Constitution review: National Assembly on another jamboree?

Constitution review: National Assembly on another jamboree?

Will the 68 recommendations of the National Assembly on the review of the 1999 Constitution see the light of day or will the proposals go the way of several others? This is the question that is begging for an answer. In the wisdom of the lawmakers, the amendments have been separated into different bills, so that they can vote for them on their merit. The implication is that there is no certainty that many of the recommendations will become law. 

The idea of a piecemeal amendment of the 1999 Constitution is not a popular one among the generality of Nigerians. Lawmakers over the years have not helped matters because they concentrate on areas that would advance their interests, rather the national interest. The lawmakers spend a lot of taxpayers’ funds conducting public hearings across the country. But, at the end of the day, the views of Nigerians are usually not reflected in the recommendations. They are manipulated in favour of the interests of the political class, particularly those of the lawmakers. As a result, attempts to amend the constitution in the past have often failed because they fail and to get the two-thirds approval of states’ legislature.

Ideally, laws should be made for the greater good of the greater majority of Nigerians, rather than those of the political class. But, since 1999, lawmakers only tried to advance their interests. Take, for instance, the 68 recommendations that the National Assembly would be considering this week; a great chunk of it is about the interests of members of the National Assembly. These include the recommendation to grant immunity to presiding officers, to approve a pension for them, and to force the executive to adhere to legislative processes, procedures and motions.

Besides, Nigerians have often regarded the preamble of “we the people…” that precedes the 1999 Constitution as a false claim because the constitution was a product of the military and thus lack the participation of the people. Since the advent of democracy in 1999, every assembly has made attempt to amend provisions of the constitution. Until, the 8th Assembly, none of the amendments has seen the light of day as the various amendment ends up being rejected by the executive. However, the 8th Assembly decided to take a different approach to the amendment, breaking it into bits and passing each on its merit. The 9th Assembly followed the pattern of the 8th Assembly and today, 68 bills which came out of the process are ready for approval by the lawmakers before they are transmitted to the states. Two hundred and forty members of the House of Representatives and 72 senators must agree to these provisions before they are transmitted for concurrence by the state Houses of Assembly, having already been harmonized by the joint committee on constitution review.

During the amendment by the 8th Assembly, there were 33 proposals for the amendment of the constitution, but many of them never saw the light of day. Out of the 33, 28 bills were passed by either the Senate or the House of Representatives and sent for concurrence in the other chamber. Seventeen were passed with concurrence, four passed with differences by the two chambers while 17 of them were transmitted to state Houses of Assembly for concurrence in line with the constitutional provisions.

The state assemblies ratified 12 of the 17 bills which were transmitted to the president for his assent. Unfortunately, only five of them were asserted to and have become part of the constitution, while the president declined assent on five of them. One of the bills that were vetoed by the president then was the bill that sought to encourage timely presentation and passage of the appropriation bill by reducing the period within which expenditure shall be made in default of an appropriation Act from six to three months. The president’s excuse then was Section 2 (b) and Section 3 (b) of the bill did not take full cognizance of the provisions of Section 58 4) of the constitution thereby increasing the likelihood of a government shutdown. This provision has been reintroduced in the current amendment, but with modifications.

The new bill in the current amendment seeks to ensure that the annual appropriation bill is presented to the legislature both at the state and the federal level not later than three months before the end of the year, while the lawmakers will be duty-bound by the constitution to pass the document latest by December 31 of that year. This is to forestall a situation where the budget presentation and passage is delayed as it was in the previous government, thereby subjecting the economy to serious turmoil, while government extends the previous year’s budget, leading to uncontrollable spending in most cases.

The president also vetoed the bill which sought to, among other things alter the constitution to allow act as members of commissions or constitutionally/legally established bodies by virtue of their office or office as members of the legislature. It also sought to provide immunity for members of the legislature with regards to words spoken or written at plenary sessions or committee proceedings, institutionalize legislative bureaucracy in the constitution and provide for the State of the Nation address by the president at a joint session of the National Assembly.

Also, the president refused to give assent to the bill which sought to change the name Nigeria Police Force to Nigeria Police to reflect its core civil mandate as well as the bill which sought to further strengthen the judiciary for speedy dispensation of justice. Also vetoed from the amendment of the 8th Assembly was the bill which reflected the establishment and core functions of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, which was a consequential amendment upon the inclusion of the Civil Defence Corp in the exclusive legislative list in the second schedule to the constitution. Another bill of importance that was vetoed by the president was the bill that provided for the procedure for overriding presidential veto in the constitutional amendment, as well as the bill that provides a specific period within which the president or the governor of a state shall present the appropriation bill to the National Assembly or state House of Assembly, as well as the time frame for the lawmakers to pass the law.

