subsection (2), estimates of the revenues and expenditures of the Judiciary are not part of the Appropriation Bill’. ‘(B) The National Judicial Council shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any anytime in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditures of the Judiciary.”

On Federal High Court’s jurisdiction, HURILAWS said specialised administrative tribunals such as the Investment and Securities Tribunal and Tax Appeal Tribunal share jurisdiction on some subjects due to Section 251 (1) of the Constitution.

“The Constitution needs to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and these specialised tribunals to avoid conflicts. The international best practice is to encourage specialised administrative tribunals because they have technical expertise, flexibility and speed. The regular courts tend to lack skills and are overcrowded.

“We propose two options: Option 1: make jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Section 251 (1) concurrent. Section 251 (1) of the Constitution is altered by deleting from Section 251 (1) the words ‘to the exclusion of any other court’.

“Option 2: clearly delineate jurisdiction of the Federal High in relation to specialised tribunals. This will require alteration of Section 251 (1) (a)-(s) of the principal Act,” the group said.

The group said institutions such as the INEC, Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission and others have no constitutional guarantees for independence and effective functioning, such as security of tenure, guaranteed funding and insulation from political interference.

“It is of absolute importance that there should be some guarantees that make them independent and free from interference. We should borrow a leaf from Chapter 9 of the Constitution of South Africa titled ‘Institutions Consolidating Democracy’.

“It is suggested that Chapter 9 of the South African Constitution should replace our Section 153 or our Section 153 should be amended to strengthen INEC, Police, ICPC, etc. They should be recognised and made vital National Institutions. They should be entitled to first charge on the federation account and other necessary guarantees by the Constitution,” HURILAWS said.

April 5, 2016
Buhari ‘won’t assent inconsistent Social Media Bill’

•Guild of Editors, NUJ seek suspension of proceedings

President Muhammadu Buhari has reiterated the commitment of his administration to protect free speech in keeping with democratic tradition.

He promised that he won’t assent to any legislation that might be inconsistent with the constitution.

This followed public hostility towards the Social Media Bill being debated by the Senate.

Reacting to the public outcry against the bill, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Malam Garba Shehu, said Buhari has sworn to defend the constitution and would not lend his hand to anything that was inconsistent with the document.

“But he is not averse to lawful regulation, so long as that is done within the ambit of the constitution, which he swore to uphold,” he said.

Shehu added that the President said free speech was central to democratic societies anywhere in the world.

Without free speech, the president explained that elected representatives won’t be able to gauge public feelings and moods about governance issues.

“As a key component of democratic principles,” the president acknowledged that people in democratic societies “are so emotionally attached to free speech that they would defend it with all their might”.

Noting that Buhari was aware of the public reservations about the proposed legislation, he said the President has assured that there was no cause for alarm.

“Because the Senate is a democratic Senate, the President won’t assent to any legislation that may be inconsistent with the constitution of Nigeria,” he stated.

But the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) and Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) have urged the Senate to unconditionally suspend proceedings on the bill.

President of NGE GarbaDeen Muhammad, in a statement yesterday, said the broad objective of the bill was to outlaw the freedom of expression of the citizens and freedom of speech of media organisations operating in print, electronic and on-line platforms.

The statement further reads: “Appallingly, the bill has also included as its target very personal and private means of communication such as SMS or text messages and WhatsApp, among others.

“The freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed in section 22 and 39(1) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution respectively. Therefore, to enact any kind of law under any guise that will contradict these fundamental provisions is to deliberately seek to undermine the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“We are, therefore, concerned that a group of persons elected by Nigerians to ensure that their rights, privileges and interests are protected, should gleefully misuse the mandate given to them to the detriment of the same people that elected them.

“As other concerned individuals and groups have pointed out, the Senate should note that there are already existing laws in our constitution that can accommodate all the concerns, real or imagined, that the proposed Bill is expected to address. These laws include the Cyber Crime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, the Libel law etc.

“In view of this and the glaring danger posed by the proposed bill, the NGE is strongly advising the Senate to drop all proceedings on the proposed Bill and turn its attention instead to critical areas in need of urgent intervention.

“While believing that members of the Senate have a right both individually and collectively to express their concerns about the abuse of the cyberspace by unscrupulous people and organisations, we advise them to consolidate or strengthen the existing laws and enforce implementation.”

National President of NUJ Waheed Odusile yesterday vowed that the media would not allow the bill to see the light of the day.

