The Nation Newspaper

Tag: National conference

  • Stakeholders to Jonathan: there must be ‘no-go’ areas

    Stakeholders to Jonathan: there must be ‘no-go’ areas

    The Presidential Advisory Committee on National Conference flagged off consultations with stakeholders in Akure, the Ondo State capital, last weekend. BISI OLADELE, who captured the thrills and frills of the forum, reports that the Yoruba, other ethnic groups and stakeholders made emotional presentations and insisted that ethnic nationalities must discuss the basis for peaceful co-existence.

    It was an emotional session in Akure, the capital of Ondo State. The various groups and individuals presented and submitted their memoranda for the proposed national conference with passion. The time was exerpt for the ethnic leaders, groups, community leaders, professionals, students, women and politicians to address the national question.

    At 11.30 a.m, the Babafunke Ajasin Auditorium Akure was filled to capacity. In spite of the perceived short notice, the interest groups managed to prepare their positions. At the end of the meeting, the committee had a good idea of public feeling.

    Presentations were made by interest groups, including the Afenifere, the Pro-National Conference Organisation (PRONACO), the Afenifere Renewal Group, the Yoruba Unity Forum, the Arogbo Ijaw Community, Ijaw Study Group, Bishop Bolanle Gbonigi, Chief Ayo Adebanjo and the constitutional lawyer, Dr Tunji Abayomi.

    The groups were different, but their demands were similar. They include lack of restriction on subjects to be discussed at the conference, discussion of the terms of engagement, opposition to subjecting the outcome of the conference to the National Assembly and true federalism.

    The programme commenced at exactly 2.35 p.m, shortly after committee members arrived at the venue. It had been slated for 1.30 p.m, but stakeholders waited patiently. About 90 per cent of participants were, however, groups and individuals from Ondo State.

    Ondo State Governor Olusegun Mimiko saluted President Jonathan’s courage for creating the platform for Nigerians to discuss their future.

    He described it as “the right step in the right direction,” pointing out that the outcome of the confab would provide the framework for a new Nigeria.

    The Chairman of the committee, Dr Okunrohunmu, urged participants to restrict their presentations to the terms of reference. They are the structure of the national conference, it’s composition, mode of selecting candidates, it’s size and what should form the agenda of the talk shop. Each group or individual was given five minutes to make presentations.

    The Movement for National Reformation set the tone for the discussion. The group proposed that the structure of the conference should be based on ethnic nationalities. According to the group, each nationality should be allowed to determine whether it will stay or leave Nigeria. It emphasised that representations of the nationalities should be equal.

    The Yoruba socio-political group, the Afenifere, also submitted its proposals. Chief Ayo Adebanjo, who represented the group, reeled out facts to support claims that Nigeria is a mere geographical location in desperate need of a confab to negotiate its continued existence. He cited several examples and references to confirm that the belief cuts across the geo-political zones.

    Afenifere proposed a sovereign conference, but which will not hurt the existing sovereign government. The group said that sovereignty belongs to the people, hence, outcome of the conference should not be tampered with by the Federal Government.

    “We insist on a national conference with sovereign power, with regard to the implementation of the decisions of the conference. Only a referendum should be conducted.” Adebanjo said.

    The group also insisted that the nationality question is the most important subject to be discussed at the confab. Afenifere said the conference should be peopled by ethnic nationalities, the civil society, students, labour, women and professional groups, adding that delegates should emerge through election.

    To Afenifere, delegates should be 700. Each of the six ego-political zones should produce 100 while the remaining 100 should be representatives of professional and other groups. It wants the conference to sit for only six months.

    The group also said that the outcome of the conference should be subjected to a referendum and be approved by the Presidency after which it would be sent to the National Assembly.

    The Yoruba Unity Forum, proposed that political parties should not play any role in selecting, appointing or electing delegates. It also proposed that delegates should be representatives of nationalities from the same zone.

    The Forum recommended a manageable size that is representative of the stakeholders. It proposed 400 delegates, with 91 per cent allotted to ethnic nationalities and the rest allocated to other interest groups.

    On the legal framework for the confab, the Forum suggested that the President should initiate an executive bill to the National Assembly for legitimising the conference.

    The group also suggested that the outcome of the conference should be subjected to a referendum and later sent to the National Assembly for ratification as the new constitution.

    The group’s position was read by Bishop Ayo Ladigbolu on behalf of Bishop Gbonigi.

    In its own proposal, PRONACO suggested. But the group said that 600 delegates each nationality to hold a conference to select their delegates and discuss their presentations at the confab.

    The group also suggested that the outcome of the conference to be the new working document for Nigeria.

    The Ondo State Chapter of the ARG expressed fear that the conference may be another jamboree like the previous ones whose outcomes were not applied in solving the nation’s problems.

    However, the group proposed that the committee should ensure that politics does not override the aim of the conference.

    “Let it be discussed whether Nigeria is one and, if the country still wants to be one and on what terms? People who want to pull out of Nigeria should be given an opportunity to express themselves without fear,” it group said.

    The group also recommended true representation, in cases of clusters of ethnic groups in the same local government, adding that resolutions at the conference should be acceptable to the majority of Nigerians. It also urged the committee to make use of the report of the Justice Uwais committee on electoral reform and other relevant reports.

    For the Arogbo Ijaw Community and Ijaw Study Group, which believe that the country is “recklessly sliding down the precipice,” the prediction in 2015 should be averted. “Hence this conference is good. This conference will lay a solid foundation for the crumbling edifice,” the group said.

    They proposed that the conference should be composed entirely by ethnic nationalities because each has distinct history, values, hopes and aspirations. The two group described the nationalities as the real federating units, lamenting that they never had the opportunity to discuss their terms of engagement. “Ijaw would have opted for their sovereign nation, if given the opportunity,” they said.

