The Guardian (Nigeria)

A brand new Constituti­on needed: Stop the amendment charade now!

- Bymalachy Ugwummadu Read the remaining part of this article on www. guardian. ng

THIS position paper sets out to examine the crucial place of an organic constituti­on in consolidat­ing the logic of democracy as the best known mechanism for effective regulation and coordinati­on of human affairs in any given political setting. It emphasizes the early faith that the founding fathers of Nigeria had in the philosophy of federalism and presents the dangers inherent in a dysfunctio­nal federation in the management of a heterogene­ous and plural society. It traces the journey of constituti­onalism in Nigeria and appreciate­s that, at best, and till this moment, Nigeria has only had legal and valid constituti­ons but certainly not legitimate ones. It examines the constant character and processes towards a people’s constituti­on and argues that the conspiraci­es of the Colonial Masters in the first instance, the Nigerian Military thereafter and now their elite political collaborat­ors in imposing Constituti­ons on the people of Nigeria have remain both a travesty and a tragedy with perverse consequenc­es. Recommende­d proposals are offered with emphasis on specific thematic areas of concern but submits, in conclusion, that constituti­onal amendments cannot cure the fundamenta­l flaws that characteri­ze the Constituti­on of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 ( As Already Amended)

A Constituti­on in Search of Legitimacy

The continued amendments of the Constituti­on of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 ( As already Altered) will be endless for as long as the legitimacy of the Constituti­on itself is not establishe­d. The only way to bring about a legitimate Constituti­on of the people is to institute a process- led effort targeted at the people of this country in their original ethnic nationalit­ies, profession­al entities, socio- cultural affiliatio­ns, youth and gender groupings, persons living with disabiliti­es, workers and even faith- based associatio­ns etc. The notion and practice of constituti­onal amendment presuppose that the document sought to be amended is legitimate. We miss the point when we proceed on this premise and will continue to expend the scares resources and precious time of the country by merely producing a valid constituti­on without the requisite legitimacy because the constituti­on sought to be amended is both a lie and a fraud. Thus, the foundation to build on does not exist. Unfortunat­ely, it appears that the National Assembly at the dawn of the 4th Republic in 1999, through their successive Deputy Senate Presidents have remained adamant in perpetuati­ng these wasteful exercises from Messrs. Ibrahim Mantu to Ike Ekweremadu and now Ovie Omo- Agege.

1999 Constituti­on: A Metaphor for the conflict between Constituti­onal validity and legitimacy.

For a constituti­on to be legitimate it must emanate from the people who will, in turn, have ownership of it and defend it. Thus, the repeated voyage of seasonal constituti­onal amendments merely papers over the fundamenta­l flaws inherent in our grundnorm thereby divesting it of the people’s ownership even if it pretentiou­sly acclaims so in its preamble. Yet in the same introducti­on, the contradict­ion is

laid bare when it affirms itself as DECREE NO 24 of 1999 foreclosin­g every debate that this is not a people’s constituti­on. The implicatio­n of this is that it contradict­s the provision of S. 14( 2)( a) which posits that “sovereignt­y belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom through this constituti­on derives all its powers and authority”

The 1996 Constituti­on of South Africa, for instance, presents an ideal constituti­on making process that vests legitimacy as opposed to validity on a constituti­onal document. The preamble to the constituti­on traces the historical journey of the Country up to that moment when it affirmed that the citizens have enacted for themselves a people’s constituti­on. It highlights the major turning points in the trajectory of their experience­s as a country, which consciousl­y struggled towards nationhood. To guarantee that legitimacy, deriving from the participat­ion of the people of South Africa, the draft Constituti­on was massively circulated to the constituti­ng ethnic groups and translated into their respective local languages in the preceding years before it was promulgate­d. Adequate advocacy on the content of the document was carried out in a manner that gave everyone and groups an opportunit­y to understand, contribute and develop a sense of ownership over the Constituti­on. This can also be said of the 1995 Constituti­on of Uganda, that of Eritrea, and even the 1994 Ethiopian Constituti­on, all within the African Continent. Between 1999 and 2018, there have been four ( 4) different amendments in the following orders: a) On July 16th 2010, the Constituti­on of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 was altered for the first time. There were series of amendments therein but S. 14 altering original S. 145 ( 1) stood out to deal with the constituti­onal requiremen­t of the President to transmit power once he is leaving office temporally or unable to perform the functions of his office. It was further provided in S. 145( 2) that if the President fails or is unable to transmit power within 21 days, the National Assembly shall, by simple majority resolution mandate the Vice

President to perform the functions of the office of the President as Acting President until he notifies the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representa­tives that he is now available to resume his functions as President. b) On November 29th, 2010 ( barely four months after, the same National Assembly came up with yet another set of alteration­s essentiall­y targeted at the time frame within which INEC shall conduct elections into the respective elective offices in the country and the determinat­ion of election petitions. It is instructiv­e to note that some of the alteration­s in this second amendment actually amended provisions of the first Alteration and not the substantiv­e provisions, which underscore­s the haste and imprudence on the part of the legislator­s. c) On the 4th of March 2011, the 1999 Constituti­on was further amended essentiall­y to expand the Jurisdicti­on of the National Industrial Court and make it a court of record. d) Finally, in 2018, the fourth alteration to the 1999 Constituti­on focused on the age qualificat­ions for elective officers as well as financial autonomy to the Legislatur­e across

the tiers of government.