He said this at a lecture titled: “Nigeria Beyond Oil”, which was part of activities marking the 2015 Press Week of NUJ, Oyo State Council in Ibadan.

Odusile said what the proponents of the controversial bill were trying to do was to bring back the Decree 4 of 1983 to satisfy their selfish interests, adding that “it is a law targetted at restricting freedom of expression”.

Imploring NUJ state councils to submit petitions at their respective state assemblies, he said the union would mobilise its members to the National Assembly to stop the bill whenever it is presented for public hearing.

December 8, 2015
Why constitution reviews failed, by Ekweremadu

The Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu has explained why attempts to review the constitution usually ended up in disagreement. He spoke at the maiden public lecture organised by the Faculty of Law of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University (UNIZIK) in Awka, the Anambra State capital. FRANKLIN ONWUBIKO (Mass Communication) reports.

The Nnamdi Azikiwe University (UNIZIK) in Awka, the Anambra State capital, was agog on Monday. The institution hosted political heavyweights at the maiden public lecture of the Faculty of Law.

The Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, was the guest lecturer at the event with the theme: The politics of constitution review in multi-ethnic societies. Leading dignitaries to the event were the governors of Anambra and Enugu states, Dr Willie Obiano and Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, who were the special guests of honour.

Others include former Ambassador to the United States and chairman of the occasion, Prof. George Obiozor, traditional ruler of Awka, Dr Gibson Nwosu, former Minister of Aviation, Mr Osita Chidoka, former Attorney- General and Commissioner for Justice, Adamawa State, Prof. Maxwell Gidado (SAN), and a senior lecturer at the Department of Political Science of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), Prof. Okechukwu Ibeanu, among others.

Describing the constitution as an essential autobiography of any nation written from its history and values, Ekweremadu said the document was a collection of ideals and aspirations of a nation that set out its aims and objective.

He noted that constitution review had always been fraught with political wrangling, which he said remained the bane of the exercise. He said the interests of each geo-political zone must be balanced for the nation to make meaningful progress with the exercise.

His words: “The challenges facing constitutional review process range from apathy to lack of democratic culture, lack of political will, lack of activism and firmness by the judiciary, ethnic irredentism, religious considerations, lack of procedural template and temptation to achieve many things at a time.”

The Deputy Senate President said ethnic politics had always influenced previous reviews, adding: “It is also noteworthy that no group or part of the country can claim to be innocent in the ethno-sectional intrigues that usually beclouds constitution review efforts. We all have our portions of the blame. Worse still, the ethno-sectional interests often have nothing to do with interests of the masses, but just the interests of a few member of the political elite.”

He listed some of the unsuccessful amendments, which he said was as a result of ethnic politics, to include state creation, fiscal federalism, decentralised policing, status of local governments and financial autonomy for state assemblies, among others.

Ekweremadu argued that constitution amendment exercises in a pluralistic society, such as Nigeria would continue to encounter challenges as far as the elite continued to put their narrow interests above the national interest.

To overcome challenges facing the nation, the Deputy Senate President said there must be patience, understanding, accommodation of opposing views and willingness to make concessions and put national interest above personal and sectional considerations.

Earlier, the Vice-Chancellor (VC), Prof Joseph Ahaneku, said his administration had encouraged intellectual public lectures where national issues were discussed to deepen knowledge and proffer solution to challenges.

The VC said the thrust of the lecture was to generate ideas and throw up alternative approaches of addressing identified challenges in making constitution work.

Ahaneku said: “Forging a constitution which defines the basic principles to which a society must conform in a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria is an intensively sensitive matter posing daunting challenges. I am optimistic that Sen. Ike Ekweremadu, given his vast experience in the Senate, would do justice to the topic.”

The Acting Dean of the faculty, Prof Godwin Okeke, said the lecture was a product of the aspiration of the faculty to contribute to nation building through knowledge. He described indifference shown by people towards constitutional review as ignorance, saying the public lecture was designed to address such act.

In his remark, Obiozor said if the nation must be salvaged, there must be a stop to self-deception and self-delusion about the country’s historical realities. For Nigeria to remain a united entity, the former envoy said its leaders must borrow a leaf from other successful pluralistic countries.

Governor. Obiano, represented by his deputy, Dr Nkem Okeke, praised the university for bringing the “fundamental issue” to the fore, noting that constitution review should be approached with sincerity that is devoid of political or selfish gains.

The Deputy VC for Academics, Prof Charles Esimone, described the event as successful, praising the participants for the large turnout despite that the university is on vacation.

