The Nation Newspaper

Tag: national assembly

Jonathan to present budget next week

Sequel to the postponement of the scheduled presentation of the 2014 budget before a joint sitting of the two chambers of the National Assembly on Tuesday, President Goodluck Jonathan is now to present the 2014 budget before the National Assembly on the 19th of November.

A letter to this effect with the short title: “Re: 2014 Budget,” from the President and addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal read in part:

“Sequel to” my letter of 23rd October 2013 requesting that the Honourable House grant me the slot of 12:00 noon on Tuesday, 12th November 2013 to enable me formaity address a Joint Session of the National Assembly on the 2014 Budget, emergent circumstances have necessitated my having to request for a new date of Tuesday. 19th November 2013 at the same time.

It is my hope that the Honourable Members will in your usual tradition, favourably consider my request.”

The president has also sent a report to the National Assembly justifying the reason he asked for an extension of the State of Emergency in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States.

In a letter dated November 5, 2013 and addressed to the Speaker with the title: “ Re: Extension of the period for the Proclamation of a state of Emergency,” Jonathan said he has attached a report by the Chief of Army Staff on the current situation in the affected areas.

November 13, 2013
Ekweremadu: National Dialogue won’t affect constitution review

Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu has assured that the proposed national dialogue will neither delay nor disrupt the ongoing constitution amendment.

Ekweremadu, who chairs the Committee on Constitution Review, spoke yesterday in Abuja when he delivered a paper, titled: Constitution Review Process: A Comparative Perspective, at the African Legislative Summit.

The summit was organised by the National Assembly and some international partners.

Ekweremadu noted that in view of the new provisions on how to enact a new constitution passed by the Senate and awaiting other steps to become part of the constitution, the constitution amendment process would provide the legal frameworks to give life to the eventual output of the proposed national dialogue.

He said: “There is no way the national dialogue would affect or necessitate the suspension of the amendment process.

“In fact, the Conference Committee of both chambers will soon be put together to harmonise the work of the Constitution Review Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

“We cannot wait for the national dialogue because we do not know when it will start or when it will end.

“But the good thing is that our work will provide the legal framework to give life to the outcome of the dialogue.”

Ekweremadu insisted that the way forward for Africa was not in the abundance of laws, but the willingness and discipline to live by the dictates of the constitution.

“The important thing is the practice, the value we place on the Constitution, and our attitude to governance that will determine whether a constitution will succeed or not.

“The United Kingdom has no written constitution anywhere, but it is one of the best-governed countries in the world because of the value system they have entrenched over the years…”

November 13, 2013
National conference: What role for National Assembly?

President Goodluck Jonathan has stirred the hornet’s nest by his declaration that the resolutions of the proposed National Conference would be forwarded to the National Assembly for consideration and passage into law. Opinions are divided on this issue as they are divided on almost every other burning issue in our fatherland. Remarkably, there seems to be two main schools of thought in this matter: those who are convinced that the National Assembly should not play any role in the outcome of the Conference and another group that thinks that the National Assembly must legally validate the output of the Conference.

From reports, the Presidency, the National Assembly, old PDP, New PDP, Alhaji Adamu Chiroma, some other Nigerians and institutions, belong to the former school of thought while APC, Conference of Nigeria Political Parties, majority of Civil Society Organisations, some other Nigerians and groups, belong to the latter. Nevertheless, I am aware of a third school of thought who has dismissed the idea of the conference completely. I will not extrapolate my analysis to cover their concerns.

My focus in this piece is to navigate through the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to find provisions that are relevant to the proposed National Dialogue. At the end of my analysis, one may be in a better position to identify which of these schools stand on a firmer constitutional fulcrum to maintain its position.

Before delving into the constitutional provisions, I think we should take samplers of the statements emanating from some of those that have commented on this thorny issue. Chairman, Senate Committee on Media, Enyinnaya Abaribe, while speaking on behalf of the House of Senate, was quoted as saying:

“For the President to declare that the final outcome of the proposed national conference would be subjected to National Assembly’s ratification is in recognition of the fact that there cannot be two sovereigns at the same time.”

“The Senate welcomes the President’s pronouncement and, however, assures that the wishes of majority of Nigerians would always determine the constitutional review process, which is ongoing. The Senate believes that whatever will be done to uphold the unity of Nigeria will always be welcomed.”