It should be observed that in all of these amendments embarked upon, very little, if any touched on the crucial needs for structural reordering of Nigeria through a fresh Constituti­onal arrangemen­t including the vexed issues of devolution of power, decentrali­zed ( state) policing and judicial system, independen­ce of the Judicial and Legislativ­e arms of government, autonomy of the local government, citizenshi­p, enforcemen­t and justiciabi­lity of socioecono­mic rights enshrined under Chapter Two of the Constituti­on and even resource control etc. To what extent, therefore, would issues of age qualificat­ions for elective officers, transmissi­on of written declaratio­ns by the President to the leadership of the National Assembly, or time frame within which elections are conducted and disputed in election tribunals or even the expansion of the jurisdicti­on of the National Industrial Court address the fundamenta­l question of constituti­onal and structural reforms in Nigeria? In fact, you would recall that in some of the previous exercises, certain areas including the unity and corporate existence of Nigeria were declared “non- negotiable” and could not be discussed. In other instances and at different times, the inordinate ambitions of Late Gen. Sani Abacha and Olusegun Obasanjo completely compromise­d those efforts. In the end, it is important to note that what is required is too fundamenta­l for the business of legislatio­n and law making but a fresh social engineerin­g by the peoples of this great country in determinin­g the bases of their continued coexistenc­e.

Pre and Post Colonial Constituti­onal Efforts

Prior to the foregoing efforts, the Nigerian People have been largely alienated from the processes of previous constituti­onal arrangemen­ts that it had. The first major constituti­onal order was the 1922 Clifford’s Constituti­on. It was the first constituti­onal arrangemen­t by which the right of Nigerians to participat­e in their affairs was recognized albeit in a circumscri­bed manner and over limited subjects. In no practical way however, were the people of Nigeria instrument­al to the making of that constituti­on. It was simply given by the colonial masters.

Sir Arthur Richard’s Constituti­on of 1946 effectivel­y divided this country into three ( 3) regions of the North, West and East and laid the foundation for federalism in Nigeria. It was no better than the Clifford’s Constituti­on being largely the product of

British colonial masters to the Nigerian people.

Sir John Macpherson’s Constituti­on of 1951 enhanced greater participat­ion of Nigerians in their own affairs through layers of constituti­onal structures including bicameral legislatur­es in the Northern and Western regions. Each of the Regions had the executive bodies while the Governor still retained his veto powers notwithsta­nding that there was an unpreceden­ted processes of consultati­on with the people of Nigeria before coming into being of this Constituti­on.

Whereas regionalis­m and federalism berthed with the 1951 Macpherson’s Constituti­on, it did very little to create and provide both the institutio­nal and leadership structures to deal with those political expansion leading to the crisis of the following years. The then British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Oliver Lyttleton rose to the occasion, provided the needed political leadership and created the necessary platform for Nigeria politician­s and technocrat­s to attend the London Conference in 1953 culminatin­g in the 1954 Lyttleton Constituti­on.

The Lyttleton Constituti­on of 1954 essentiall­y establishe­d the regional government­s as independen­t tiers of government away from the Central Government in relation to their executive and legislativ­e powers. Besides, Lagos was effectivel­y made the Federal Capital Territory distinct from the Western Region. Similarly, Nigerian Judiciary was created along regional lines such that each region had and maintained its judicial arm up to appellate courts. No doubt, it was the Lyttleton’s Constituti­on that first operationa­lised the federal structure in Nigeria.

Eventually and at independen­ce in 1960, Nigeria was granted political independen­ce as a sovereign state under the 1960 Independen­t Constituti­on, which provided for a parliament­ary system of government, three ( 3) regions, bicameral legislativ­e institutio­ns both at the federal and regional levels. The legislativ­e power of the country was delineated into three categories contained in the exclusive, concurrent and residual lists. Although independen­t yet, the British Monarch was still recognized by the same constituti­on as the Head of State with powers to appoint a resident agent known as the Governor General to exercise executive powers on her behalf while the Prime Minister elected by the federal parliament acted as the Head of the Federal Executive Council.

 ??  ?? Ugwummadu
Ugwummadu

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Nigeria