November 5, 2015
Soldiers must obey constitution’

Men and officers of the Nigerian Army, 15 Field Engineering Regiment, Topo, Badagry, Lagos, have been urged to focus on their constitutional duties.

Major Gen. Edmond Obi said soldiers must be non-partisan and must be committed to defending the country against any form of aggression.

He said any soldier who deviated from their duties will be disciplined.

Obi spoke during a familiarisation visit to Topo Barracks.

He warned the soldiers against overzealousness, warning that acts of indiscipline will not be tolerated.

Speaking with newsmen, Obi’s visit was to interact with officers under his command, encourage them and to carry out first hand assessment of their challenges to advice the military authorities.

According to him, the security situation in the country requires total commitment of every soldier for the war against insurgence to be won because the government is committed to their welfare.

September 22, 2015
Constitution amendment crucial to anti-graft war, says EFCC

The Chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Ibrahim Lamorde, has said the amendment of the 1999 Constitution is important in the anti-corruption battle.

He made the submission at a one-day meeting of heads of anti-graft agencies on the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) Review, Recommendations and the Draft National Anti-Corruption Strategy at Barcelona Hotel, Abuja

He said some relevant laws in the Constitution needed to be amended before the adoption of an action plan towards the fight against corruption.

He also said the effectiveness of any anti-graft activity could only be judged by the number of convictions recorded

Lamorde said: “The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should be considered in whatever strategies being developed.

‘’The challenge my colleagues and I are facing, especially in the EFCC and ICPC, is the issue of prosecution of corruption and economic and financial crimes cases in regular courts.

‘’All these include making new laws, amending existing ones and improving on the efficiency of adjudication and sanctioning.

He commended the efforts of the European Union (EU), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and other agencies.

A former Secretary to the EFCC, Emmanuel Akomaye, who spoke on the outcome of the Country Review Report and Follow-up Actions by National Partners, advocated better inter-agency coordination, building institutional capacity and legal reform.

On his part, the ICPC Chairman Mr. Ekpo Nta, advocated better funding for anti-graft agencies.

The Director-General, Bureau of Public Service Reforms, Dr. Joe Abah, said both the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Code of Conduct Tribunal needed to be strengthened in order to be more effective in the fight against corruption.

But Lilian Ekeanyanwu, representing the Technical Unit on Governance and Anti-Corruption Reforms (TUGAR), said the implementation of the strategy document would be the responsibility of the Presidency.

Other participants at the meeting included the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP), National Planning Commission (NPC) and Public Complaints Commission.

Also yesterday, the EFCC said the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had donated a forensic work station to it.

It said the donation of the equipment was a way of enhancing the collaboration between the EFCC and the U.S. in the fight against economic and financial crimes.

A statement by the Head of Media and Publicity, Mr. Wilson Uwujaren, said: “The equipment, technically referred to as FRED (Forensic Recovery of Evidence Device) was presented to the Head of Operations, Lagos Zonal office of the EFCC, Iliyasu Kwarbai by the U.S. acting Consul General, Dehab Ghereab.

Ghereab on her part praised the long-term partnership between the FBI and EFCC which has existed for more than a decade. She commended the EFCC for its professionalism and encouraged it to keep up the good work.

She said the equipment will enhance the EFCC’s effort in the fight against cyber crime and standardise its operations.

She said: “As we engage in these practices, we needed our counterparts. So, the FBI office made an assessment of the prevailing cases of cyber-based crimes which are not unique to Nigeria.

“In the views of Fritz Kennely, a technical personnel with the FBI, the device will help the EFCC in analysing, processing and preservation of digital evidence which can be presented in court in a clear, concise and understandable manner, thereby aiding judges to adjudicate effectively.”

After receiving the device, Kwarbai thanked the FBI for their support to the Commission in the areas of manpower development and investigation.

August 20, 2015
Court refuses to stop constitution of Senate committees

Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja has declined a request by five senators to restrain the Senate from constituting its standing and adhoc committees.

The judge, in a ruling yesterday, refused an ex-parte motion filed by the senators – Abu Ibrahim, Kabir Marafa, Ajayi Boroffice, Olugbenga Ashafa and Suleiman Hunkuni – on the ground that it was without merit, because there was no urgency in the issue raised by the plaintiffs.

The five senators, who had filed a substantive suit, brought the ex-parte motion, containing the prayer, and which their lawyer Mamman Osuman (SAN) argued yesterday.