    In its memorandum, the groups want all ethnic nationalities to bring all issues and their positions up for discussion, emphasizing that the outcome should form the basis for the continued relationship of the various nationalities. “The National Assembly, as presently constituted, is part of the Nigerian fraud. The outcome cannot go to them. Sovereignty belongs to the people,” they insisted.

    They also proposed that the conference should wind up towards the end of the tenure of the current administration, saying the new constitution must be the basis for the 2015 election.

    “There must be ‘no-go’ area. Every issue shall be discussed, including the desire by any nationality to opt out.”

    Other groups that made presentations at the forum included the Atayese, National Council for Women Societies (NCWS) Ondo State Chapter, youths organisations, the Ondo Roundtable, Irele Ikale Ethnic Nationality and the Ilaje Development Forum.

    The constitutional lawyer, Dr Tunji Abayomi, said the outcome should not be subjected to the NAtional Assembly because the lawmaking organ derived its sovereignty from the people they represent. According to him, it will be illogical for representatives to tamper with the will of the people.

    He also said that the conference should not be restricted on the subjects to be discussed adding that ethnic representation should be de-emphasised. He suggested the emergence of delegates through both election and representation for a balance.

    “We have enough ethnic emotion. We should not aggravate it. The better option is election and representation for a balance.

    “National Assembly is an agent of people. People have the sovereignty,” he said.

    He also argued that the current constitution lacks 10 validating factors, which the conference must correct.

    At the forum were traditional rulers, including the Deji of Akure; Oba Adesida Afunbiowo, Osemawe of Ondo, Oba Victor Kiladejo, the Olugbo of Ugboland; Oba Obateru Akinruntan, and the Olowo of Owo, Oba Folagbade Olateru-Ologbegi – all in Ondo State.

    Others are the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in the last year election in Ondo State, Mr Olusola Oke, Senator Meroyi and the Secretary, Yoruba Unity Forum, Dr Kunle Olajide.

  • National Conference as jamboree

    SIR: The proposed National Conference will not succeed beyond Aso Rock and other selected venues where it will take place. For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed exercise shares striking similarities with the previous charades by the leadership of this country as part of their usual grandstanding and thoughtless bids towards addressing the myriad problems dogging Nigeria since the 1914 Amagalmation.

    When in hisOctober 1, Independence nationwide broadcast, President Jonathan Goodluck announced the proposed National Conference, which according to him, is targeted at finding solutions to Nigeria’s many challenges, some of us were sceptical about the effectiveness of such exercise in the light of the barriers imposed by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on its outcomes. Accordingly, that cynicism has been justified by the President’s recent remarks on the proposed exercise, where he was reported to have said that the decisions of the conference would be sent to the National Assembly for ratification and possible incorporation into the on-going Constitution Amendment exercise.

    It is important we do not lose sight of the position of our extant laws on the proposed exercise, however attractive this option (National Conference) might appear. We need to draw our attention to the provisions of Section 4 (2) and Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). To be sure, the said provisions empower the National Assembly and their counterparts at the 36 state Houses of Assembly to make laws as well as alter any part of the Constitution in manners clearly stated therein. It is my firm submission, with regards to the foregoing provisions, that any outcome reached at the proposed conference MUST receive the endorsement of the lawmakers before it can become implementable.

    Meanwhile, it is germane to note that the proposed conference is no different from the previous ones. The Ibadan 1950, Lagos 1952, London 1957 and 1989 conferences yielded no consequences in finding solutions to the problems and challenges confronting the country. Similarly, the 2005 National Dialogue convened by the former President Olusegun Obasanjo is worthy of mention here. The outcomes of that exercise suffered fatal rejection from the National Assembly, which relied heavily on the aforementioned sections in refusing to deliberate on the proposals. There is no guarantee that the proposed conference would not suffer similar fate like the previous exercises, as much as the decisions reached at the conference would have to pass through the lawmakers for implementation.

    Much as one is not averse to Nigerians coming together to brainstorm on the way forward for the country, it needs be expressly stated that such discourse must be conducted within an appropriate platform and with the highest degree of sincerity from the conveners. If the Presidency is serious and strongly desirous to finding a lasting solutions to the country’s challenges, then it must convene a Sovereign National Conference. He can invoke Section 14 (2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which confers sovereignty on the Nigeria people, to do this. The country can also learn from the experiences of Benin Republic (1989) and Congo Brazzville (1991) respectively, that successfully convoked sovereign national conferences to address problems and difficulties confronting their countries at those periods.

    Rather than embark on this wild goose chase and further deplete the nation’s already leaned national purse, the outcomes reached at the previous (as suggested by the APC National leader, Senator Bola Tinubu) conferences should be dusted and forwarded to the appropriate authorities for possible implementation until such a time when we are prepared for the people genuine discourse-the Sovereign National Conference.

     

    • Barrister Okoro Gabriel,

    Lagos

     

  • CAN backs national conference

    CAN backs national conference

    •Oritsejafor:  Fed Govt, ASUU should resolve issues immediately  

    President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor yesterday described the proposed national conference by President Goodluck Jonathan as ‘a right step in the right direction.

    He condemned those who are criticising the development.

    Pastor Oritsejafor spoke in Abuja when he inaugurated a six-man committee on the national conference to draft CAN’s views which would be submitted to the Presidential committee.

    He emphasised the need for Nigerians to dialogue.

    His words: “We are taking a very important step in the right direction. President Goodluck Jonathan has taken a bold step to announce a national dialogue that would involve every part of the country. I congratulate the President and CAN is prepared and is in support of the dialogue.

    “It is an important development and in this challenging time we need to find a lasting solution. I know that no nation grows without challenges but there must be a way out. I get troubled about the way some people reason in this country, so many people have clamoured for this and Mr. President took a bold step to announce the committee and people turned around to criticise it, why.

