Constitution amendment: The issues, debates, contributions et al

[Mirror]

Following the conclusion of debate on the draft bill of the 1999 Constitution last week by the Senate, GEORGE OJI, who followed the exercise looks at some of the issues raised and hazards the possible voting pattern of the senators on the major issues up for amendment today.

At last, the much hyped and talked about debate of the 1999 draft constitution review bill, which took place in the hallowed chambers of the red chamber turned out to be an anti-climax after all.

The quality of contributions by senators to the debate on the draft bill, to say the least, was very drab and uninspiring. Except perhaps for a few of the senators who came prepared, by taking some time out to research their presentations, the rest, in reality, merely spoke for the sake of speaking.

From every indication, the earlier counsel by the Senate President David Mark that, "senators should take home the draft bill, study it seriously and come prepared for the debate," was not taken seriously at all. Unfortunately, most of the senators in their contributions went way out of the issues up for debate as they busied themselves with matters that had no direct relevance and bearing to the issues placed on the table before them.

For instance, the issue of the immunity clause, which was not one of the proposals before the Senate and obviously not one they will be required to cast their votes when voting commences today, yet senators expended so much time and energy debating it and in the process failed to accord appropriate attention to a number of the proposals put on the table for them by the review committee.

Also, perhaps, because of its sensitive nature, the single term of six years took a lot of energy from the lawmakers, such that every senator commented on the issue even when most of them were merely repeating the points previously made by their colleagues.

The result was that the debate generally lacked the excitement and enthusiasm expected of such an important and epoch-making process. However, when this issue was taken up with the Leader of the Senate, Victor Ndoma- Egba, expectedly, he was quick to put up some defence for his colleagues. "The debate offered an opportunity for the senators to ventilate their opinion in all the issues that have to do with the constitution.

They were at liberty to comment on any of the issues they felt like," he said. Then, of what value was such a wasted approach to the process, one may be tempted to ask when each of the senators were already restricted to five minutes contribution time and a time keeper appointed to enforce the rule? To simplify the entire process, the review committee had synthesized the issues and provided a direction for the senators to follow, just to make the whole exercise less cumbersome.

The committee clearly provided a road map to guide the debate by setting out and itemising the proposals and recommendations up for consideration. Indeed, Ndoma- Egba also did admit this fact when he stated that voting would only take place on the items or proposals that were placed before the Senate by the review committee.

"When voting starts this week, the Senate will only vote on the proposals placed before it by the Constitution Review Committee and not any other matters," he stated. The 46-member Senate Constitution Review Committee headed by Senator Ike Ekweremadu, had from the onset, delineated 16 thematic issues for review from the 1999 Constitution. The essence of that, according to Ekweremadu, was to properly guide the amendment process so as not to dissipate much energy unnecessarily.

The thematic areas are: the devolution of power, creation of states, recognition of six geo-political zones in the constitution, role for the traditional rulers, local government, taking out (land use act, NYSC act, code of conduct), fiscal federalism and amendment of provisions relating to amendment of the constitution; state creation and boundary adjustment – to remove ambiguity.

The rest are immunity clause, Nigerian Police, judiciary, executive, rotation of executive offices, gender and special groups, mayoral status for the Federal Capital Territory Administration and the residency and indigene provisions.

However, following over one year of extensive research, study tours, collating proposals from the public, strategic collaboration with key partners, consultations with stakeholders and feedbacks from national and zonal public hearings, when the Senate Review Committee eventually presented its report to the Senate shortly before the end of the second session of the 7th Senate on June 3, the 16 thematic issues were further compressed to about 10.

The final draft document placed before the Senate for consideration by the review committee contained therefore just about 10 items or thereabout, and these are only the items that will be voted for. These items are the single six-year term for the elected executives (president and his vice and the governors and their deputies), removal of state-local government joint accounts, an elected mayoral system of administration for the Federal Capital territory (FCT) and the separation of the office of the Attorney General from that of the Minister of/Commissioner for Justice.