They said their prayer, which is to stop the constitution of the Senate committees pending the determination of their application for interlocutory injunction, was informed by the fact that the Senate was operating with an illegitimate and unconstitutional Senate Standing Orders 2015, including using it to conduct the election of June 9, which produced its leadership.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Senate Standing Orders 2015 was “contrived” from the amendment of the 2011 version of the Orders without following its relevant provisions and those of the constitution.

They argued that the said amendment was in breach of the “prescriptive procedures” stipulated by the extant provisions of Section 60 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Rule 110 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Senate Standing Orders 2011 (as amended).

The plaintiffs are of the view that the election of the leadership of the Senate and other proceedings based on the “unconstitutional Orders” were null and void.

In his ruling, Justice Kolawole held that there was no urgency in the case because the plaintiffs had known about the purported illegal Standing Orders since June 9, 2015, when it was allegedly used for the election, but chose to file the ex parte motion barely 24 hours to resumption of the Senate from its about one month recess.

He further held that the court would hardly intervene in a matter relating to the application or misapplication of the internal rules of the Senate or the legislature when such action did not amount to “substantial infraction” of the provisions of the Constitution.

Justice Kolawole was of the view that, in matters relating to disputes over the “the decision reached by a majority of the members of the Senate”, aggrieved members of the arm of government could only seek a redress by mobilising their colleagues to reverse such decision.

He held that in various appellate courts’ decisions, courts had been warned “to be wary” in intervening in such internal legislative activities, let alone granting an order to restrain the activities of that arm of government at the stage of an ex parte hearing.

July 29, 2015
‘ Buhari didn’t breach constitution on bailout’

Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Ikere Ekiti Branch Chairman Bunmi Olugbade has defended President Muhammadu Buhari for approving a financial bailout for states.

Olugbade, in a telephone chat with reporters in Ado-Ekiti yesterday, said Buhari did not breach the constitution as being alleged in some quarters in giving a financial lifeline to states, which were struggling to pay workers.

The NBA chief argued that the constitution empowered the president to act in emergency to meet the needs of Nigerians.

A member of the House of Representatives has gone to court to challenge Buhari’s financial bailout for states on the grounds that the action was unconstitutional.

Olugbade, a former member of Ekiti State House of Assembly, said Buhari was covered by Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which vested him with Executive powers to act in the interest of the nation.

But he acknowledged that Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution allowed any Nigerian aggrieved with any government policy to to challenge such policy in court.

The lawyer said: “Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates that the Executive powers of the federation shall be vested in the President. And Buhari enjoys this privilege because Nigeria is a federating state and operates a presidential system.

“Under Section 13 of the 1999 Constitution, the government of the federation has statutory objectives to carry out state policies. Sections 16 and 17 even stated that the state shall protect the rights of the citizens.

“Section 16 ( 2 ) went further to say that the state shall direct its policy towards ensuring that its material resources are harnessed, managed and distributed for the good of the citizens.

“It is the social responsibility of government to ensure the provision of public assistance in deserving cases or other conditions of need.

“The combined effects of all these provisions lent credence to the fact that President Buhari has not breached the constitution. What he did was in the best interest of Nigeria and within the law.”

July 21, 2015
Why Constitution amendment deal collapsed

Former President Goodluck Jonathan could not assent to constitution amendments because of the collapse of talks between the Federal Government’s team and the National Assembly, it was learnt yesterday.

The National Assembly could not abide by the terms of the agreement by both parties.

The Assembly was also unable to satisfy the constitutional provisions which could make the former President to sign the amendments into law.

But with five working days left for the 7th National Assembly to wind up, the principal officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives are in a dilemma on whether or not to override Jonathan’s veto and pass the amendments into law.

Jonathan ought to sign the amendments into law on May 28, it was learnt.

Although the Federal Government and the National Assembly presented the terms of settlement or agreement to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the two parties still disagreed sharply between Wednesday night and Thursday morning.

It was gathered that the National Assembly could not “clean up” the amendments and fulfill constitutional requirements for Jonathan to assent to the amendments.

The National Assembly reportedly retained some of the contentious amendments which forced the Federal Government to go to the Supreme Court.