    “Where we are now in Nigeria is so critical that we need to talk. Let every tribe, ethnic group put their cards on the table, we need to talk to know each others mind, it is an incredible opportunity for us to talk as a nation and we need to seize this opportunity.

    “I don’t know what people mean by no go areas, a discussion is a discussion and if people want to discuss, they should be allowed to talk. We should be free to discuss.”

    On the prolonged strike by Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Pastor Oritsejafor said that CAN has been trying to meet with the union on how to resolve the crisis but has not been able to adding that the Federal Goverment and ASUU must resolve issues in the interest of students.

    His words: “CAN is silently making moves to ensure an end to the strike. I had telephone discussions with the ASUU president, but we have not agreed on when to meet. CAN has also approached govt. The strike is not good for the country. Government and ASUU should shift ground. I appeal to both govt and ASUU to shift ground to bring an end to the problem. There must be movement from both sides, govt has moved from N30-N40billion, ASUU for the sake of students should also do something and have an understanding.”

  • Use national conference to define agenda of change, says Aturu

    Use national conference to define agenda of change, says Aturu

    Lagos lawyer Bamidele Aturu has urged Nigerians to fashion out an agenda for change at the national conference and to show that the ruling class is incapable of resolving the crises it has foisted on our people.

    “History teaches that people who set up conferences of this nature may not be able to tell how it ends. This is why we genuine patriots cannot afford to ignore the conference,” he said.

    Aturu gave the advice in a statement in Lagos titled: National Conference:President Jonathan’s best masterstroke so far.

    Despite seeing the conference as self-serving, Aturu said the decision of President Jonathan to set up a committee to work out modalities for the conference shows that he is not quite what its critic think.

    “The President certainly is not the political novice that some professional politicians, in his party and the opposition, portray. The President may not have shown that he understands how to resolve our multidimensional crises, but he sure understands a thing or two about power, self-preserving power that is.

    “The fact that the President who had openly resisted the demand for a National Conference, sovereign or otherwise, should be ready for it now when agitation for it has really died down except for one or two organisations still clamouring for it shows clearly that this is a strategic move and, in my view, it is the best masterstroke from the President and his advisers”, he said.

    Aturu gave reasons the national conference mooted by President Jonathan is a masterstroke, saying: “first, there seems to be no activity among the ruling elite in general and in the ruling party in particular. Given the crisis of ideas that typifies the ruling class no serious activity is or can be in the horizon. So, why not generate one? The idea of convening or planning towards convening the conference is, therefore, handy.

    “Second, the way the President is going about the conference would help him deepen and broaden the antagonism and in-fighting among the Yoruba establishment. The choice of Chief Okurounmu could not have been more strategic in that regard. Making him the chair of the committee will surely garner some support for the President among conservative Yoruba leaders. But whether that would translate into electoral gains for the President is yet to be seen and would depend on how the conference is eventually managed and controlled.

    “Third, the proposed conference also has the potential of intimidating some conservative northern elements and whipping them into line. The intimidation here is to dangle the conference as a possible sword of Damocles that may cut the string tying Nigeria together. Of course, no one is certain that the President and his advisers do not have the ultimate balkanisation of Nigeria as one of their main jokers. Some of the utterances of his supporters from the Niger Delta show that many of them do not really care if Nigeria shatters to pieces tomorrow.

    “Fourthly, who knows a third term or elongation of the current term may just happen somehow as a consequence of the confusion that is bound to happen at the conference.

    “Fifthly, some people may just vote for the President for him for ‘listening’ to the demands for the conference.  It is, therefore, intended to shore up his democratic credentials,”he said.

    Aturu pointed out that while one cannot rubbish any attempt to dialogue or discuss our crises, it is clear that the conference like other attempts before this one is likely to end as a mere talk shop for the masses of Nigeria, “but as a major negotiating platform for the ethnic jingoists who are positioning themselves to continue to grab ever-increasing proportions of the national cake”.

    He urged Nigerians not to be deceived by the attempt at a national conference stressing, “any conference that is not produced as a result of the struggles of the people for equity and social justice but that is gifted to them by a calculating oligarchy is not going to produce the fundamental restricting in terms of redistributing the wealth of Nigeria in such a way that the people are in control of politics and economy. That is the conference that we need, not the talk shop of ethnic warlords”.

     

  • Will national conference produce new Constitution?

    Will national conference produce new Constitution?

    President Goodluck Jonathan, in his Independence Day broadcast, announced the setting up of an Advisory Committee to establish modalities for a national conference aimed at resolving issues that cause friction in the polity.

    The committee, he said, will also design a framework and come up with recommendations as to the form, structure and mechanism of the process.

    He said: “Our administration has taken cognizance of suggestions over the years by well-meaning Nigerians on the need for a national dialogue on the future of our beloved country.

    “When there are issues that constantly stoke tension and bring about friction, it makes perfect sense for the interested parties to come together to discuss.

    “In demonstration of my avowed belief in the positive power of dialogue in charting the way forward, I have decided to set up an Advisory Committee whose mandate is to establish the modalities for a national dialogue or conference.”

    Inaugurating the committee, Jonathan extended the time within which it is to submit its report to six weeks as against the four he announced in his Independence Day address to the nation.

    While the committee will decide the nomenclature for the planned conference, whether it would be called a national dialogue, conversation or conference, there have been serious analyses and debates on the shape of the conference and what should be its powers.

    Last week, Jonathan said the decisions of the conference would be taken to the National Assembly and the Houses of Assembly for ratification and incorporation into the Constitution, stirring a debate.

    While some believe the conference should give Nigeria a new constitution through a referendum, others say its outcome should be subjected to legislative ratification, as Jonathan said.

    The call for national conference has been on for years, especially before and immediately after the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election.

    In 2000, the late human rights crusader, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), through his political platform, the National Conscience Party (NCP), also called for a sovereign national conference (SNC).

