The National Conference rose last week after a four-month deliberation. Its report is expected to be submitted to President Goodluck Jonathan on Thursday. Where does the country go from there since the conference had no legal backing? Precious Igbonwelundu asks.
Introduction
FOUR months after it began sitting, the National Conference rose last week with a voluminous report to be submitted to President Goodluck Jonathan on Thursday.
President Jonathan inaugurated the conference with pomp last March 17 to jaw-jaw on how to correct the foundational problems of the nation.
Coming at a time of ethno-religious conflicts, political tensions, insecurity, massive unemployment and poverty, observers described the President’s action as a ploy to win public sympathy, especially because the conference was not backed law.
Sceptics insisted that the gathering was not a national conference unless its outcome would be subjected to a referendum so that the Federal Government would neither abandon nor tinker with it as previous recommendations by such committees.
But, despite these controversies, Jonathan, at the conference’s inauguration, charged delegates to deliberate on all issues except the nation’s unity, which he tagged “non-negotiable.”
When the conference kicked off, there was no stopping it. There were occasions the sessions were rowdy, with delegates almost engaging in fisticuffs, but they always resolved their differences at the end of it all.
Conference’s Recommendations
In the course of performing its assignment, the conference made far-reaching decisions, including that elected officials should automatically vacate their seats if they defect to another party and that elective offices like that of the president be rotated among the six zones.
It encouraged the creation of state police for states who desire it; the establishment of constitutional court as well as an anti-corruption court; the creation of 18 new states and that creation or dissolution of local governments should be the business of states, by extension, suggesting a two-tier federal system.
Other new recommendations are compulsory military service for all Nigerians; approval of independent candidacy; appointment of 18 ministers with at least three from each of the six geopolitical zones; merger of states; and establishment of Independent Grand Jury to investigate impeachable offences against a sitting President.
The conference also recommended that most of the responsibilities undertaken by the Federal Government be shifted to states and the central government should concern itself with issues of defence, foreign relations, monetary/economic policy and any issue affecting the entire states; it resolved that the revenue sharing formula be tilted in favour of the states since they have been assigned the bulk of the responsibilities; reduction in the cost of governance; local government financial autonomy and removal of immunity currently enjoyed by the president and governors.
It also recommended the scraping of the government’s sponsorship of pilgrimage; increment in derivation funds from the current 13 per cent; and life imprisonment for persons convicted of raping minors.
The issue
Although many Nigerians have congratulated the conference for doing a marvellous job, observers have expressed concerns that the wonderful report like previous ones may never see the light of day.
Some have expressed doubts that the legislators, saddled with law making and amendments, but most of who have been accused of widespread corruption, would accept the recommendations against their interests.
They fear that the resources, time and even death of some delegates may come to nought should the Federal Government, out of selfishness, refuse to amend the Constitution to accommodate the conference’s report, especially on devolution of power and a weaker central government, restructuring of the revenue sharing formula and rotational presidency.
Analysts say the country may be plunged into a deeper crisis should the efforts of the delegates be wasted, bearing in mind that the best the President can do is to draft a bill based on the report and forward it to the National Assembly for approval, which may be turned down.
For a constitution amendment, at least two-thirds majority of the states must be in support, aside the National Assembly, whereas, for a referendum to come into effect, all eligible voters would be required to participate to arrive at the final binding decisions.
Either way, the National Assembly, perceived to be anti-conference, has a great role to play because nothing can be accomplished without its support.
Where do we go from here?
The reality and delicateness of the situation has dawned on Nigerians, who are wondering what the next line of action would be after Jonathan receives the report. Will the Federal Government implement the outcome? Should there be a referendum for the people to decide on the report? What can be done to resolve the dilemma?
Lawyers, who aired their views, described the position as a dilemma, just as they noted that there was no clear-cut position on the fate of the conference’s report.
They noted that the National Assembly has a greater role to play to save the Federal Government from ridicule.
One of the delegates to the conference and a professor of Law, Akin Oyebode, expressed doubt that the National Assembly would endorse the recommendations because the legislature had shown vehement hostility to the conference.
“Now that we have concluded our assignment, the ball is in the court of the Nigerians to accept or reject our recommendations. The Federal Government, in my view, had better accepted the recommendations if it does not wish to become a laughing-stock.
“Here we have a congress of some of Nigeria’s most illustrious citizens coming with far-reaching recommendations after gruelling discussions for more than four months.
“From day one, the National Assembly had evinced its vehement hostility to the conference. So, quite frankly, I’m not really enthused by the thought of passing our recommendations to it. Their attitude is quite predictable.
“I am on record as saying that the people themselves should have the last say on the confab recommendations by way of a national referendum just as happened in several African States. After all, we often mouth the shibboleth that sovereignty belonged to the people. Let us for once live up to that averment.”