Senate leader, Chief Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN), said: “That is the logical thing because some recommendations may require legal backing. Some might require constitutional amendment. That is the logical thing to do. …. It is only the National Assembly that can make laws and they were elected by the people so the power to make laws has not been transferred by any stretch of the imagination. So, at the end of the day, it is how the National Assembly views it.”

“Remember that the process also in the National Assembly will require public hearing. We usually subject our processes to public hearing. People can make inputs which could be reflected in the constitution, the essence of the conference in my view is for people to dialogue more than just making recommendations.”

On his part, the Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Business, Ita Enang, said: “It is a good thing for the president to have said that the result of the National Conference will be sent to the National Assembly to assist in the ongoing constitutional amendment. What they are expected in this regard is that at the end of the day, they will present the White Paper of the National Conference and the various areas arrived at, in form of bills to the National Assembly for consideration.”

“Why other ones in the past did not see the light of the day was because they were not presented to the National Assembly, not even in form of bills.”

Chairman, House Committee on Narcotics and Financial Crimes, Jagaba Adams, said: “The National Assembly itself is a national conference. Can we do another national conference that has no constitutional provision substituting it with a legal national conference? To me, in the first place, something is wrong with it. Anything outside the National Assembly is not known to the Constitution. I cannot say that the proposed national conference is illegal, all I am saying is that there is no constitutional provision for it. The only constitutional provision is that people should have representatives in the National Assembly, States Assembly and the Local Government Councils. Now, the President has said will commit the outcome to the National Assembly, it’s good that he remembered that the National Assembly has a role to play. But now, until we get to the river, we cannot determine how to cross it.”

From the foregoing statements, one can understand the mindset of the members of the National Assembly: They see the outcome of the proposed Conference as external input on their constitutional amendment process. The tragedy of this mindset is that it gives impetus to the position of the other school of thought that the talk-shop is a jamboree. There is no gainsaying that the Constitution provides the ultimate law-making process for the National Assembly to perform (as we shall soon confirm from a trajectory of constitutional provisions), it is nevertheless necessary for the National Assembly to accept that it must step-down many of their rules in order to accommodate the outcome of the Conference as a special executive bill which they shall pass, of course, into an Act.

The best way to do this is to commence with an Act establishing the National Conference Commission to midwife the proposed National Conference. The contents of the National Conference Commission Act will be part of the product of the work of the Advisory Committee on National Dialogue chaired by Dr. Femi Okurounmu.

On the other extreme divide, CNPP has issued a statement saying: “CNPP recalls that since our return to democracy in 1999, the National Assembly at various times had embarked on the process of amendment of the 1999 Constitution and at no time was any of the fundamental issues amended. We stand to be corrected, so as to reassure Nigerians that handing over of the report to the National Assembly instead of convening a Sovereign National Conference will pass to our children a far better country than we now have. In other words, the present National and State Assemblies lack the political will to insert in a new constitution critical issues like devolution of powers to the regions, unicameral legislature under a parliamentary system, truly independent INEC, EFCC, ICPC, creation of additional state for the South East, and fiscal federalism, among other issues.”

The expression and fear of CNPP cannot be faulted. The only fallacy I have identified in their statement is the presumption that a “Sovereign” National Conference, where the National Assembly will play no role, can be successfully held in the present dispensation. I think that such rationalisation is simplistic, not pragmatic, and capable of suffering legal epilepsy as the courts might strike down such contraption as being in breach of the fons et origo, that is the Constitution.

Let me, therefore, delve into the provisions of the Constitution proper.

Whether the Constitution mentioned the words “National Conference/Dialogue

Like Adams said, there is no provision where the words “National conference/dialogue” have been expressly mentioned. However, a Constitution has its letters and its spirit. Although the words have not been expressly mentioned by the Constitution, they are contained in the spirit of the Constitution. Of course, there is no constitution anywhere in the world that contains expressly all the words, actions or activities of those it regulates. What is important is that the spirit of the Constitution should contemplate such words or activity by any means of interpolation or extrapolation. This is the reason the law has provided various rules of interpretation of statutes to include literal rule, golden rule, ejusden generis rule, mischief rule, and the various maxims. Lest we forget, the 1999 Constitution is an implied Act of the National Assembly, an existing law under section 315 of the 1999 Constitution, and forms the Schedule to Decree No. 24 of 1999. Therefore, it can be subjected to any of these rules of interpretation, where the court finds it necessary.