    He said: “The primary duty of the Sovereign National Conference is to address and find solutions to the key problems afflicting Nigeria since 1914 to date.

    “The concern is to remove all obstacles which have prevented the country from establishing political justice, economic justice, social justice, cultural justice, religious justice and to construct a new constitutional frame-work in terms of the system of government-structurally, politically economically, socially, culturally and religiously.”

    On how to convoke the SNC, Fawehinmi said all the governments under the then constitutional dispensation should be preliminarily involved in the process of convoking it.

    He said the President, the Senate President, the Speaker of House of Representatives, all the 36 governors and the 36 Speakers must meet jointly to set up the SNC Planning Committee.

    Fawehinmi further suggested that the national and state assemblies should promulgate laws in support of the SNC so that fresh elections would be held at the expiration of the tenure of the government in 2003 on the basis of the Constitution that would be drawn up by the SNC and subjected to a referendum of the people.

    Fawhinmi’s demands were not met, but long before his call, a form of conference between ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria was held in 1950 when delegates from the North and the South met in Ibadan.

    The 1950 Ibadan General Conference gave birth to federalism, with the regional leaders agreeing to the establishment of a federal system that allowed each of the three regions – North, West, and East – develop at their pace.

    In 1953, a constitutional conference was convened in London and it led to a federal constitution – Lyttleton Constitution – which gave the regions significant autonomy.

    Again in 1957, a constitutional conference was held in London, which prepared the country for independence. There was also the Constituent Assembly of 1978 which gave birth to the 1979 Constitution and the presidential system of government.

    Today, Nigeria is faced with a myriad of challenges. There have been calls for true federalism and equitable distribution of resources. The country’s foundations have been shaken by insurgency, while political divisions have eroded the foundations of unity.

    While the state of affairs make a conference necessary, should it lead to the production of a new Constitution? This is where opinions differ.

     

    The arguments for a new Constitution

    Leading the argument that the conference should produce a new Constitution is eminent lawyer and scholar Prof Itsay Sagay (SAN). He believes that anything to the contrary will not reflect the true wishes of the people.

    He said: “We’re talking of a conference which will result in a new Constitution, which will then be approved by this country by plebiscite, by referendum, so that it becomes a Constitution made by Nigerian people.

    “What we’re saying is that this cannot be a proposal for the amendment of the Constitution. So, in my view, either the President doesn’t understand what he is doing by convoking a conference, or he’s deliberately putting poison into the process to kill it from the beginning.

    “To say you’re taking it to the National Assembly, which doesn’t have the capacity or the jurisdiction or the authority to make a new Constitution, is to say you want to kill it. The House has a vested interest in the status quo.

    “They’re the people who are going to try and amend and mutilate and destroy anything that people would have taken all the trouble to make.

    “This National Assembly has been there since 1999. What has it achieved? Just promotion of self-interest in all its processes of constitution amendment – amendments that are meaningless and totally useless.

    “What we’re talking about now is wholesale, new Constitution, which only the people themselves can make. Any reference to the National Assembly is an attempt to kill the conference before it takes off. So, it’s lack of sincerity or ignorance. It’s one or the other.”

    Activist-lawyer Bamidele Aturu agrees with Sagay. His position is that the National Assembly should not make any input in the conference report.

    He added that the people must vote on the outcome of the conference in a referendum.

    “Many people have said, and this is the point we make, that for you to do a national conference as opposed to just constitution amendment, the people of Nigeria must ratify or endorse resolutions of the conference.

    “If that does not happen, then the whole thing is a waste of time. This falls far short of what Nigerians expect or deserve. Many people will now be right to say that it’s just a political gimmick.”

    University of Lagos law lecturer Mr Wahab Shittu also strongly believes that the conference should give Nigeria a new Constitution.

    He said: “If we want to be futuristic, if what we’re considering is a document that will affect the lives of present and future generations of Nigerians, then we should not be afraid to start on a clean slate, which is technically referred to as tabularasa.

    “If we want to start on a clean slate, and we take the view that even the National Assembly as presently constituted may be tampered with by the outcome of the conference – because we’re talking of trying to evolve a brand new Constitution, where we’ll be discussing the appropriate political structure, the appropriate constitutional framework, all issues that bind us together as a people, the outcome of such a deliberation should be ratified by the people in a referendum or a plebiscite.

    “It should not be ratified by a National Assembly whose existence and origin is doubtful. We might even decide to say that we do not want the National Assembly as presently constituted. Nigerians would decide that – what kind of National Assembly they want, what form of Federal structure we want.”

    Shittu said the National Assembly should make no input into the conference.

    His words: “If we now allow that (the conference report) to be interfered with by the National Assembly, you’re indirectly taking away from the people the sovereignty which should belong to them.”

    On arguments that since the 1999 Constitution has no provision for a referendum, one cannot be conducted, Shittu said it did not matter, as power belongs to the people.

    “What we’re saying is that the Constitution as it stands at present will be jettisoned by the conference. That’s why I proceeded by saying that we should start on a clean slate. It’s no use panel-beating a broken down vehicle.

    “That Constitution that we operate does not belong to you and I. It’s something that is foisted on us by the military. This conference presents an opportunity to now engage all issues under the sun, including the Constitution, in a holistic discussion.

    “I believe that all the existing sovereign authorities should step aside and allow the people to evolve a Constitutional arrangement of their choice.

    “Allowing the National Assembly to play a role is like trying to take away from the people the sovereignty which should lie with them. And then that will defeat the entire purpose of the exercise.

    “The convening authority of this conference is not the President or the National Assembly. It’s the people of Nigeria. Once we have been given the opportunity to dialogue, to engage, we should seize the moment as the Nigerian people and then all other things – the conference discussions, the outcome, the legal framework, the agenda – must be decided by the Nigerian people,” Shittu said.