For Jonathan to sign the amendments into law, the Federal Government demanded that:

•the sections removed by the National Assembly ought to be ratified by the Committee of the Whole and not a few members of the Assembly negotiating with the government;

•there must be substantial compliance with the threshold specified in Section 9(3) of the 1999 Constitution on amendments;

•alteration to constitution cannot be valid with mere voice votes, unless supported by the votes of not less than four-fifths majority of all members of the National Assembly and two-thirds of all the 36 State Houses of Assembly;

•the involvement of few members in the clean-up was illegal because the process was irregular and improper;

•the fresh amendments made available to the former President should also be presented to the 36 State Houses of Assembly for scrutiny and endorsement;

•the review of the amendments through mere agreement with the Federal Government is subject to challenge in court and could be declared illegal; and

•it was too late in the day for the ex-president to sign the amendments

A highly-placed source, who spoke in confidence with our correspondent, said: “The Deputy President of the Senate, Chief Ike Ekweremadu, tried unsuccessfully to mobilize the Constitution Review Committee to clean up the amendments on Thursday.

“But by the time the ‘clean copy’ was taken to the Presidential Villa on Thursday for assent, the National Assembly leaders were told that Jonathan had given his handover note to President Muhammadu Buhari and he could no longer sign any bill into law.

“The Assembly leaders were also made to realise that Jonathan did not include the controversy over the amendments in the handover note.”

Another source said: “The former Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), was of the view that since the report of the National Conference had been sent to the National Assembly, the 8th National Assembly will do a better job to effect the constitutional amendments.

“The development made National Assembly leaders to leave the Presidential Villa dejected and disappointed.

“In fact, Ekweremadu openly complained that Adoke deceived the National Assembly into out-of-court settlement.”

A member of the legal team involved in the botched agreement said: “Our deal collapsed because the National Assembly did not clean up the amendments on time.

“The Assembly leaders retained some of the amendments opposed by the Federal Government. And time was not just on the side of the National Assembly to fulfill the requirements for constitution amendment.”

National Assembly leaders are said to be in a dilemma on the next step.

A Senator said: “It will be difficult for the Senate and the House of Representatives to now sit and claim that they are overriding the veto of a former President.

“There is no way President Muhammadu Buhari can be liable for the veto exercised by his predecessor. This is the challenge at hand.

“The National Assembly can also not present the amendments to Buhari to sign into law. With five working days left, we are really helpless.

“The worst aspect is that we cannot go back to the Supreme Court because time is no longer on our side.”

The former President rejected 10 of the 65 amendments to the 1999 Constitution by the 7th National Assembly.

Some of the errors in the amendments are:

•non-compliance with the threshold specified in Section 9(3) of the 1999 Constitution on amendments;

•alteration to constitution cannot be valid with mere voice votes unless supported by the votes of not less than four-fifths majority all members of National Assembly and two-thirds of all the 36 State Houses of Assembly;

•right to free basic education and primary and maternal care services imposed on private institutions;

•flagrant violation of the doctrine of separation of powers;

•unjustified whittling down of the Executive powers of the Federation vested in the President by virtue of Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution; and

•30 days allowed for assent of the President.

The others are:

•limiting expenditure in default of appropriation from six months to three months;

•creation of the Office of Accountant-General of the Federation distinct from the Accountant General of the Federal Government;

•empowering National Economic Council to appoint the Accountant-General of the Federation instead of the President;

•allowing the National Judicial Council (NJC) to appoint the Attorney-General of the Federation rather than the President;

•unwittingly whittling down the discretionary powers of the Attorney-General; and

•Life pension scheme for principal officers of the National Assembly.

June 1, 2015
Amending the constitution: Fed Govt v. Nass

On the decision of the Supreme Court to halt the constitutional amendment process being undertaken by the National Assembly, I think it is a good decision which will allow the incoming National Assembly the opportunity to start the process afresh, if need be. This raises the issue of setting up a separate Constitutional Court to whom all issues of political and constitutional implication ought to be submitted so as to free the Supreme Court proper to deal with the litany of cases before it.

It has to be noted that for now, the case has not been fully decided as what the court ordered is for parties to maintain status quo, which in effect put in abeyance or suspension the constitution amendment process for now.

The point the Federal Government is making is that the National Assembly appears not to have followed due process in the process of amending the 1999 Constitution. My own take is that, if you have been panel beating a car severally, is not better to buy a new one especially where you can afford it? Clearly, Nigeria can afford to make a completely new Constitution instead of the incessant amendments and alterations being undertaken on it. The confusion is so much that it is becoming difficult to know exactly what the provisions of the Constitution are especially since the National Assembly has not made any effort at producing one single document that incorporates all the amendments and alterations, excluding, by the document, all the deleted provisions.