Constitutional provisions supporting convocation of a national conference

Sovereignty belongs to the People: Section 14(2)(a) of the Constitution provides:

“It is hereby, accordingly, declared that-

(a) sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authorities.”

This provision makes it explicit that sovereignty belongs to the people. It, therefore, follows that the people can decide to exercise their sovereign powers in any manner allowed by the Constitution. The Constitution seems to have placed the custody of this sovereign power on the National Assembly.

Section 40 of the Constitution guarantees every person the fundamental right to assemble freely and associate with other persons throughout Nigeria. In particular, the person may form “any other association for the protection of his interests….” It is hence not unconstitutional for the President to form an “association” on National Dialogue to discuss the affairs of Nigeria.

Why we cannot bypass the National Assembly in toto

The legislative powers of the Federation are vested in our bicameral National Assembly. Section 4 (1) of the Constitution, which gives fillip to this position provides that: “Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Section 4 (2) of our Constitution further provides:

“The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.”

Pursuant to this provision, Items 67 and 68 of Part 1, Second Schedule of the Constitution gives the National Assembly powers to legislate on:

Item 67: “Any other matter with respect to which the National Assembly has power to make laws in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

Item 68: “Any matter incidental or supplementary to any matter mentioned elsewhere in this List.”

A fortiori, the National Assembly should exercise its legislative power to pass into an Act, any decision of the Conference that touches on any matter in the Exclusive Legislative List, including matters contained in the Concurrent Legislative List. A major issue is whether the National Assembly has power to legislate on the dismemberment of Nigeria, since compromising the “unity” of Nigeria is not listed anywhere as an item capable of being legislated upon. More so, section 15(1) of the Constitution provides that “The motto of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be Unity and Faith, Peace and Progress.” With a greater force, Section 2 (1) of the Constitution provides that: “Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” This may be the reason some commentators have said that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable.

One sure way of adding or removing any provision of the Constitution, including “the unity of Nigeria”, if the Conference tinkers with it, is to rely on section 9 of the Constitution, which in subsection (1) allows the National Assembly to alter “any of the provisions of the Constitution.” For the avoidance of doubt, section 9 (1) of the Constitution provides that:

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

In line with the position of Senator Ita Enang, section 58(1) of the Constitution provides that “The power of the National Assembly to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and, except as otherwise provided by subsection (5) of this section, assented to by the President.” In essence, the outcome of the Conference shall be brought before the National Assembly as a bill or as bills, as the case may be.

Even the funds required to prosecute the Conference will require the input of the National Assembly as mandated by the combined provisions of section 59(1) and section 81(4) of the Constitution. Section 59 (1) of the Constitution provides:

“The provisions of the section shall apply to-

(a) An appropriation bill or a supplementary appropriation bill including any other bill for the payment, issue or withdrawal from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public fund of the Federation of any money charged thereon or any alteration in the amount of such a payment, issue or withdrawal.”

On the other hand section 81(4) of the Constitution states that:

“If in respect of any financial year it is found that-

(a) the amount appropriated by the Appropriation Act for any purpose is insufficient; and

(b) a need has arisen for expenditure for a purpose for which no amount has been appropriated by the Act,

a supplementary estimate showing the sums required shall be laid before each House of the National Assembly and the heads of any such expenditure shall be included in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill.”

From the constitutional provisions referred to, it will be extremely difficult to ignore the National Assembly unless those canvassing such position want extra-constitutional steps to be taken, and that will be an infraction of section 1 of the Constitution, which provides as follows:

“(1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(2) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

WHY PRESIDENT JONATHAN WILL TAKE THE OUTCOME OF THE CONFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

The position of President Jonathan is a creation of section 5(1) of the Constitution, which provides that: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of the Federation:

(a) shall be vested in the President and may , subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Ministers of the Government of the Federation or officers in the public service of the Federation; and

(b) shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws.”

Furthermore, the President took the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office of President, contained in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Oath of Allegiance provides:

“I, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, do solemnly swear/affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. So help me God.”