     

    Arguments against a new Constitution

    Professor of law Senator Oserheimen Osunbor, who also served as Edo State Governor, believes the conference cannot produce a new Constitution. He said any such thing would not only be unconstitutional, but will take Nigeria backward.

    He told The Nation: “First of all, we must learn as Nigerians to do whatever we want to do in accordance with the rule of law and the Constitution. Whatever we do must have its basis and legitimacy on the Constitution. The answer as to what will be the final process on the outcome of the national conference must be related to what the Constitution says.

    “As of now, there is no provision in our laws, including the Constitution requiring a referendum for the purpose of making or amending a Constitution. The only provision is respect of making or amending the Constitution is Section 9 of it, which vests power in the National Assembly subject to approval by not less than two-thirds of the states of the federation.

    “So, on the basis of existing law, the outcome cannot be presented to a referendum. Even if you do, it will be of no effect, because there is no law in place that will validate it; which means that the only recourse is to send whatever is the outcome of the dialogue to the National Assembly, and thereafter, for concurrence or approval by the state houses of Assembly. Anything outside of this does not have any legitimate basis in our law and in our Constitution.”

    On claims that the Constitution is a product of the military, Osunbor said those making such assertions could as well demand the repudiation of everything the military bequeathed to Nigeria.

    His words: “There are a lot of things in Nigeria today that are a product of the military. Even the democracy that we have is a product of the military. Olusegun Obasanjo, who was elected President in 1999 came in through the process of a transition programme that was initiated by the military. At his inauguration, the 1999 Constitution was proclaimed.

    “Every state and local government of the federation is a product of the military, apart from mid-west state that was the product of referendum. Many of the laws of the country, including the Land Use Act are products of the military.

    “So, if people want us to abrogate products of the military, what they’re actually advocating is that all the laws that were passed by the military should be abrogated; all the democratic institutions introduced by the military, including the current democracy should be abrogated, because it was a product of the military.

    “All states and local governments, with the exception of Edo and Delta states should be abrogated, because all the others are products of the military. I don’t think that that argument makes sense to you. It doesn’t make sense to me and I don’t think it should make sense to Nigerians.”

    Osunbor said military government had legitimacy, and that the Constitution, though imperfect, could be improved through amendments.

    “It is a fact of history that the military were there, and Nigerians conferred legitimacy on the military by accepting them. Some of the people who are deriding the military today served as ministers under military regimes. Many universities were established by the military. So, we cannot deny the facts of history.

    “People should allow Nigeria to march forward. Let us not continue to drag ourselves back. Let us not continue making fresh starts over and over again. The rest of the world has left Nigeria behind, because for too long, we have been starting and stopping and starting afresh over and over again. I think enough of that is enough.

    “Let us make a success of what we have. It is not perfect at all. The 1999 Constitution is not perfect. Section 9 admits that there will be rooms for improvement by way of alterations or amendments in future,” Osunbor said.

    According to him, no Constitution or human institution is perfect. He called on Nigerians to remain patient rather than discard the existing statute book.

    “The United States Constitution has been amended 27 times. The South African Constitution has been amended 17 times, so why can’t we exercise patience and whatever imperfections or flaws there are in our Constitution can be remedied by way of alterations or amendments, rather than a brand new Constitution.

    “If you say you’re not happy with the existing Constitution, you want a brand new one, 10 years from now, the new leaders of members of the National Assembly at that time will again say: ‘Remove the 2013 or 2014 Constitution and let’s start with a brand new Constitution.’ There will be no end to it.

    “We already have a Constitution in place. Anything short of a revolution, which we do not pray for, that Constitution will remain in force.

    “It is not perfect, but the onus is on us to try and remove those imperfections and make it work better for the people of Nigeria,” Osunbor said.

    A professor of law and former Abia State Attorney-General, Awah Kalu (SAN), said there is no way any form of amendment of the Constitution can take place without recourse to the National Assembly.

    He said: “There is no way that the outcome of the conference will not be sent to the National Assembly, because if you look at the definition in Section 9 of the Constitution, which talks about alteration of the Constitution, if legally interpreted, it means that alteration will include even a completely new Constitution.

    “In law, if you want to amend, it includes the substitution for what is existing. So, if you look at that Section 9, you will see that it is the National Assembly that has the power to alter the Constitution, which means that if the influence is external, as in the Conference now – a body that produces, the best they can do is to produce a draft Constitution, and that will go to the National Assembly.

    “Once the National Assembly adopts it, then it will come back to the President for his assent. I don’t see any way around the final product going to the National Assembly.”

    A constitutional lawyer, Mr Sebastine Hon (SAN), said President Jonathan was right. “The President is not wrong to have resolved to push the result of the conference to the National Assembly.

    “The law-making powers of the federation are vested in the National Assembly. When it comes to amendment of most sections of the Constitution, they share those powers with state houses of Assembly.

    “Except we’re saying there is no National Assembly or legislature in place, those advocating that the conference should fashion out a Constitution on its own, I think, with due respect, are in grave error. We have a legislature in place, and if anything comes out of the conference, it needs to go to them for ratification.

    “We elected them. They are our representatives. And we have a Constitution in place which has been operated for the past 13 years. So, there’s no way we can now begin to say that somebody or a body unknown to the Constitution is fashioning out a new Constitution without the input of the National Assembly. I think it’s dexterous on the part of the President to have resolved to do that,” Hon said.

    The national conference committee report will be ready by second week of November.

    The committee’s terms of reference include to consult expeditiously with all relevant stakeholders with a view to drawing up a feasible agenda for the proposed national dialogue/conference, to make recommendations to government on structure and modalities for the proposed national dialogue/conference, and to make recommendations to government on how representation of various interest groups at the national dialogue/conference will be determined.