A Professor of Law, Taiwo Osiptan (SAN), congratulated the conference, but said the government should not accept all its decisions.
He said: “The conference did well, but it is now left for the government to accept and reject some of its recommendations. It is not possible for the Federal Government to accept everything. It will accept as many as possible and reject some.
“I think what the Presidency can do at this point is to sponsor a bill to the National Assembly reflecting the resolutions it accepts for the amendment of the constitution.
“To me, issues like the devolution of power, local government autonomy are non-negotiable and the government must accept them. Devolution of power aims at making the central government unattractive.”
Osiptan said a referendum coull only arise if the country was talking about a new constitution.
“You can talk of a referendum if it is a new constitution, but if it is an amendment of the existing constitution, then, it is the duty of the National Assembly. Again, it is not legally or factually possible for all Nigerians to vote at a referendum. We will still have to rely on representatives,” he said.
Constitutional lawyer Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) said there have been a lot of confusion regarding where the report should go.
“Some have said it should go to the National Assembly to be passed into law. Of course, if that is done, it would mean a constitutional amendment, which will involve at least two-thirds of the state.
“Others are talking about referendum, in which every Nigerian of voting age will participate. Each of the process requires the National Assembly’s endorsement.
“For me, I would prefer a referendum to be held because that is the only way to get all Nigerians involved and the National Assembly would have no basis for amending or tinkering with the report.
“Some areas of the report are, indeed, controversial, such as the issue of rotational presidency. This is because it distorts the right of any Nigerian to aspire to any office at a particular time. Such things can be done politically, not legally.”
He went on:“There is a contradiction in saying local governments belong to the state and a state can create any number it desires or dissolve and then, still saying you want to give it autonomy. That is for the state which created it to decide. The local government is created for the convenience of the state and not the other way round.
“If you want states to have control of local government creation and administration, then, it has no business being in our constitution and you cannot talk about its autonomy. If local government are going to be states affair, why make provision for local governments in statutory allocation? You let the states fund whatever local governments they have, so, that again is a contradiction. Though, the idea of local governments being within the state is a good one.
“Despite my observations, I do not think the conference was a waste of time. They did well in a number of areas. They did well in devolution of powers and suggested also that the formula for sharing money between Federal and states should change with states receiving higher.”
On the proposed creation of new states, Sagay called the recommendation ‘madness’. “That is madness. I do not know another term to qualify it. It is definitely madness for any Nigerian to talk about creation of more states in the sense that virtually all the states we have now are not functional. Most of them survive purely on the hangouts they get from the Niger Delta oil proceeds.
“So, why create 18 additional babies, who are going to be permanently on a feeding bottle? It does not make sense,’’ said Sagay.
Another constitutional lawyer, Norrison Quakers (SAN), said Nigerians must understand that constitution amendment is the prerogative of the legislative arm of government.
“While, we commend the President for initiating the conference , the far reaching recommendations cannot be implemented by the President. The President cannot also initiate a referendum on the amendment of the Constitution, so as to incorporate the far reaching recommendations.
“I hope that the President’s efforts will not be politicised. It is imperative for the legislative arm of government and the executive to work in the common interest of Nigerians in ensuring that recommendations, which presumably are the expectations and agitation of Nigerians across religious or ethnic divide, are implemented,” he said.
To former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Ikeja branch Chairman, Monday Ubani, the country is in a quagmire over what to do with the conference report.
He faulted its recommendation on creation of new states, insisting that a referendum should be the way out of the current dilemma. He lamented that the conference had ended with no clear-cut provision of what will happen to its report.
“Some of the decisions reached at the conference were very qualitative except on the creation of new states, which I consider a minus on those quality decisions. From the look of things the country is in quagmire presently with those decisions. Where should it go to? The presidency? The Legislature? To a referendum?
“If to a referendum, is there any law backing such? I am afraid none. Warning: May this exercise not be a wasted effort as the survival on this country lies on God and peaceful resolutions of several sore points tearing us apart through a round table discussion like this conference. We should not blow this away as any such action will be to our detriment as a nation,” he said.
According to Ubani, the conference presented the nation with a last opportunity to stem the tide of disintegration.
“Everyone in Nigeria except the political class is aggrieved with the present entrenched system that has several faulty foundations. The country is not working. However, it is working for insignificant few that are presently mismanaging the affairs of the country.
“What some of us advocated from the beginning concerning this conference was for a proper legislation specifying the architecture of the conference which should have Included the modalities, personalities and what will happen to its conclusions.
“That advice was spurned at and from the look of things the conference has ended without any clear vision as to what will happen to the outcome or decisions of the confab. Our advocacy has always been that we need a new constitution which should be a product of a constituent assembly through instrument of referendum. The people must have the last say on the provisions of the constitution that is needed for the new Nigeria through a referendum,” said Ubani.