On the other hand, the Oath of Office of President provides thus:

“I, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, do solemnly swear/affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria; that as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, I will discharge my duties to the best of my ability, faithfully and in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the law, and always in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being and prosperity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; that I will strive to preserve the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;….”

One thing common to both Oaths is that the President swore to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Considering the principle of separation of powers, which is the hallmark of the presidential system of government, it will be incongruous for President Jonathan to raise a group of persons to make laws outside the purview of the National Assembly.

THE WAY FORWARD

The legal framework for the convocation of a National Conference should be sent as a Bill to the National Assembly for passage into an Act. The Bill will provide for a National Conference Commission to midwife the conference.

Part of the contents of that Bill should be that the National Assembly would be bound to amend the Constitution to incorporate any decision on a matter approved by not less than 60% of the membership of the National Conference.

The National Assembly can subject resolutions of the Conference which sails through by simple majority to public hearing before passing them. The parameters of the Conference should be determined ab initio to avoid delving into a political cul de sac. The members of the National Assembly should synergise with the Presidency to give Nigerians the long-expected change. This is a golden opportunity to have an autochthonous constitution. This is time to touch the so-called “no go” areas. It is not a time for grandstanding by the National Assembly members in order to prove their ultimate relevance. This is a time for sober reflection. We have come to a time to make Nigeria great again by cutting off the umbilical cord of serial failures in constitutional making.We can make all these happen by give-and-take from the two schools of thought. And it is possible to have a refined constitution from the ashes of the 1999 Constitution. I think I have merely scratched the surface of the matter, leaving other dimensions for other writers to provide illumination.

Chukwuemeka Eze is the Principal Solicitor of Eze & Associates, a law firm based in Ikeja, Lagos.

November 12, 2013
Katsina lawmakers accuse INEC, National Assembly of bias

Ten lawmakers, whose election was voided by a lower court, have accused the leadership of the National Assembly and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of bias.

Two senators and eight members of the House of Representatives said yesterday that the leadership of the National Assembly had continued to ignore a ruling by the Court of Appeal ordering their reinstatement.

The aggrieved lawmakers accused them of violating the country’s constitution and a court order.

They said it was unfortunate that a glaring case of disdain for the rule of law was rearing its ugly head in the leadership of the National Assembly and INEC.

The lawmakers lost their seat in a controversial court process but the Court of Appeal ordered their reinstatement, an order that is being ignored by the leadership of the legislature and INEC.

The lawmakers, who were elected on the platform of the defunct Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), at a press briefing, said their case was being manipulated in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who contested the election with them but lost.

They said: “A declarative judgment on the 11th of January 2013 held that INEC has no power to void, withdraw, cancel, nullify, review or invalidate either directly or indirectly the Certificates of Return validly issued to us.

November 12, 2013
Group urges lawmakers to reduce budgetary allocation to N50b

The National Assembly has been urged to reduce its annual budgetary allocation of N150 billion to N50 billion so as to reduce the cost of governance.

A group, the Centre for Social Juatice, in a recommendation following its analysis of the 2014-2016 Medium Term Expenditure Framework of the federal government, said “the national assembly should reduce it’s allocation of N150billion to N50billion and champion the reduction of the remuneration of all political office holders through the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

The body, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) led by Eze Onyekpere, said “to stem the continued devaluation of the naira against major international currencies, reduce inflation and excess liquidity, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) should avoid the perpetual creation of new money by directly allocating foreign exchange earned from crude oil sales to the three tiers of government as recommended by vision 20:2020.”

The report noted that “the reduction of oil production projections by the medium term expenditure framework due to oil theft, appears clumsy and is unacceptable to Nigerians who sweat to maintain the security agencies.”

The NGO then advised the federal government to be “alive to it’s responsibilities to protect lives and property, rather than allowing oil thieves to have a field day.”

In addition, the CBN was urged to “consider establishing a special fund to increase local refining capacity and the establishment of petrochemical complexes through the private sector as a means of diversifying economic activities and limiting the resources spent on fuel subsidies.”

November 5, 2013
Jonathan to present 2014 budget, November 12

President Goodluck Jonathan yesterday wrote the Senate seeking for approval to present the 2014 Appropriation Bill to the joint session of the National Assembly on November 12, 2013.

The President presented the 2013 budget of N4.9 trillion to the joint session of the National Assembly on October 10th 2012.

