The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Constitutional amendment

  • Council elections and constitutional amendment

    Council elections and constitutional amendment

    The local government system in Nigeria had a jerk under the Muritala/Obasanjo’s regime, from 1976 to 1979. Before the military intervention in 1966 the nature and type of administration was the choice of the regions. It was however under the Muritala/Obasanjo’s military government that a unified system of local council administration was created. General Obasanjo who as General Muritala’s deputy took over as head of state when he was violently killed in a putsch in 1976, finally entrenched this uniformity in the 1979 constitution.

    For many a unified council administration was a surreptitious attempt, albeit a half measure, to resurrect the 1966 unification decree for which General Aguiyi-Ironsi paid the supreme price. Since decreeing a common council system into existence, its administration has suffered intemperate measures whether under the military or civilian regimes up till the present. While the 1999 constitution, which came into existence twenty years after that of 1979, provides for a similar council administration across the country, it clearly manifested the prevailing confusion whether local councils have been elevated to a third-tier of government, or remains an administrative system under the states of the federation.

    The ongoing attempt to further amend the 1999 constitution is providing another opportunity to tinker with the council administration. Notably most political interests operating at the federal level seem to prefer institutionalizing council administration as a third-tier of government. Of course I am referring to the presidency and the federal legislators. Conversely the governors and the state legislators seem to prefer the local councils to be under their control. Indeed up till now, many state governors in defiance of the constitution refuse to conduct the council elections, because of the potential that adverse parties may win enough ground to torpedo the state administration’s game plan. Where elections are allowed to go on, the political parties of the state governors usually ensure they win all the available places.

    These incongruous political results have resulted now in the clamour for a further alienation of the councils from the governors/states’ control. One of the recommended measures is for the abolition of state electoral commissions, so that the national electoral commission takes over the conduct of the council elections. According to press reports, one of the recommendations of the constitutional review conferences conducted by the House of Representatives across the federal constituencies was the abolition of the state electoral commissions. No doubt, the results of the patently manipulated council elections across the states are untenable for the sustenance of democracy; but I strongly doubt whether the answer lies with handing over the electoral opportunities to the national electoral commission.

    I use the word electoral opportunities advisedly, because the condemnable manipulation that happens at the local council elections is not different from the manipulation that takes place at the national level. What will merely happen if the amendment becomes law is that the election manipulation opportunities will be handed over to the federal institutions and their beneficiaries. While I abhor totally state governors’ monarchical tendencies in clear breach of the constitution in dealing with local councils, I guess it will be unbearable for many and discomforting for a total stranger to be gifted the opportunity and the dubious privilege to determine local council elections.

    Should the national electoral commission take over the ace in determining the candidates of local council elections, I have no doubt that it will precipitate a crisis that will further weaken our tenuous democracy. This is because our electoral experience has shown that primary elections to determine the party’s candidates are in several cases more keen that the general elections where as some pundits have argued, the electorate have been abolished. So in such cases the choice of who will become the local government chairman or councilor could on the basis of the authority of the electoral body to determine who is the authentic candidate of a political party be made in Abuja, by strangers and partisan for pecuniary interests.

    As I have humbly argued on his page with regards to local government administration, it is untenable, politically, socially and economically to run our local governments as a third-tier of government based on the current principles of governance in Nigeria. This is primarily because other exigencies of a federal system of government are not allowed by the constitution. So we have quasi-federal states, and if the plans materialize, we will in addition have quasi-local councils tied inexorably and inextricably on the apron strings of a centralized political economy; and made worse by a command structure manned by dubious and criminal political elites bent on gang raping the country to death.

    With a strong context for power between the federal and state governments sometimes over heating the system as they prefer to call it; I am worried that several war fronts will be created across the nooks and crannies of the country as the local councils will provide the federal authorities satellite war fronts as they contend with the states. The chances are that the Presidents and his apparatchik may for instance seek to manipulate the national electoral commission to have their candidates put on the ballot and declared winners of the elections; in search of influence in opposition areas and even to teach a recalcitrant Governor from the same party some form of political lessons.

    The way out in my humble view is to federalize the political and economic structure of the country; rather than over-centralizing it. That way the council will be encouraged and strengthened to grow its own economy and political influence. In the meantime, state governors can definitely do better than the wholesale shooing of election results in favour of their parties in the name of local government elections.

     

    This article, previously published on this page, is repeated.

  • Fayemi seeks constitutional amendment

    Fayemi seeks constitutional amendment

    Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi has decried the flaws in the 1999 Constitution, saying it was foisted on the people by the military.

    He said constitutional reviews since 1999 had been “unduly politicised” and failed to produce an authentic national document.

    The governor spoke at a meeting between the states delegates to the national conference and stakeholders.

    The pre-national conference consultative summit was held at the Bishop Abiodun Adetiloye Hall in Ado-Ekiti.

    It was attended by rulers, religious leaders and representatives of communities, groups as well as associations.

    Activist lawyer Mr. Femi Falana was also present.

    Fayemi said the conference should evolve a people-oriented constitution that embodies the common aspirations of Nigerians. Stressing the need to review items on the concurrent, exclusive and residual lists, he said: “Nigeria has long been beset by a myriad of challenges. At present, the trend and tenor of our problems are alarming. The failure of the institutional machinery to steer this nation has left Nigerians disillusioned.

    “The problems facing us as we struggle to create a sustainable democracy and an equitable future tend to generate fear and anxiety; and often threaten the union of the federating states.”

    On resource control and fiscal federalism, Fayemi advocated the entrenchment of equity and justice, as well as stimulation of productivity with a functional resource control regime.

    He said the responsibilities of federating states places strong financial burdens on them as against the imbalance in favour of the central government.