    It is also to advise on a timeframe for the national dialogue/conference, advise government on a legal framework for the national dialogue/conference, advise government on legal procedures and options for integrating decisions and outcomes of the national dialogue/ conference into the constitution and laws of the nation, and to advise government on any other matters that may be related or incidental to the proposed national dialogue/conference.

    Going by the terms of reference, Nigerians will know whether the conference will indeed produce a brand new Constitution when the committee’s report is released.

     

  • ‘Jonathan’s national conference same as others’

    A former Special Adviser to Second Republic President Shehu Shagari on National Assembly Matters, Alhaji Tanko Yakasai, has backed President Goodluck Jonathan’s proposal for a National Conference.

    He said the confab was in line with the approach adopted by previous governments in organising debates on the Constitution and other national matters.

    In a statement in Kano, the elder statesman noted that the appointment of the National Dialogue/Conference Advisory Committee by President Jonathan, to work out the modalities for the National Dialogue, was not only in tandem with the tradition established in similar circumstances, but was also consistent with the practice precedent of creating a platform to discuss matters affecting Nigeria’s Constitution.

    Going down memory lane, Yakasai recalled that during the Murtala Muhammed/Olusegun Obasanjo military era, a similar committee was set up.

    It was called the Constitution Review Committee, with the late legal icon, Chief Rotimi Williams, as its chairman.

    According to him, the 49-member committee prepared the modalities for the 1978/1979 Constituent Assembly and recommended the adoption of the presidential system of government.

    Yakasai said the the Constituent Assembly, chaired by the late Justice Udo Udoma, adopted the presidential system being practised in the country today.

    He said during the General Ibrahim Babangida era, another constitution review was undertaken.

    Prior to the inauguration of the Constituent Assembly by the Babangida regime, a committee similar to the current Advisory Committee was appointed and named the Constitution Review Committee, with Justice Muhammadu Buba Ardo as its chairman, he added.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • What quick way to abort a National Conference!

    What quick way to abort a National Conference!

    That the definition of the political reality of Nigeria by the North is starkly different from that of the South indicates that the division in the country is very deep.

    President Jonathan’s most recent statement on the national conference he proposed about two weeks ago has almost thrown the idea back in the ocean of doubt that had characterised the efforts of those who tried the idea before him. More importantly, the president has himself applauded Senator Bola Tinubu as an infallible analyst of Nigerian party politics and as the prophet whose assessment of Jonathan’s presidency must not be missed. The worrisome part of Jonathan’s assurances to his visitors on the occasion of the just concluded Muslim festival is his taking back with the left hand what he offered with the right hand just two weeks ago.

    While several commentators on the announcement of a committee to work out modalities for a national conference “to provide a platform that will reinforce the ties that bind the country’s many ethnic nationalities and ensure that Nigeria’s immense diversity continues to be a source of strength and greatness,” have, despite their awareness of the problems with governance of the country in the last four years, been pleading that the message be separated from the messenger, President Jonathan himself assured Nigerians on the last day of this year’s Eid-El-Kabir that it is more appropriate to conflate the message and the messenger. What an easy way for a ruling president to confirm the prescience of his opposition leader!

    But the emphasis today is not on President Jonathan’s attempt to pre-empt a committee he set up only fifteen days ago nor to castigate him for quickly confirming Senator Tinubu’s fears. He will not be the first president in recent times to make nonsense of his advisers. President Olusegun Obasanjo said when he was swearing in his Special Advisers a few years ago that he did not appoint them because he wanted to take their advice and that they should always remember that he was under no obligation to take their advice. The advisers still accepted to be sworn in, even when the person who appointed them told them upfront that the game was over. President Jonathan does not have the brusqueness of Obasanjo, but by announcing his intention to send the outcomes of the conference to the national assembly as part of items for amendment, he too has shown that he is ready to do the job of the committee whenever he chooses to do so. The purpose of today’s piece is to let the president and his advisers know that opting to send the outcomes of the national conference to the legislators that have been talking about amending the 1999 Constitution for over two years is a quick way to abort the conference before its due date.

    It is necessary to discuss the implications of following President Jonathan’s new route to “providing a platform to reinforce the ties that bind the country’s many ethnic nationalities and ensure that Nigeria’s immense diversity continues to be a source of strength and greatness.” To believe that the national assembly, as presently structured, can transform conference outcomes to amendments during the life of the current assembly is unrealistic. The assembly has not been able to agree on items that grew up within its chambers in over two years; it is not likely to be able to digest new constitutional provisions arrived at by a conference that may not include members of the national assembly.

    In addition, the national assembly itself is part of the problem that a national conference is to address, particularly the lop-sided nature of the House of Representatives in favour of the North, the site of the longest and loudest opposition to calls for sovereign national conference or a constitutional conference to craft a people’s constitution. This approach is, as I said in a recent book: Federalism and the Yoruba Character, similar to attempting to cure drunkenness with more drunkenness. Nigerians have since its inception challenged the accurateness of the census upon which the proportional representation that created the current national assembly was made. Leaving the outcomes of the conference to the national assembly to ratify is making the conference to be dead on arrival, as people say in popular language.

    Given the vitriolic nature of opposition from the North to calls for sovereign national conference or constitutional conference, expecting the current national assembly to ratify any recommendations from Jonathan’s national conference is over-sanguine. For example, some northern governors have been reported to refuse to send people from his state to any conference. Some leaders from the North have started singing war songs, to counter calls for national conference.Pundits from the North have argued that our constitution is not the problem and that it is the people that use the constitution that need to be upgraded. Just as President Jonathan was assuring his visitors that the final destination of the conference outcomes is the national assembly, the spokesman for the most authoritative socio-cultural organisation from the North Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) said unapologetically: “The ACF does not believe that the problem with Nigeria is the structure of the country or the pattern of governance….For now, we do not have any position to present to them [the Advisory Committee] because we did not ask for a conference in the first place.”