Jonathan in a letter titled “2014 budget” dated October 23, 2013 requested the lawmakers to grant him Tuesday 12th November to enable him formally present the 2014 budget.

The letter read in part, “I write to crave your indulgence to grant me the slot of 12 noon on Tuesday, 12th November 2013 to enable me formally address a joint session of the National Assembly on the 2014 budget.”

Senate President, David Mark, read the Presidential letter on the floor of the upper chamber yesterday.

Some Senators noted however that the Senate could only grant the 12 November date for the presentation of the budget if the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) is adopted and passed by the two chambers of the National Assembly.

October 30, 2013
‘National Assembly approved NCAA’s budget for armoured cars’

A group, Concerned Independent Aviation Observers (CIAO), has said it has evidence that the National Assembly approved the two controversial armoured cars the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) bought for Aviation Minister, Princess Stella Oduah.

CIAO said there was a budgetary provision for the cars and that the National Assembly approved them for the NCAA.

“The purchase of the controversial cars, now a subject of the administrative panel of enquiry by the Federal Government, followed due process as it was captured in the 2013 Capital Expenditure budget of the NCAA approved by the National Assembly,” the group insisted yesterday.

It said the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aviation, Hope Uzodima, and his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Nkiruka Onyejeocha, “signed the NCAA’s capital expenditure, which contained the request for the operational vehicles”.

CIAO’s National Coordinator, Dr. Michael Aburime, explained that the National Assembly approved the purchase of 25 operational vehicles for N240,000,000.

According to him, the two cars are among the fleet of 25 the National Assembly allegedly approved.

Aburime said the armoured cars were not directly for the minister, but for the “operational and safety/security needs of the NCAA, especially for hosting international regulatory aviation officers on official visits to Nigeria”.

The coordinator explained that due to paucity of funds, the NCAA did not engage in outright purchase of the vehicles, like other government agencies, but adopted lease financing to buy 52 vehicles.

He said: “The lease financing in the NCAA was financed by First Bank Plc at monthly payment of N23,249,181. For the 2013 expenditure, about N116,245,905 would be paid.

“From the brief detail above, it becomes obvious that the NCAA did not actually pay such bogus amount of money being alleged and bandied about in public discourse by uninformed people.”

October 29, 2013
‘Godfatherism’ is dead in Enugu, says Chime

Enugu State Governor Sullivan Chime has said the era of political godfatherism is gone in the state.

Chime, who was speaking at Oji River Local Government in continuation of a campaign tour ahead of the November Local Government elections in the state, also flayed the nonchalant attitude of some members of the National Assembly to their constituents.

The governor said: “As governor, I have no structure than the PDP. The era of one person trying to lord it over others and claiming to be a godfather is gone in Enugu State. It is unfortunate that some of my brothers who found themselves in some positions now feel they are bigger than the structure which delivered them.

“Some of our brothers in the National Assembly have not participated in the local government campaign tours even within their constituencies, yet they sneak in at night to hold nocturnal meetings and lie to people that they were not invited.

“I don’t see how someone would have lost touch with reality to the extent the he now feels the people back here do not matter again. There is no big man in PDP.”

October 29, 2013
A dialogue without power

President Jonathan’s decision that the national conference will report to the National Assembly makes the whole affair a waste of time and money

Less than a month after President Goodluck Jonathan unveiled his ambition to set sail on a national conference, his ambition has begun to unravel. He has said that the report of the national conference will be sent to the National Assembly for approval.

This statement exposed the whole definition of the conference from the presidency’s point of view. He sees the national conference as a mere opportunity to dialogue without power. If the conference had a fundamental power to re-enunciate its dreams, redefine its ethos and politics, restructure the nation and vouchsafe our past to a future rippling with clear vision, why would it report to the National Assembly?

This has not only exposed President Jonathan’s parochial standpoint on the matter, but also clarified the contrast for those who have called for a sovereign national conference. The difference between both positions is now potent. For Jonathan, the conference will be an anaemic affair, even if full of debates, disagreements and the theatre of backslapping. It could debate the issue of state police, the cartography of revenue allocation, the furies of insecurity and the darkness cast over our education system. In the final analysis, the lawmakers will decide what they want and what to discard. Has the same National Assembly not been engaged in such parley across the country in the name of constitutional amendments? What results have emanated from them?