The rest are the procedure for drafting and enactment of a new constitution, presidential assent, creation of first line charge for certain bodies and offices at the state level, the process for the alteration of acts, devolution of powers and the remuneration of past presiding officers of the National Assembly.

Six-year single tenure

The single tenure recommendation is contained in section 135 of the draft constitution (for the president and his vice) and section 180 (for the governors and their deputies).

For the president and his vice, section 135 states that, (1) Subject to the provisions of this constitution, a person shall hold office of President until: When his successor in office takes the oath of that office; He dies whilst holding such office or; The date when his resignation from office takes effect; or He otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this subsection (1) of this section, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of six years commencing from when: (a) in the case of a person elected as President under this constitution, he took the oath of allegiance and the oath of office and: (b) in any other case, the person elected to that office under this constitution took the oath of allegiance and oath of office or would but for his death, have taken such oaths.

Succession of President

Concerning the succession of a president by his vice, the committee recommended that the vice president can only serve out the remaining tenure of his prinhapcipal and not be eligible to run for the office of president again.

That recommendation is contained in section 136 of the draft constitution. Section 136 (2) states that, "Where a Vice President-elect or Vice President succeeds the President-elect or the President in accordance with subsection (1) of this section, he shall not be eligible to contest for the office of the President in any subsequent election.

Hope dims for single tenure

Going by the plethora of opposition to the single tenure proposal during the debate on it on the floor of the Senate, one will not but wonder how the committee came about the recommendation in the first place. Indeed, all the senators who contributed to the issue spoke in unison in rejection of the proposal.

For instance, in his presentation on the issue, Senator Ali Ndume (Borno North), said: "I don't even know how the committee came about this recommendation in the first instance."

For Ndume, instead of thinking of a single tenure, there should be a provision that should require elected representatives to go back for mid-term to review their mandate with the people.

"I am even thinking that we should start thinking of mid-term elections whereby the electorate will have the opportunity of passing vote of confidence on us. In two years, we should be able to go back to the people to decide," the lawmaker said.

For Senator Isah Galaudu (Kebbi North), the proposal, if approved will be retrogressive because it will not give the motivation and punishment for good behaviour and would instead encourage corruption. "There will be more polarisation, more tension in elections for a single term because opposition will want to do everything possible to capture power from the ruling government," he said.

Senator Clever Ikisikpo (Bayelsa East) in his opposition to the single term proposal stated: "I do not agree with it because it does not look like a democratic system of government; it is undemocratic. If we allow a government to stay for a single term, anybody in power will want to behave as he likes because he will say it is my turn and since I am not coming back, let me do what I want." Senator Ahmed Lawan (Yobe North) simply opined that the single tenure is an investment in disaster, invitation to chaos and anarchy, stressing that it is undemocratic.

Senator Mohammed Magoro (Kebbi South) on his part was of the view that single term is an indication of our inability to mature politically in this country and that legislating against the current office holders nails the coffin on the proposal.

Senator Victor Lar (Plateau North), who stressed that his opinion on the matter was the reflection of his constituents' views, described the proposal as an institutionalisation of corruption, since it will also enthrone dictatorship and impunity on the elected officials. Considering the summation of the views of the lawmakers on the proposal, there is no doubt that this recommendation will fail to scale when voting is taken on it by the Senate.

Local government autonomy

On the issue of local government autonomy through the abolition of the joint states/local government account, the review committee stated that it arrived at this recommendation to make for accountability and effective local government system.

The review committee proposed that all funds due to each of the local governments from the federation account shall be paid directly to such council areas.

This of course is with a caveat i.e. for any local government to be a beneficiary of this new financial regime; it must be a democratically elected council.