    On the contrary, Ohaeneze Ndigbo has agreed to meet on Saturday to produce a position for the Committee’s visit to the former Eastern Region while Chief Reuben Fasoranti’sAfenifere and the Afenifere-Renewal Group have completed position papers to take to the Committee’s first meeting in the former Western Region in Akure. That Nigeria is a divided country does not need the expertise of rocket scientists to decipher. Two of the three regions that agreed to go into one Nigeria at independence in 1960 are ready to send delegates to attend the preliminary fact-finding meeting of the Committee set up by President Jonathan with spokespersons for federating units, the unity of which the proposed conference is designed to reinforce while the third region has already announced a boycott.

    Offering to send the outcomes of the conference to the national assembly on the same day that ACF indicated its intention not to be bothered by any zonal meeting in Jos or Minna, can possibly be interpreted to mean an attempt to assure the North that there is nothing to worry about. Everybody in the country knows that without any cooperation from northern members in the national assembly, there can be no two-thirds to alter one sentence in the current constitution, even after years of conference deliberations. That the definition of the political reality of Nigeria by the North is starkly different from that of the South indicates that the division in the country is very deep. And this situation should worry anyone that cares about Nigeria. The claim that President Jonathan has not suggested any No-Go areas is countered by his most recent decision to use the national assembly, a body that has, like the country’s 774 local governments, grown out of decades of political re-designing of Nigeria by military dictators. Given the new confusion created by the president’s latest decision, it is advisable for president Jonathan to let his advisory committee members give him some advice on how to proceed. Pre-empting the committee in any way is likely to dampen the spirit of the millions of Nigerians who want a platform to provide ideas that can reinforce the ties that bind Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities together over the years and ensure that the country’s immense diversity becomes a source of strength and greatness for the parts and the whole of the ‘Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

  • Jonathan’s national conference and the true believers

    Jonathan’s national conference and the true believers

    Permit me to begin this contribution with the words of Senator Femi Okorounmu who is the Chairman of the President’s Advisory Committee on the National Conference. In the February 12th edition of the National Mirror Newspaper, he said the following about President Goodluck Jonathan-

    “Jonathan has betrayed the goodwill of the Yoruba. The man doesn’t seem to have a clue about anything. First, he has no clue about governance- it appears as if he does not even have any slightest idea of what he wants to do. He never thought of becoming President and what he would do as President. He was just talking of transformation and I don’t even think he knows the meaning of transformation. The man is just being pushed around everywhere and to anywhere. The only thing he understands is that he wants to make money and he is making a lot of it. And because he wants to make money, he cannot tell people not to make money when they are making their own. So a lot of people around him are making money and he cannot do anything.”

    This is quite an indictment and more so these words were spoken only seven months ago. Okorounmu is a man of honour. Anyone that knows anything about the struggle for the emancipation of the nationalities, restructuring and self-determination in Nigeria can testify to the fact that he is not only a much-loved and deeply courageous man but he is also one of those that has dedicated his entire life and distinguished political career to the noble cause of creating a new Nigeria where regional autonomy is established and where power is devolved from the centre. One wonders what made this distinguished elderstatesman change his mind, put his reputation on the line and accept to chair a committee that was set up by the very same man that he dismissed with such contempt only a few months ago. Yet the truth is that people do change their minds about others from time to time and I am prepared to give Okorounmu the benefit of the doubt for doing so.

    Yet in this matter we must be candid. The truth must be told and that truth is as follows. If any serious-minded person thinks that a ‘’national conference’’ that is not ‘’sovereign’’ and whose recommendations are subject to the will and caprices of the President and the National Assembly can make any difference in our country or bring any meaningful change then they are living in cuckoo land. Besides which nothing good can come from Jonathan and his PDP. The whole thing is an attempt to divert attention from their own shortcomings and dwindling fortunes and to divide the ranks of the opposition.

    For the last 20 years some of us have been calling for a national conference but we have always insisted that the resolutions of that conference must be ’’sovereign’’ and binding on all, that it must comprise of representatives from every nationality in the country (no matter how big or small) and that it must have, as it’s first item on the agenda, whether Nigeria should remain as one and, if so, under what terms.

    Anything short of this is fake. It is nothing more than a palliative. It is a ‘’made in China’’ copy of the original. If you take the ‘’sovereign’’ out of the ‘’national conference’’ it is like taking the ham out of a ham sandwich. All you will have left is a talk shop whose recommendations will eventually be tossed into the dustbin by both the Federal Government and the National Assembly.

    The almighty Federal Government of Nigeria is not about to give up it’s awesome authority and ability to control literally everything and everyone in our country by allowing devolution of power from the centre, resource control, autonomy for the regions, derivation as a principle for revenue allocation, the right of every nationality to self-determination and to seceed from the federation, the confirmation of the secularity of the state, the confirmation of the rights of all religious, gender and ethnic minorities and all the other wholesome, progressive ideals that the true believers hold so dear.

    The PDP is simply incapable of delivering all these things and no PDP President, least of all one like Jonathan, would ever make such concessions. The PDP is a party of wily old dinosaurs and conservatives. When the time for a real conference comes it will not be by government fiat but as a consequence of a series of unpleasant, unforseeable and violent events that will compel us all to come to our senses, to come to the table and to once and for all sort out our differences or just go our separate ways. That is the bitter truth. It will never be given to us on a plate.

    Today, there are many within the corridors of power that have made their position clear and that have left no-one in any doubt about where they stand on this issue. One of them is Senator David Mark our amiable Senate President who recently said “I’ll crush the bid to add ‘sovereign’ to the National Conference’’. Many of us may disagree with Mark on this but at least he has the courage of his convictions and he is not one of those that relishes in double-speak and subtefuge. He has told us that he wants a conference but that he doesn’t want it to be ‘sovereign’. Good for him. My only prayer is that the Senate President himself doesn’t get ‘’crushed’’ in the process of trying to resist the ‘’sovereign’’ in the conference because when it’s time comes, no force on earth can successfully resist the people’s will, the forceful struggle for freedom and the right to self-determination.