    The governor said the sharing formula for the allocation of resources and revenue was lopsided, adding that oil producing states see non-oil producing states as parasites while the latter see the extra revenue accruable to the oil producing states based on derivation as an unnecessary indulgence.

    He said the over-reliance of states on the Federal Government inhibits the development of states, explaining that the practice of a semi-unitary system under the guise of federalism was harmful to the nation’s progress.

    Fayemi said: “Issues of national security, insurgency and terrorism should be handled by all tiers of government. This brings to mind the establishment of multi-level policing. Since national security is not an issue of peculiar interest and concern to the Federal Government, there should be room for policing to encompass a comprehensive security network for the wellbeing of the citizenry. I also hope that attention would be given to these issues during your deliberations.”

    One of the delegates, Dr. Kunle Olajide, said the Yoruba do not intend to request secession, but it is expedient to discuss secession and tackle it in the interest of national unity.

    Olajide, who also advocated a parliamentary system, called for the decentralisation of the country into regions.

  • Constitutional amendment and its ominous signs

    Constitutional amendment and its ominous signs

    The way out is to accept the inevitability of constitutional conference

    Lawmakers who are in the process of tinkering with a constitution that citizens prefer to replace are already warning citizens that there may be no significant amendment of the 1999 constitution at the end of the ongoing effort by the National Assembly to forestall a constitutional conference.

    The recent warnings expressed by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Federal Capital Territory foreshadow serious difficulties on the part of the national assembly to get whatever amendments they suggest through the state assemblies. Senator Smart Adeyemi’s observation: “We cannot amend the Constitution without getting two-thirds of the state assemblies concurring with us. And the governors are also saying that they don’t want the autonomy of local governments,” suggests that there may be more problems to stall the amendment exercise than just the preference of governors.

    It is true that governors’ opposition to removal of immunity clause, creation of states, and autonomy to state legislatures and local governments should be worrisome, not only to legislators in charge of the amendment process but also to citizens at large. But it is necessary to avoid what may amount to bashing of governors. It is necessary to know if removal of immunity is to apply to governors alone. If the president is allowed to enjoy immunity while in office, it stands to reason for governors that are equally elected by citizens to enjoy the same privilege. Creation of states is not an intrinsic part of constitution amendment. If there is anything that should be done in respect of state creation, it should be just to amend the process of creating states. If anything, state creation appears to be a distraction. There is no reason for lawmakers to be in a hurry to create states.

    It is also important for federal lawmakers to listen to governors’ and state legislators’ views on autonomy for local government. It is wrong to assume that the issue of autonomy for local governments is an easy one to settle, simply because military dictators had identified local government as the third tier of government. The relationship between state and local government is a core element of the principle of federalism that is supposed to be settled by a people’s constitution, a move that the national assembly has resisted on the ground that the country’s sovereignty has been vested in the federal legislature.

    The 1999 Constitution captures the vision of military dictators and not necessarily those of the federating units on the issue of autonomy of local government. And lawmakers should recognize this, instead of taking the autonomy of local government as a given. It was the three regions that were later broken into 36 states that agreed to become independent of Great Britain in 1960. Similarly, the issue of local government as third tier was not part of the republican constitution of 1963. It is therefore wrong to give any sacrosanct status to the principle of local government as third tier. This aspect of the constitution needs to be taken as part of the constitutional change that legislators hope to achieve. In other words, there is no good reason for lawmakers to view the autonomy of local government as a No-Go area for governors and citizens to challenge. The only no-go area in the 1999 Constitution should be the territorial unity of Nigeria.

    A more troubling aspect of Senator Adeyemi’s fears is that the ongoing amendment may be deadlocked by opposition from more than one-third of the country’s state assemblies. Evidence already abounds that this may happen. Governors of 18 northern states, apart from the governor of Plateau State, have stated clearly their opposition to creation of state or community police. If the 18 northern governors are able to influence their state assemblies on this matter, any amendment in respect of creating multiple police systems will be killed by 50% of the country’s governors. Just as it is already evident in the open opposition of northern governors to the Petroleum Industry Bill, no recommended amendment can pass without the support of at least 24 states. And there can be no 24 states to support amendments unless at least seven of the states from the north so agree, even if all the states in the south endorse such amendments.

    The preference of organisations and citizens for sovereign national conference or constitutional conference grew out of the foresight that some members of the national assembly are just recognizing, after the fact. The 1999 Constitution, particularly its provisions for changing any aspect of the constitution are filled with obstacle courses that cannot be overcome unless more than half of the northern states are ready to play ball. Northern leaders and northern sociocultural organizations have not failed to let the rest of the nation know their views on restoring true federalism. On several occasions, Arewa Consultative Forum had warned that there is nothing wrong with the current constitution and that the Forum is opposed to creation of states. It should not surprise anyone if, at the end of the current amendment process, less than two-thirds of state assemblies ratify any or all of the amendments, thus throwing the country back to provisions of a constitution imposed by military dictators in 1999.

    Fingering governors as forces that can scuttle the amendment process may not provide the total picture of problems that can militate against the ongoing constitutional amendment. Governors are protecting the advantages given to them in the current constitution in the same way in which Northern governors in particular and the ACF are protecting the advantages they perceive the 1999 Constitution bestows on their part of the country. To ignore this fact is to knowingly play the Ostrich. The way out of a stalemate is not to demonise governors or blackmail them into accepting specific provisions that affect their interest; it is to accept the inevitability of a constitutional conference that will be able to establish new ground rules that are different from the obstacle courses erected in the 1999 Constitution against any effort to amend it in favour of returning the country to the path of true or functional and sustainable federalism. This may be the only way to avoid repeating what happened to the amendments suggested to the current constitution during the presidency of General Olusegun Obasanjo.