Finally, Fourth Alteration to 1999 Constitution Hits a Dead End
The Threat as a Ruse? With Senate’s change of mind on the override move last week, the struggle for supremacy over the fourth alteration to the constitution is no doubt a forgone conclusion as the National Assembly would not revisit the matter any longer. The best it will do will be to await the ruling of the Supreme Court on June 18 even though the outcome will not remedy the situation no matter how favourable.
In other words, it had been the lots of the executive to celebrate its triumph over the National Assembly as Senate’s decision to stop the move to override the president’s veto had automatically made the executive the winner. Reason: any bill that is not signed into law before the expiration of the lifetime of a legislative assembly is of no use and can only be consigned to the dust bin of history. The lifetime of the current seventh National Assembly expires on June 6, less than two weeks before the next adjournment date on the matter in the Supreme Court. It is therefore suspected that the Supreme Court will eventually strike out the case on June 18 because both the plaintiffs and the defendants would have vacated their respective offices at the time.
This made keen observers of the scenario to describe the fresh threat of legal action by Ndoma-Egba as nothing but a mere face saving measure as no legal action would be initiated anywhere. The Senate’s decision to truncate the override move had automatically created both the winner and the loser in the struggle. This is moreso that federal government’s counsel, Chief Bayo Ojo, was quick to dismiss the claim by the Senate leader that the National Assembly was not put on notice before the Supreme Court issued an order on May 7, asking the former to put off further amendment plans. According to Ojo, the lawmakers were not only duly served with the court process, but the leadership of both chambers were also duly written letters notifying them about the court process. The Biggest Loser While the executive eventually became the winner in the chain of contests over the amendment bill between it and the legislature, the biggest loser, however, is the Nigerian populace which owned the huge financial and material resources committed to the exercise that lasted for over two and half years.
Whereas the failed agenda gulped nothing less than N4 billion, it turned out to be a mere exercise in futility. No thanks to the executive-legislative brawl. The experience appears only to affirm the ancient axiom that whenever two elephants fight, the grasses become the victims as the Nigerian citizenry who gained nothing from the failed amendment exercise havew become the victim of power struggle between the executive and the legislature. Who Failed the Nation? Each of the two arms of government has engaged in a blame game over the truncated exercise. While the executive accused the legislature of evolving the amendments via a flawed process, the latter on the other hand had said the accusation was self-serving. Yet both arms of government have ensured that the truth is hidden from the entire public.
While the executive claimed to have accessed the Hansard of both houses of the National Assembly on the amendment with records of violation of four-fifths majority required to pass the amendment, the legislature on the other hand, described the claim as untrue. Hence, Nigerians expect each of the two arms to absolve itself of any wrong doing by making the document public. This has not been done. The current grandstanding over the amendment has been perceived as a dangerous move that can have adverse effects on any further amendment process in the future.
First, the stalemate is perceived to have the capacity to erode the faith of the Nigerian public in further amendments as the masses who turned out en masse to make inputs into the ill-fated process may demonstrate apathy to further moves in the future. The eternal maxim, “once beaten, twice shy,” may come to play in this regard.
Second, it can mar the confidence of Nigerians in both the executive and the legislature to better their lots on other issues of constitutional importance.
The National Assembly, particularly the Senate, is pained that the exercise flopped. This accounted for the reason it had been at the forefront of the struggle to remedy the crisis caused by the rejection of the amendments. Enter a Civil Group The failed move to override the president’s veto notwithstanding, the executive has one more hurdle yet to cross as a civil society organisation, The Media People, joined the fray last week, with the commitment to compel Jonathan to make the original bill on the amendment available to the public.
The president has persistently ignored the demand by the Senate for a return of the original amendment bill sent to it with a view to ascertaining the allegation that he had earlier signed the bill before he was allegedly prevailed upon by the Attorney General and Justice Minister, Mohammed Adoke, to change his mind.
Therefore, in its drive to ascertain the truth, Media People had written a letter to the president on May 11, demanding for the release of the original bill through the power of the Freedom of Information Act.
An excerpt from the letter as signed by the group’s facilitator, Paul Onwude, and obtained by THISDAY, read: “We write to humbly request access to sight, inspect and have coloured photocopy and scanned copy of the above named document in its original form as transmitted by the Clerk of the National Assembly to the President on the 26th March, 2015, through the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), according to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011.
“We would like the photocopy and scanned copy of the said bill to include the signature page, showing the raw ink mark or signature of the Clerk of the National Assembly as transmitted to the President through the SGF. We would further also like to have access to sight, inspect and have photocopy and scanned copy of the Records of Bills movement between the President and the National Assembly through the SGF, including the Register of Correspondence received and sent to the National Assembly.
“We would very much appreciate if our request is given the needed prompt attention or not later than 7 days from the date of the receipt of this letter in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011.”
Will the president comply? It is left to be seen. Memory Lane The battle between the executive and the legislature over the constitution amendment began on April 13 when the president wrote both Senate President David Mark and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, announcing his decision to withhold his assent from the constitution amendment.
In the letter, the president accused the lawmakers of whittling down presidential powers and failing to strictly adhere to constitutional provisions on the amendment to Section 9 of the constitution by observing four-fifths majority support in each chamber before it could amend it.
The president had argued that the National Assembly only observed two- thirds majority support for the amendment instead of four-fifths stipulation in the constitution before amending the section.
The amendment to the section strips the president of the power to sign an amendment bill before becoming effective.
Following the president’s letter, the Senate on April 15 demanded the return of the bill to the National Assembly by the president. The demand was the fallout of an allegation that the president had earlier signed the bill before he was prevailed upon by the AGF to withdraw his assent.
Suspecting that the National Assembly might move to override the president’s veto as a result of the demand, the federal government proceeded to the Supreme Court to stop the National Assembly from further carrying out any legislation on the amendment bill with the intention to render it handicapped.
Consequently, the Supreme Court eventually ruled on the suit on May 7, asking the National Assembly to maintain the status quo ante on the amendment until the final determination of the suit. The court also described the suit as incompetent, observing that it should have been between the president and the National Assembly and not the AGF and the National Assembly as the case had been.
But in defiance of the court order and with the claim that the Judiciary as an arm of government had no power to stop another arm from performing its constitutional duty, the National Assembly proceeded to gazette the amendment bills produced by both houses on May 11 with the mission to immediately commence moves to override the president’s veto.
Consequently, the Senate listed the first reading of the bill on its Order Paper on May 12. But suspecting that it would not have the quorum to complete the process even if it began on Tuesday, the Senate stood down the first reading of the bill and appealed to all members to report the following day for an executive session.
Despite the appeal, the attendance was paltry, fuelling beliefs that the main reason the Senate backed out of the move to override the veto was the fore knowledge that it would never secure the required majority to pass the bill.
Since over 70 senators lost their return bids to the Senate, most of those who lost out except the few of them have completely lost interest in legislative activities. Hence, they have been staying away from the chamber. Thus, it has been a struggle for the Senate to record 35 per cent attendance since April 13 when it reconvened from election break. The situation is not different in the House of Representatives.