The National Assembly seeks to amend the Constitution such that the process of amendment of same is made similar to what obtains in the amendment of an ordinary Act of the National Assembly. To me this is against the tenets of the principle of Checks and Balances, which modifies the principle of separation of powers to the effect that each arm of government should serve as a check on the other arms so that no single arm arrogates to itself absolute powers within the government. What the National Assembly seeks to do is to arrogate to itself absolute powers in the law and constitution making processes. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, so says Thomas Jefferson. I am not in support of the proposal by the National Assembly. I think the powers of the executive represented by the President to have a say in constitution making and amendment must remain sacrosanct.

We shall however have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality or otherwise of the procedure being adopted by the National Assembly.

Another point to note is that the process of making or amending an ordinary Act of the National Assembly is quite different from the process of amending the Constitution, while the process of amending the Constitution itself is different from the process of amending Section 9, Section 8 and Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution (on fundamental rights).

Section 9 of the Constitution, which is the relevant section provides as follows:

“9. (1) The National Assembly may, subject to the provision of this section, alter any of the provisions of this Constitution.

(2) An Act of the National Assembly for the altertion 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.

(3) An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of altering the provisions of this section, section 8 or Chapter IV of this Constitution shall not be passed by either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by the votes of not less than four-fifths majority of all the members of each House, and also approved by resolution of the House of Assembly of not less than two-third of all States.

(4) For the purposes of section 8 of this Constitution and of subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the number of members of each House of the National Assembly shall, notwithstanding any vacancy, be deemed to be the number of members specified in sections 48 and 49 of this Constitution.”

This provision is clear. For the National Assembly to amend the Constitution, it is enough if it gets two thirds of the entire membership of the National Assembly and two thirds of the States Houses of Assembly vote in support of the amendment. But for it to amend Section 9, it must get at least four fifths of the entire membership of the National Assembly in addition to the two thirds of the States Houses of Assembly. In purporting to amend Section 9 to make it unnecessary to get the President’s assent to amendment of the Constitution, did the National Assembly get the requisite four fifths of the entire membership of the National Assembly? Section 9 made reference to Sections 48 and 49 in deciding how members are required to vote. It clearly portends that the calculation must include all members (whether present or not) of both Houses, Senate and House of Representatives. This means 103 Senators plus 360 Members of the House of Representatives making a total of 463 members of the National Assembly. Four fifths of this figure is approximately 370 members. Has 370 members of the National Assembly voted in support of the amendment of Section 9? This is the question before the Supreme Court.

We cannot go into the answers at this stage since it will amount to subjudice and contempt of the Supreme Court to start commenting on the substance of the case until the court gives its decision.

But it must be stated that the step taken by the Federal Government is a good one submitting, as it were, to third arm of government.

Again, the Federal Government should also be commended because it might as well have left the National Assembly to do what it was doing knowing that the effects can only be felt by the incoming Buhari administration thereby possibly causing it problems.

All in all, we must wait on the Supreme Court to hear the case fully and give its verdict. For now, the court is asking whether or not the case was properly instituted or not in the sense of whether it was not better for the President to have brought the case in his own name instead of bringing it through the Attorney General of the Federation. The court’s decision in this regard will go a long way to enrich the Nigerian jurisprudence.

May 19, 2015
Constitution: Supreme Court stops NASS from overriding Jonathan’s veto

The Supreme Court Thursday morning stopped the National Assembly from taking any steps to override President Goodluck Jonathan’s veto of the amendment recently carried out on the Constitution by the Legislature.
The court could not hear the motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), which was scheduled for hearing Thursday.
Rather, it granted the lawyer to the plaintiff (AGF), Bayo Ojo (SAN) time to address the court on some anomalies identified in the substantive suit, and proceeded to order parties to maintain status quo ante bellum in respect of the subject of the suit, pending the motion for interlocutory injunction.
The court’s seven-man panel, led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed ordered parties not to take any step to alter the current state of the subject of the case, and adjourned to June 18.
The AGF, acting for President Jonathan, is in the substantive suit contending that the purported Fourth Alteration Act 2015 was not passed with the mandatory requirement of four-fifth majority of members of the National Assembly and the mandatory due processes provided for under the relevant sections of the Constitution.
It is part of the President’s prayers, in the suit, that the Supreme Court nullifies and sets aside sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 purportedly passed by the National Assembly.

May 7, 2015