Constitutional Amendments that Put Presidency, Senate on Different Pages
Less than six weeks to the end of this government, the Presidency and the Senate are engaged in a face-off following President Goodluck Jonathan’s decision to reject the recent amendments to the constitution. Omololu Ogunmade explores issues bordering on
For the better part of last week, the executive and the legislature resumed a fresh wave of hostilities following the rejection of fresh amendments to the constitution by President Goodluck Jonathan. Without mincing words, the president announced his decision to withhold his assent, citing shoddy job done by the legislators as well as deliberate attempts to whittle down presidential powers. In withdrawing his assent from the alteration bill, the president highlighted a range of flaws inherent in the amendments, which he said left him with no option than to veto the bill.
Amendments to the Constitution
In passing the amendment last year, the lawmakers created a new Section 150 in the constitution with a view to separating the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) from that of the Minister of Justice. The section provides that anyone who will occupy the Office of the Minister of Justice must have practised Law for no fewer than 10 years and must be appointed by the president along with other ministerial nominees.
On the other hand, while theAGF office is entrenched in Section 174 (1) of the amended constitution, his appointment would be made by the president acting on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC). The-would-be AGF, according to the amendment, must have practised Law for at least 15 years and simultaneously possess the requisite knowledge of criminal justice system. He will among others, shoulder the responsibility of instituting criminal proceedings against people in a law court except court martial. He would also supervise, monitor, control and ensure that all government agencies with investigative and prosecutorial powers operate in accordance with the law.
The amendment also witnessed the entrenchment of independent candidacy as well as the concept of indigeneship into the constitution.
The introduction of indigeneship as a constitutional provision was seen as a laudable development. By this provision, any Nigerian citizen who was born in another part of the country or had resided in the area for at least 10 years would be qualified to claim indigeneship of the area. Also, a woman who is married to an indigene of a community in one of the states of the federation and prefers to alternate the indigeneship of her paternal community with that of her husband can equally lay claim to the indigeneship of the community.
By this provision, anyone who acquires the indigeneship of a place either by birth, residence or marriage will be entitled to all rights and privileges enjoyed by bonafide indigenes of that community.
While Section 9(4a) strips the president of the power to sign an amendment to the constitution, the new amendment also empowers the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to de-register any political party that fails to win at least one seat at an election or found to have breached any of the requirements for its registration.
In the same vein, new Section 8(b) of the constitution states that henceforth, “any proposal for the creation of a state is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the registered voters of the local government councils in the area voting at the referendum where the demand for creation of the state originated.”
This amendment is a sheer departure from the current provision which states that “a proposal for the creation of the state is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds of the people of the area where the demand for the creation of the state is originated.” This new amendment implies that only registered voters in a particular area will now be qualified to vote in any referendum for the creation of new states.
Also the new amendment had incorporated a section compelling the president to present a national address before a joint session of the National Assembly once in a year into the constitution.
Furthermore, the new amendment bars the president from signing subsequent amendments to the constitution. This was also done to ambush the president whom the court had empowered to sign an amended constitution in 2010 after the spirited fight by the National Assembly to stop the development proved abortive. After losing the case instituted by constitutional lawyers, members of the National Assembly who became aggrieved that the president by his signature, took the glory of the onerous task of amending the process were determined to ensure that the president’s victory was short lived.
While the amended constitution also provided that every Nigerian was entitled to free basic education and right to health, it as well empowers the National Assembly to override the president’s veto on a bill after 30 days of the president’s refusal to assent to it without returning it to the lawmakers.
This latter provision is incorporated as Section 59(4) of the new constitution.
The controversial amendment also creates the Office of Accountant General for the Federal Government that will perform functions that are distinct from those of the Accountant General of the Federation. While the former will be appointed by the president subject to Senate confirmation, the latter will also be appointed by the president but acting on the recommendation of the National Economic Council subject to Senate confirmation.
While the new constitution saddles the accountant general of the federation with administrative duties as well as disbursement of allocations from the federation account to all tiers of government, the accountant general for the federal government on his part was designed to supervise and administer federal government’s accounts. While the former was conceived to hold office for a term of five years that is renewable, the latter would hold office for a renewable term of four years. Both can be removed by the support of two-thirds majority of the Senate.
While the new amendment also empowers the Federal High Court to exercise jurisdiction on the trial of offences arising from violation of the provisions of the Electoral Act and any other act of the National Assembly, it stipulates 180 days for the conclusion of petitions before election tribunals and 60 days for conclusion of appeals at the appeal tribunals. It also provides that an appeal must be filed not more than 14 days from the day of judgment at the lower tribunal.
But the National Assembly exploited the power to amend the constitution at its disposal to inculcate some perceived selfish provisions into the constitution. One of it is the introduction of Section 7(a) into the constitution which confers immunity on lawmakers over words spoken or written in the hallowed chamber or before the standing committees.
Not done yet, the lawmakers proceeded to confer on themselves the power to prescribe civil or criminal sanctions against anyone who fails to honour summons issued by their resolution. With this provision, it will henceforth be a punishable offence for