By Famous Obebi Famous
fofamous1@gmail.com; 08147503671
There is no gainsaying that the conduct of groups, individuals and even nations is guided by laws which define boundaries of acceptable behaviour and prescribe sanctions in the event of infractions or breaches.
The importance of laws cannot be over emphasized. Indeed, without laws there will absolute anarchy, disorder and entropy; the state described by Thomas Hobbes, the philosopher where life is nasty, brutish and short; where the weak is exploited by the strong and might is considered right.
While some laws are written, others are not. For instance whereas the Nigerian Constitution and the American constitutions are written, the British constitution is unwritten and consists largely of conventions, court judgments and acts of Parliament.
Even so, the constitution is the grundnorm of any society. It defines the relationships among the three tiers of government and between the organs of government and the people. Section 1 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution provides unequivocally that the constitution is supreme.
Constitutions are amended all over the world. The 1789 American Constitution, for example has been amended twenty seven times while the 1996 South African constitution has undergone amendments at least seventeen times.
Nigeria’s journey at constitutional development has been long and tortuous. But suffice it to say that while the 1963 constitution ushered in the first republic the 1979 constitution ushered in the second republic. Of course, the 1983 constitution heralded the botched third republic while the current 1999 constitution remains the legal foundation of the fourth republic.
But the 1999 constitution has been a subject of intense controversy and debate. Political scientists and legal experts posit that it is inundated with lacunas. It is argued that the document itself has its sources and origin in the Decree No 24 of 1999 under the military regime of General Abdulsalam Abubakar, and therefore lacks legitimacy.
For instance the Land use Act which expropriates the mineral resources of the Niger Delta people is said to have been mischievously inserted into the constitution. Then there is the issue of extremely strong central government and weak federating units, making it appear like a unitary system as opposed to true federal structure. This is the fundamental problem.
The ongoing attempt to amend the 1999 constitution is actually the fourth. On June 3, 2010, November 4, 2010 and December of same year, various amendments were effected the last one, giving birth to the National Industrial Court.
In 2012, the Seventh Assembly attempted to do an omnibus amendment. The issues canvassed then are more or less the same as the ones in focus today. Indeed, the move was hailed by civil society groups and political watchers alike. But that excitement ended in fiasco, swallowing about N4billion of tax payers’ monies.
And then, in 2014, a National Conference was put together by President Goodluck Jonathan-as he then was- to cure the fundamental defects in the polity. At the end, the conference was regarded as the most successful in the history of Nigeria.
But again, up till now the 2014 recommendation has been consigned to the backwaters. The exercise is said to have gulped a whooping N7billion with the 492 delegates each getting N1.4 million weekly. The question is exactly how much the current exercise is costing the nation. No one seems to be telling Nigerians.
It is pertinent to note that Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution provides for a rigorous process of alteration. It says at least two-third of members of both houses of the National Assembly must vote in support of the amendment and the outcome transmitted to the 36 state houses of Assemblies 24 of which must also vote in favour. The outcome is then forwarded to the President for executive assent before the amendment bill becomes an Act. For chapter four which deals with fundamental human rights, the process of alteration is even more cumbersome; requiring a yes vote of four-fifth of members of both chambers.
Not a few persons have described the ongoing process of amending the constitution as highly commendable. But critics have picked gaping holes and described it as self-serving. They hinge their argument on the fact that although legislators had been outspoken on restructuring, their position in rejecting devolution of more powers to states and retaining the Land Use Act is tantamount to political hara-kiri and reveals the rotten underbelly of political hocus-pocus.
Of course, the exercise has also received heavy knocks from women groups and Labour unions who had hoped that the 35 per cent affirmative action proposed in the amendment would have received rapturous attention by legislators given their gender-friendly antecedents. Sadly this too did not happen.
In the Niger Delta, the feeling of disappointment is so palpable, and rightly so. The retention of the obnoxious Land use Act is a veiled attempt to treat with kid gloves the contentious issue of resource control, referendum and convocation of a sovereign national Conference.
To be sure, the Senate and Houses of Representatives have so far disagreed in 9 key areas. This means only 24 of the 33 items under consideration would be forwarded to the state houses of Assembly for concurrence when the Red and Green Chambers resume from their recess.
Therefore, the question on the lips of every Nigerian is whether the legislators are, indeed, simply playing to the gallery and throwing away the baby with the bath water, or they are, in fact, serious in the business of promoting political and social inclusion through this umpteenth attempt to amend the constitution.
It is on record that the legislators unanimously voted in favour of former Senate Presidents and Speakers of House of Representatives to form part of the National Council of States and by necessary implication, the federal executive council.
Equally true is the fact that the National Assembly voted in support of financial autonomy for state houses of assembly which many regard as a significant milestone
Yet it does appear to be a Greek Gift to ensure smooth sail of certain items at the state level especially since some items were rejected by state houses of assemblies in previous attempts.
All said and done, the onus is on civil society organizations and pressure groups including the media to bring pressure to bear on the state houses of assemblies to break away from the apron strings of overbearing state governors who will attempt to truncate and scuttle the process. An autonomous house of assembly and autonomous local government councils is a sure recipe for weaker state executive councils.
Finally, the contentious issue of whether the President has to assent to the 1999 Constitution amendment bill before it comes into force or not, should be brought before the Supreme Court for proper adjudication and interpretation in order to declare it res judicata, once and for all. After all, in the United States of America, Presidential assent is not required.
Until this is done, it is too early in the day to say “Uhuru”