At the state Houses of Assembly level, the state lawmakers failed to endorse the amendment which sought to abrogate state-local government joint accounts and provide for local government councils to maintain their own special account and also provided for savings in the federation account before distribution to other levels of government. They also failed to concur with the bill which sought to strengthen democracy and the effectiveness/efficiency of local government administration by making constitutional provisions for their democratic existence, funding and tenure of office. The local government system is the only tier of government without a uniform tenure. The tenure ranges from two to three years in different states of the federation, including the Federal Capital Territory where the tenure of elected local government councils is three years.

Available information reveals that only about 11 states supported the idea, which is a far cry from the 24 states required for it to sail through. Although the provision has been reintroduced in the current amendment and broken into financial and administrative autonomy for local government, it is not certain that the states would allow it to sail through. Governors of the states were believed to have impressed it upon their lawmakers in the last amendment not to support the issue of local government autonomy. While the majority of the governors then were first-timers, the tide has changed at the moment with about 22 of the governor completing their tenure of office, while the remaining 14 are still serving their first term. With the penchant to control local government councils, it is yet to be seen whether the two bills on local government autonomy will sail through the state houses of Assembly.

Some political observers are already of the view that if the state assemblies muster the courage to endorse the provision, the president will have no problem assenting to it considering the fact that he has been at the forefront of local government autonomy. Also, the state assemblies failed to concur with the provision which sought to streamline the procedure for assent to ensure timely passage of bills, as well as the bill which sought to provide for independent candidacy in an election. They also failed to concur with the provision which sought to make the Office of the Auditor General of the Federation and the Office of the Auditor General of the states financially independent by placing them on the consolidated revenue of the federation and of the state. This means that the Auditor General of the Federation would be funded directly on a first-line charge. But the state legislators rejected the proposal.

However, the leadership of the National Assembly is not unaware of the task ahead of them in trying to get the states to have buy-in, especially in some of the provisions that may not be too clear to them, or those that the state governors may be opposed to. Cognizant of the role they have to play in making their work successful, the leadership of the constitution review committee of the two chambers brought Speakers of State Houses of Assembly to Abuja for a two-day retreat aimed at explaining the provisions to them and getting them to agree with their positions. At the session which took place at the Transcorp Hilton, Deputy Senate President, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege said it was important to interface, reflect and engage the state legislators as partners working for the peace, unity and development of the country.

He stressed that the requirement of Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution positions state legislatures as distinct and critical partners in constitution alteration, adding that the success of the current exercise largely depends on the support and partnership of state legislators. He reminded his colleagues that after passage by the National Assembly, the proposal still need to go to the state for their endorsement.

Omo-Agege said: “The proposed amendments in the bills we have shared with you set out institutional and legal reforms, which together with sufficient political will, will help to strengthen institutions of governance, provide for accountability and transparency in governance; and create an independent judicial system that would ensure effective administration of justice in Nigeria. The overarching rationale for the amendments contained in these bills is thus predicated on the need to amongst others; strengthen the legislature’s authority to enable it to serve as an effective pillar of checks and balance to the executive; strengthen independent constitutional bodies; create and strengthen a culture of good governance; address the issues of corruption, revenue leakages and unbridled government spending. I know it is the desire of every Nigerian that this process will bring positive transformations to our country. Therefore, we should all leverage this retreat to bequeath to our nation a constitution that speaks to the yearnings and aspirations of every Nigerian.”

The Deputy Speaker, Ahmed Idris Wase, said: “We have worked tirelessly to engage, negotiate, debate, lobby, review and persuade in order to reflect the various competing and contrasting aspirations of Nigerians of different leanings and backgrounds. One thing we are sure of is that no one has been left behind. We have aggregated all manners of proposals, sorted them out to meet the constitutional guidelines and criteria and have ultimately harmonized positions after lengthy debates and majority votes on several critical issues.”

While insisting that they were working for the general interest of Nigerians, Wase said: “We have no preconceived positions on anything. We believe that we must do whatever is necessary to provide a platform for Nigerians to air their views, give their positions and canvass whatever they feel would make our country better, and make governance more efficient and successful. We also are cognizant of the fact that we cannot work in isolation if we must achieve a concrete result and deliver on the promises we have made to Nigerians. Whatever we have done will still go through the State Houses of Assembly for their own input and vote. Hence the need for this collaborative synergy which will give us the opportunity to engage, consult and harmonize for a smoother, tidier and more efficient constitutional review.”

But, Chairman of Conference of Speakers of State Houses of Assembly and Speaker of the Bauchi State House of Assembly, Abubakar Suleiman did not allow the euphoria of the event to take the better part of him. He told the lawmakers that for them to achieve what they set out to achieve, they must ensure that the presidency is carried long in the amendment process. He said: “We have the onerous responsibility of altering the constitution to meet the needs and yearning of our people and this we must do to the admiration of the citizens. We are confronted with certain challenges in the country that bothers on insecurity, economy, devolution of power, weak institutions among others.