According to the Jonathan agenda, once the conference has completed its work, the presidency would append its assent.

For those calling for a national conference of the sovereign type, the issue is more sober. It entails a representation of people from all over the country, covering ethnicity, geography, class and tendencies. The result will not be subject to any special institution like the National Assembly, the presidency and it is above the power of the courts for any sort of adjudication. It is a sovereign in miniature having embodied the soul of the entire nation in trust.

This means the sovereign body cannot be appointed as perfunctorily as President Jonathan has done. It is a matter of national survival and progress. If, as President Jonathan has declared, the conference representatives will not be hamstrung by any fetters, including the issue of the survival of the nation, why would they want any existing institution to decide on the wisdom or foolishness of their submissions?

The conference, among other things, will discuss the essences of the presidency and the National Assembly. It will decide how the representatives are elected, what powers they should wield, what kind of funding they could amass, how they relate to the electorate and the limits of their swagger. As it regards the National Assembly, it will also have to deliberate whether we need a National Assembly, or whether we need a bi-camera or uni-camera legislature, and the modes of representation and operation.

In the sort of debate and powers without fetters, the sovereign national conference could decide that the way both institutions are constituted do not chime with the popular will. If that is the case, the National Assembly suffused with persons who might want to retain the status quo, may decide to assign the full report of the conference to a committee, and the process may end up restoring the status quo for the National Assembly. Not just that, other aspects of the report that today’s decrepit elite may oppose may become subjects of lobbying.

At the end, fundamental aspects of the report would have been either deleted or diluted, leaving for the presidency a corrupted version of the people’s will. The presidency, also aware of its interests, may do same.

The people’s position would have been compromised, and the final copy a mockery of intense work done by the people’s representatives.

But if the people have finished their work, what will be left? It will be subjected to a plebiscite, and the majority of the people will be asked to either endorse the document or reject this. From historical examples, such conferences often exercise tremendous power because they are a precursor to a fundamental change in the way things are run. Its existence necessarily curtails powers of all institutions as they pertain to the conference’s powers.

No chief executive or legislature can assume powers over those of the conference. Those may be the nuances that are troubling President Jonathan and his fellow travellers. That accounts for their decision to subject the people’s will to a coterie of interested men and women.

Other nations have passed through that process, whether it was the United States, Britain, France, Germany or even South Africa. It is not often a tea party. It offers an opportunity for unflattering introspection. Every tribe or region or class will spill its views with unvarnished candour, and the conference will have to distill every word or body through the rigour of debates and sundry other engagements. It is an opportunity for histories and cultures of different parts of the country to collide and align.

That is why we have called a national conference a dialogue with power, not one as ritual. If we follow the pattern President Jonathan has set in motion, we cannot avoid the conclusion that it is another exercise in squander-mania and diversion. It is a rigmarole that will lead back to where we have always been. It is a dialogue without power.

October 27, 2013
National Assembly to give dialogue legal framework

The National Assembly will provide the legal framework for the proposed national conference, Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu said yesterday.

He also said that there were fundamental changes that must be made in the 1999 Constitution to ensure Nigeria’s progress.

Ekweremadu spoke when members of the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue visited the National Assembly.

He said members of the National Assembly believed that the provision of a legal framework for the conference was their most important duty.

The legal framework, he said, will support the outcome of the advisory committee’s job and that of the committee that will come after it.

He said they envisaged that a national dialogue could be held, hence they proposed in the ongoing constitution amendment a possible amendment to Section 9 of the Constitution that would provide the legal basis for a possible new Constitution.

Ekweremadu noted that the proposal for amendment of Section 9 of the Constitution became necessary “because today, what we have in our Constitution in the process of amendment, there is no such provision in this Constitution that can successfully power a new constitution”.

For him, there must be legal basis before people could talk about sovereign national conference and referendum “so that you don’t wake up when you have a constitutional government in place and say you want a sovereign national conference; you impose the will of the people on everybody without a legal basis.”

“We have been in the business of some constitutional reforms since the year 2000 in fact immediately after the coming into being of this particular republic,” Ekweremadu said, adding: “We had the National Assembly Joint Committee on Constitution Review which you are quite aware of.

“We had a number of challenges culminating in 2010 when we successfully amended the constitution for the first time and we have done it two other times after that and we are now in the fourth phase of the constitution reform exercise.