    Permit me to end this contribution with the words of another man who was painfully honest about his intentions right from the start and who also had the courage of his convictions. In 2001, when pressed on the issue of the virtues of convening a sovereign national conference, President Olusegun Obasanjo said ‘’I cannot surrender the sovereignty that was given to me by the Nigerian people’’. Many of us found Obasanjo’s position on this issue unacceptable and downright repugnant. Yet one thing that we could not take from him was that he did not offer what he was not prepared to give. He went on to convene a national conference in 2005 but, like Jonathan’s one today, it was not sovereign and consequently it had little relevance or meaning. Many of us lampooned Obasanjo for outrightly rejecting the idea of a sovereign national confrence at the time and on March 18th 2001, I wrote the following words in a scathing essay for the Comet Newspaper (which later transmuted into The Nation) titled ‘’President Olusegun Obasanjo, The National Question And The Imperatives Of A Sovereign National Conference’’. I wrote-

    ‘’As a direct consequence of the gradual degeneration of the Nigerian state, the passionate campaign and vigorous agitation for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) is once again steadily gathering momentum. For even though we have a “democratically” elected government in power today, the fact remains that the, “National Question” is yet to be answered. And until we have searched our souls and settled some outstanding fundamental issues that still exist among our varous nationalities, until the brutal role of internal  colonialism has been completely and irrevocably shattered, Nigeria cannot possibly prosper and neither can she achieve her full potentials. This is because there can be little doubt that the many problems that this country faces cannot be solved simply by the establishment of democracy, the provision of good government and the equitable distribution of ministerial portfolios.

    There is far more to it than that and anyone that seriously believes otherwise must have been living on another planet for the last 41 (forty-one) years. And with all due respect to President Obasanjo’s efforts, it is painfully obvious that a sovereign national conference remains the only permanent solution to the myriad of complex problems in this country. For example, when did we as a people ever agree to stay together as one? And even if we ever did, what were the terms of our union? Did the people of the South ever agree to become perpetual slaves to the Fulani ruling class and their military collaborators? And even though we have a southerner in power today, what happens in 2007 after Obasanjo goes? Or can he remain there forever? Will the hegemonic forces, at that point, not insist on taking the Presidency back to the core conservative north? And in the event of this happening will we not have come back to square one? And in any case when did the south ever agree to assume the role of a wealthy yet submissive and timid wife that has been systematically and consistently cheated, raped and sodomised by a domineering and arrogant northern husband?’’

    Harsh words indeed but those days called for harsh words and extreeme measures. Needless to say, I wrote the essay one year before I met Obasanjo and after eight years of being radicalised by the annulement of the June 12th 1993 election of Chief MKO Abiola, five years of self-imposed exile in Ghana and six years of watching my people, the yoruba people of south-western Nigeria, being persecuted, tormented, butchered, jailed, tortured, driven into exile and humiliated by General Sani Abacha and his military junta. All that had a profound effect on me. These were the words of a man at war and to all intents and purposes, we are still at war in this country because nothing has really changed. The cry for a sovereign national conference is as legitimate today as it has ever been and until we have one Nigeria can never know peace.

    Those that have been seduced by Jonathan’s promise and charm offensive in this matter will soon learn that he is simply deceiving them. It is a poisoned chalice. At the end of the day, their greatest expectations, hopes and aspirations will be dashed and frustrated and they will be made to look like utter fools. A man that does not have the passion, strength and conviction to crush Boko Haram cannot possibly muster the necessary wherewithal or cultivate the strength of character to liberate the numerous ethnic nationalities that make up our country from the bondage, tyranny and oppression of an all-powerful centre. Some have said that the national conference is ‘’Jonathan’s gift to Nigeria’’. I strongly urge those that honestly believe that to remember the words of the Trojans- ‘’beware of the Greeks, especially when they bring gifts’’.

  • 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.

  • ‘National Conference won’t solve nation’s problems’

    ‘National Conference won’t solve nation’s problems’

    As the National Conference Committee begins its first sitting today in Akure, the Ondo State capital, an activist lawyer, Dr. Tunji Abayomi, has said a confab will not solve the nation’s challenges.

    Abayomi said: “The report that the National Conference will be ratified by the National Assembly confuses us about what would achieved by the conference. If all that is to be achieved is to talk and send the tresolutions to the National Assembly for ratification, then we have not moved an inch forward. The National Assembly has not resolved the agitation of our people for a people’s constitution to replace the 1999 Constitution, which was forced on us by military dictatorship.

    “Another unwarranted ratification will neither improve constitutional thought, effect legality nor meet the expectations of Nigerians. The National Assembly cannot give us a constitution by amendment. The complaint that led to the call for a National Conference is that the diverse people of Nigeria, who are separated by language, morality, location, religion and region, need to agree on the terms of their relations in a free national dialogue originated by the free will of the people. This is different from a political council with politically-directed interests and personalities.”

    The activist said the National Assembly had no power to decide the nature or structure of government for Nigerians.

    He said as mere agents, they cannot ratify the will or wish of the people as ordained in a valid constitution.

    Abayomi said: “What we want is not another ratification or amendment, but a process that will bring about a people’s constitution, instead of a military constitution. And it would seem sensible that this process be greatly promoted, considering the tense nature of the relationship between our diverse peoples.

    “Besides these concerns, what then is the intent of the Dr. Femi Okurounmu panel, if before it even begins its work, the President has already decided the ‘modality’ it is given the power to ascertain. Are we sure that this President’s promise to assuage a legitimate demand for a constitutional conference is not merely mocking the people of Nigeria?”