Section 162 where this is contained states in subsection (5) that, "any amount standing to the credit of the local government in the federation account shall be allocated and paid directly to the local governments for their benefit on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

(6) The amount standing to the credit of a local government without a democratically elected council shall be withheld until there is a democratically elected local government council in such local government."

However, opinions on this proposal were greatly divided during debate on it by the senators. For instance, while some lawmakers called for a wholesale adoption of the proposal as presented by the review committee, others were of the view that good as the proposal may be, there is need to refine it and bring in some checks such that it will not serve as a meal ticket for council chairmen to embark on fragrant abuse of council funds.

Senator George Sekibo (Rivers East) in supporting the proposal observed that the performance of the local government councils in the country currently is not proportional to the quantum of funds available to them; whether through direct or indirect funding.

He was, however, of the opinion that direct funding is better because it will not be tampered with by the state governors. This, he noted, is with a caveat because if there is no adequate supervision or people to monitor how the funds are going to be spent, the council chairmen will not use the money properly.

The alternative way out, for the lawmaker was perhaps to make a law directing the state governments to ensure that they do not tamper with the funds of the local government councils. Senator Robert Boroffice (Ondo North) was very vehement that financial autonomy should not be extended to the local government council authorities.

"I believe that we should not grant them any autonomy because if you look at the quality of people who serve now as chairmen and councillors of councils in some parts of the country, I don't think they can be entrusted with that kind of economic power," he said.

In his contribution on the issue, Senator Mathew Nwagwu (Imo North), while supporting the abolition of the joint state local government account, subsequently recommended that the Auditors General of the various states should audit the accounts of the councils.

For Senator Ndume, "This is quite commendable because we should be concentrating on building and strengthening our institutions;it is only when we so do that we will be strengthening our democracy." If the overriding opinion of the senators on this recommendation is anything to go by, then the final verdict when the voting is done will be that this proposal will scale through.

Mayoral status FCT

Concerning the proposal for a mayoral status for the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, the Senate Constitution Review Committee explained in its recommendation that a mayoral status for the FCT was not only in keeping with the practice in many capital cities of the world, but it is also to ensure efficient administration of the FCT.

According to the proposal, there shall also be a deputy mayor for the city. It also recommended that the mayor and his deputy must emerge through the process of an election. It further made similar provision for state governors for the mayor as well. Section 302 where this provision is contained states in subsection (1) that, "There shall be for the Federal Capital Territory a Mayor.

(2) The National Assembly shall make law to provide for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of the office of Mayor of the Federal Capital Territory. Almost all the senators who contributed debate to this proposal favoured the recommendation but with some minor observations. For instance, Senator Mohammed Magoro (Kebbi South) said the issue that needs further clarification on is whether the mayor that will be elected will be attending the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting?

Sekibo, while supporting the proposal observed what he described as a leaking point with that provision, said. "I agree with it but there is still a leaking point. If you read sections 81 and 121 of the constitution and you also read sections 291 and 301 (a) of the constitution, it states that the moment we allow that status to FCT it assumes the status of a state, therefore there must be a provision for the process of accessing their budget.

"Its budget has to come to us through a communication from the Presidency, the budget has to come to us as if it is a state of the federation and be laid before the National Assembly before it is transmitted to a committee of the National Assembly to vet.

If we do not do that, we will be making some mistakes." Commenting in a similar manner, Senator Clever Ikisikpo (Bayelsa East) observed that, "The recommended status talks about a mayor that will take the status of governor and deputy governor, but the practice elsewhere such mayors usually assume the status of local government chairman within the locality.

We need to look for a very good name that can do the work. I support the mayoral status but the name does not get down well with me." Going by the aggregate view of the senators on this proposal, it should have a smooth sail on the voting day.

State police not on the table

On state police, even though the review committee objected to the issue of state police and preferring instead to retain the present federal structure, senators commented extensively on the subject matter. For senators from the South-West, the issue ought not to have been dismissed like that by the review committee.