“For us during those exercises, we have come to terms with the reality of the necessity for improvement in our country.

“Now that we have looked at the 1999 Constitution from 1999 and have tried to do some few amendments, it is therefore possible that based on our experience with the practice and exercise of the review process, there are changes that are fundamental that must be made to ensure that this country progresses normally and so that is where your job comes in.

“My understanding from what you said is that your committee is to create a framework for this dialogue, to provide intellectual background that will enable those who will have the conversation to do something that is seamless.

“It is not an easy job because it is difficult at this stage to determine the character of representation but that is the business of your committee, so we are not going to worry ourselves about that.

“We believe that you will deal with that. For us in the National Assembly, I think our most important job in this whole exercise is to provide the necessary legal framework that will support whatever is the outcome of both your own committee and the committee that comes after it.

“We envisaged, as I said earlier from the work we have done over this years that a day such as this will come. So, in the present constitutional amendment exercise, we proposed to our colleagues a possible amendment to Section 9 of the Constitution that will provide the legal basis for a possible new Constitution.

“Because today, what we have in our Constitution in the process of amendment, there is no such provision in this Constitution that can successfully power a new constitution.

“So, we borrowed examples of other countries that have had this kind of experience, like Zimbabwe, Kenya, Brazil, to bring into our constitution some framework that can support a possible new constitution in the future.

“We made this proposal in the amendment process we are doing now and I will tell clearly that the Senate has passed that proposal.

“So, we are hoping that when we meet with the House for the harmonisation that they will also support this initiative especially now that your work is in progress.

“If that happens then most of the fears would have been addressed. Because if we said that we are a country that believes in the rule of law, we must do everything in accordance with the law and not the rule of the thumb.

“So when we hear people talking about sovereign national conference, referendum and all that there must be a legal basis for it. So you don’t wake up when you have a constitutional government in place and say you want a sovereign national conference, you impose the will of the people on everybody without a legal basis.

“That is absolutely very difficult. Other countries have had this type of challenge and what they did first was to provide a legal basis for what they are doing. Otherwise you are calling for anarchy.

“So, we believe that we can all work together to make this process workable and that will help everybody at the end of the day so that whatever you are doing or whatever you would have done would not be an exercise in futility.

“We will do our own part, we believe you will do your own part. Our prayer is that God will guide you so that whatever work you will do would help to create a better environment for our people and we do hope that we will address these issues with an open mind because I think it is important that we realize that we are better off as a country living together. It is very important.

“Nigeria is respected all across the globe because of our size and our diversity. So, I don’t think that anything that will affect in any way the world status we enjoy today is something anybody will want to recommend.

“So, in all these exercise, we must bear in mind that already we have particular status in the continent and of course within the global community which we need to preserve in every way possible.

“It is very important that we realise this because we have come to live together as one country and God who put us together did not make a mistake.

“We can make the best out of this even though you want to call it coincidence.

“We are not the only country that is diverse in terms of population, ethnicity, language, culture and religion.

“No, there are so many countries like that and yet they are living together. So, we can make the best out of our own circumstances.”

Chairman of the committee, Senator Femi Okurounmu, in his remarks said that the mandate of his committee was to consult widely with all Nigerians in respect of the proposed National Conference, particularly with a view to what should be on the agenda of the conference.

He said that the committee would also determine what issues to be tabled on the agenda, what should be the size of the proposed National Conference, what should be the duration and the duration of the conference.

He noted that how the membership of the conference will be chosen and others were some of the critical issues on which they want to seek the views of Nigerians.

He added that the committee would consider what should be the legal basis for the conference and the legal basis for incorporating the findings and recommendations of the conference and transmitting them into the constitution of Nigeria so they become part of the constitution.

He said: “We have started our job of consulting with Nigerians. We have made two stops already. We have stopped over in Akure (Ondo State). We have stopped over in Jos (Plateau State).

“Our plan is to make two stops in each of the six geopolitical zones of the country as well as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

“So we are making it 13 stops on the whole. And as a very critical stakeholder in this whole enterprise, that is the National Assembly, you are one of the most powerful stakeholders in the Nigerian enterprise.

“We feel that we must also come and consult with you. So, that is why we are here this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Senate President.”

October 23, 2013