“The conference of speakers subscribes to the calls that the review of the constitution is one of the legislative actions at our disposal that could be explored to address these challenges. We, therefore, call on members of the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly to take this opportunity of yet another alteration exercise to address many agitating issues such as restructuring, devolution of power, community and state police etc. We appreciate the inclusiveness in the exercise.”

One recommendation contained in the document that may likely attract public interest during voting by the lawmakers is the provision seeking to reserve as many as 111 additional seats for women in the federal legislature and 108 additional seats for women in the 36 Houses of Assembly in a proportion of one woman additional woman per senatorial district. Interestingly, the section states that these additional seats shall be reserved for women only, while they are also qualified to contest the existing seats along with the men. This is one of the provisions in the amendment concerning women which will be voted upon by the National Assembly and sent to state Houses of Assembly if it sails through. Advocates of the amendment are of the view that since the issue of affirmative action may not achieve the desired objective of getting more women into the parliament, reserving special seats for them may be the only way out.

The issue of Diaspora voting, judicial reform, immunity for legislators among others will also be of particular interest. Benjamin Kalu, Spokesman of the House of Representatives said some of the amendments are aimed at giving Nigerians a sense of belonging. he said the current amendment being considered is the most far-reaching amendment ever done on the constitution. For example, he said the decision to include the much canvassed independent candidacy in the constitution was to give eligible Nigerians the opportunity to offer their service to the country. He explained that over the years, there have been qualified Nigerians who seek to contest for positions in the country but are denied such opportunities by the political parties. Kalu said with the provision of independent candidacy in the constitution, such Nigerians will be able to contest for a position without necessarily going through any political party.

On the issue of Diaspora voting, Kalu said disallowing Nigerians in Diaspora the opportunity to vote has not helped the nation’s democracy in the past, adding that allowing them to vote will give them the opportunity to have a say in how the money to repatriate to the country annually is spent. However, the lawmakers have set conditions for allowing Nigerians in the diaspora to vote, one of which is that such a Nigerian must hold a valid Nigerian passport. According to the law: “To be eligible to vote in accordance with Subsection 2 of this section, the citizen of Nigeria shall be at least 18 years old; hold a valid Nigerian international passport; have lived in Nigeria for a period of at least five years from a minimum age of 10 years old, and be legally resident in any foreign country from where the person seeks to vote in the Nigerian election for at least 12 months. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is expected to issue guidelines for Diaspora voting.”

Other provisions in the new amendment include the creation of a mayoral seat for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). If the amendment sails through, it will remove the power of administering the territory from the president through the FCT minister. The lawmakers also seek to amend the constitution to provide for the appointment of a minister from the FCT, just like it is with the 36 states of the federation. Under the new constitution, the FCT will no longer be administered by the minister, but by a mayor, while an indigene of the FCT is to be appointed to represent the area in the federal cabinet.

The document also seeks to institutionalize legislative bureaucracy in the constitution; provide for the procedure for passing a constitution alteration bill where the president withholds assent and provide the procedure for overriding executive veto in respect of money bill. Other recommendations include a procedure for removing presiding officers of the legislature while providing a pension for presiding officers of the National Assembly and establishing the federal revenue court and the revenue court of a state.

On the side of the judiciary, the recommendations which will be voted on by the National Assembly next week seeks to strengthen the judiciary for timely dispensation of justice; and provide the timelines within which civil and criminal cases are heard and determined at trial and appellate courts in order to eliminate unnecessary delay in justice administration and delivery. It will also ensure uniformity in the retirement age and pension rights of judicial officers of superior courts of records in the country while deleting the reference to the provisions of the criminal code, penal code, Criminal Procedure Act, criminal procedure code or Evidence Act.

The law also seeks to expand immunity to the legislative and judicial arms of government and specify the time within which the executive shall present to the National Assembly any treaty between the federation and any other country for enactment.

It will also empower the National Assembly and state Houses of Assembly powers to summon the president and state governors to answer questions on issues on which the National Assembly and state Houses of Assembly have the power to make law. It also reduces the period within which the president or state governor may authorize the withdrawal of monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the absence of an Appropriations Act from six months to three months. It will ensure the establishment of the National and State Councils of Traditional Rulers to advise the president and governors on matters related to customs, security and public order.

As radical as the changes the lawmakers seek to make to the constitution, the hope of the provisions contained in it hangs in the balance as they must get two-thirds endorsement by state assemblies before they are transmitted to the president for his assent. Even after that, whether they become practicable or not also depend on the president and his aides. The question will then be, will the comprehensive amendment done by the lawmakers after public hearings across the country become law?

The Deputy Speaker added: “About 178 memos for constitution review was received by the house from Nigerians with 1,980 specific recommendations were received, adding that the issues were aggregated into thematic areas and members sponsored bills in line with people’s aspirations.”

In the time past, the argument has often been that the current constitution was a product of the military, hence the need to carry out the comprehensive review as a way to give Nigerians “the peoples’ constitution”.