Boroffice while stressing his strong belief on state police said the fear that state police would be abused by the governors can be addressed by ensuring that the Attorneys General are elected and they are in charge of the state police as is the case with the United States. He noted: "If we have that arrangement here, the fear of using state police to oppress opposition will not arise."

Lar, another strong advocate of state police observed that the review committee was not fair enough for state police agitators by the way the committee dismissed the matter. He noted that the current happenings in the troubled state of Borno today has further proven the imperatives of state police.

According to the lawmaker, "that the Senate excluded this is not fair and we believe that it is a matter that should be revisited. My governor and my state have been in the forefront of canvassing for state police.

We do not have a better way to express such necessity than what is happening today in Borno State where civil JTF have mobilised to support the military JTF and you can see the outcome of that collaboration.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the civil JTF have arrested more Boko Haram than the military JTF have been able to do in many years." It is not certain the position the Senate will take on this matter; whether it will be re-listed for review or just consigned to another round of future review when it will be more matured for re-consideration as the committee proposed.

Separation of Attorney General and Minister/ Commissioner for Justice

The issue of the separation of the office of the Attorney General from that of the Minister/Commissioner for Justice as proposed by the review committee also attracted some commentary from the senators.

The review committee had in its proposal designated the Attorney General of the Federation or the state as the Chief Law Officer of the federation and the state as the case may be. To further guarantee the holder of the office of the Attorney General, the committee recommended that the appointment must be made by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Also, the tenure of the Attorney General must be tenure-based.

In this regard, the committee recommended a seven year, nonrenewable tenure. Also to further insulate the holder of the office from politics, the committee recommended that such a person must not be a member of any political party nor a civil servant. The justification of this recommendation according to the committee is to guarantee the independence of the office of the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF.

Only a few senators commented on the issue. However, some of the lawmakers who contributed to the debate on this proposal expressed disapproval of it. For instance, Lar said his people outrightly opposed the idea.

Also, Nwagwu said his people also opposed it because they we were of the opinion that it will be double counting and counter-productive. It will be difficult to call, how voting on this item will go since there were not enough opinion on the proposal by the senators.

Presidential assent on bills/consent on a new constitution

Another proposal that may be very difficult to predict how voting on it may swing is the issue of presidential assent on bills as well as presidential consent on a new constitution.

Section 9 of the constitution, which deals with the procedure for drafting and enactment of a new constitution now denies presidential assent for a new constitution to come into being, while section 58 and 100 now makes it automatic for bills passed by both the National and states Assemblies to automatically become law if at the end of 30 days, either the president or governor as the case may be, refuses to assent to the bill.

Many senators who commented on this proposal urged caution because the proposal conveys the impression of authoritarianism and lack of adherence to the principles of separation of powers. Ndume while disagreeing with such proposals noted that democracy is all about interchange of ideas.

He believed that, "adopting the clause as recommended by the committee will be tying down the hands of the president and that is not fair." For Lar, "My people said they do not subscribe to dispensing with the presidential assent and governors as proposed in section 58 and 110 of the proposed amendment bill."

Boriffice, who bought into the recommendation, argued that he did so, "because we are the elected representatives of the people and when we send any bill to the president, we are representing the views of our people in the bill." The take is that the senators will be inclined to listening to the voice of reason and not approving of the proposal

Devolution of powers, roles for traditional rulers, state creation

The issue of devolution of powers will most likely scale through as many senators who contributed to the proposal demonstrated inclination to it. It is not certain whether the issue of roles for the traditional rulers may be listed for re-visiting because there were convergence of views that it was unfair on the part of the Senate to have deliberately refused to make provisions in that line.

The same also may apply for state creation as the majority view of the senators favoured the re-visiting of the issue based on the emotions and sentiments attached to it by the electorate. In all, we may be witnessing a watereddown voting today as indications point to the direction that not all the major and farreaching proposals may scale through the voting process today.

National Mirror