THE
submission of the report of Justice Alfa Belgore-led Committee on the
Review of Outstanding Constitutional Issues to President Goodluck
Jonathan has once again raised fundamental issues about the 1999
Constitution and its inadequacies, which are currently on top of public
discourse. A major concern is the propriety of the exercise of
correcting the anomalies in the constitution. Does the country, for
instance need amendment of the document, or an outright review? Is there
a marked difference in the two options? Another concern is whether, in
view of numerous efforts undertaken in the past to reshape the
constitution, the current efforts will produce any meaningful result.
Without doubt, a combination of national factors makes a reform of the constitution inevitable. The country is being weighed down by insurgent activities and its consequent death toll. Killings verging on ethnic cleansing are rife, especially in Plateau State. These connived with inter-governmental crisis at the state and federal levels to make the country seemingly ungovernable. These concrete developments have engendered calls for a sovereign national conference from well-meaning Nigerians to redress the structural dysfunction of the Nigerian state, which, in the main, has accentuated the socio-economic and political problems besetting the country.
Although the call for an SNC has continued to endure, it would appear that the preference of the current administration is to tinker with aspects of the constitution that are inadequate. Both houses of the National Assembly have set up committees to ‘review’ the 1999 Constitution first described by eminent lawyer, Chief Rotimi Williams, SAN, as a document that lied against itself. The Emeka Ihedioha-led House of Representatives ad hoc Constitution Committee and Ike Ekweremadu-led ad hoc Senate Constitution Review Committee have been variously mandated to identify the inadequacies of the extant constitution for possible amendment, in addition to the Belgore Committee set up by the executive arm of government to look into the fundamental rights of the citizens, security of lives, local government administration, Land Use Act, the judiciary and provision of infrastructure. Importantly, the committee suggested the need to do away with the colonial justice system prevailing in the country to date; and even veered into social issues such as the upgrade of electricity generation to about 40,000 megawatts that ought to be the routine duty of any responsive government.
While the committee made suggestions on issues perceived as consensual, indications are that the committee could not go further because it does not have the mandate of the people, thereby raising fundamental questions about the review exercise. Are we overhauling the constitution or amending it? The understanding of the process by the lawmakers is doubtful, and unless the conceptual clarity is established, the current process will end up in the dustbin of history like previous exercises while the country continues to decay.
It is clear that the ongoing process is an amendment exercise and not a review. This is normal as it is provided for in Section 9 of the extant constitution as follows: “The National Assembly may, subject to the provisions of this section, alter any of the provisions of this Constitution.” What is worrisome about the process is that the number of issues to be amended is a multitude that makes mockery of an amendment practice.
Some of the issues billed for amendment are complex, demanding utmost care. For example, in addressing the dichotomy between indigenes and settlers, it should be understood that Nigeria is not an immigrant society but a nation of indigenous people. It cannot be resolved by simplistic inclusion of provisions in the constitution by way of amendment. It is composite and demands critical engagement. Above all, what exactly are the objectives of this exercise? Do the reviewers want to re-invent the wheel or build a united state? Today, the country is not working. It needs restructuring, not by a piecemeal amendment of the constitution. A review rather than amendment is imperative to make the country work. Presently, the lie of the state is such that whoever climbs the saddle of leadership might not be able to deliver public goods until the country’s structural problems are corrected. It should be noted that it is the failure of leadership to deliver public goods that has occasioned constitutional issues as matters of the moment.
A more far-reaching review of the constitution is fundamental. The constitution is the organic laws of the state and ‘a thing antecedent to a government’. It is therefore not a subject fit for the National Assembly; rather, it is a matter for a constituent assembly with sufficient education of the Nigerian people and which outcome should be subject to a referendum. The lessons of the past have been that most constitutional exercises have not been process-led with input from the people, and therefore, have come to naught without any force of legitimacy. These lessons should be taken into account in the current process. The multiple engagements by sundry committees on the review of the constitution have turned the whole exercise into an industry of some sort. Incumbent lawmakers were elected to run the country, not to change the constitution; the task of overhaul or a change of the constitution must be done by the Nigerian people.
Without doubt, a combination of national factors makes a reform of the constitution inevitable. The country is being weighed down by insurgent activities and its consequent death toll. Killings verging on ethnic cleansing are rife, especially in Plateau State. These connived with inter-governmental crisis at the state and federal levels to make the country seemingly ungovernable. These concrete developments have engendered calls for a sovereign national conference from well-meaning Nigerians to redress the structural dysfunction of the Nigerian state, which, in the main, has accentuated the socio-economic and political problems besetting the country.
Although the call for an SNC has continued to endure, it would appear that the preference of the current administration is to tinker with aspects of the constitution that are inadequate. Both houses of the National Assembly have set up committees to ‘review’ the 1999 Constitution first described by eminent lawyer, Chief Rotimi Williams, SAN, as a document that lied against itself. The Emeka Ihedioha-led House of Representatives ad hoc Constitution Committee and Ike Ekweremadu-led ad hoc Senate Constitution Review Committee have been variously mandated to identify the inadequacies of the extant constitution for possible amendment, in addition to the Belgore Committee set up by the executive arm of government to look into the fundamental rights of the citizens, security of lives, local government administration, Land Use Act, the judiciary and provision of infrastructure. Importantly, the committee suggested the need to do away with the colonial justice system prevailing in the country to date; and even veered into social issues such as the upgrade of electricity generation to about 40,000 megawatts that ought to be the routine duty of any responsive government.
While the committee made suggestions on issues perceived as consensual, indications are that the committee could not go further because it does not have the mandate of the people, thereby raising fundamental questions about the review exercise. Are we overhauling the constitution or amending it? The understanding of the process by the lawmakers is doubtful, and unless the conceptual clarity is established, the current process will end up in the dustbin of history like previous exercises while the country continues to decay.
It is clear that the ongoing process is an amendment exercise and not a review. This is normal as it is provided for in Section 9 of the extant constitution as follows: “The National Assembly may, subject to the provisions of this section, alter any of the provisions of this Constitution.” What is worrisome about the process is that the number of issues to be amended is a multitude that makes mockery of an amendment practice.
Some of the issues billed for amendment are complex, demanding utmost care. For example, in addressing the dichotomy between indigenes and settlers, it should be understood that Nigeria is not an immigrant society but a nation of indigenous people. It cannot be resolved by simplistic inclusion of provisions in the constitution by way of amendment. It is composite and demands critical engagement. Above all, what exactly are the objectives of this exercise? Do the reviewers want to re-invent the wheel or build a united state? Today, the country is not working. It needs restructuring, not by a piecemeal amendment of the constitution. A review rather than amendment is imperative to make the country work. Presently, the lie of the state is such that whoever climbs the saddle of leadership might not be able to deliver public goods until the country’s structural problems are corrected. It should be noted that it is the failure of leadership to deliver public goods that has occasioned constitutional issues as matters of the moment.
A more far-reaching review of the constitution is fundamental. The constitution is the organic laws of the state and ‘a thing antecedent to a government’. It is therefore not a subject fit for the National Assembly; rather, it is a matter for a constituent assembly with sufficient education of the Nigerian people and which outcome should be subject to a referendum. The lessons of the past have been that most constitutional exercises have not been process-led with input from the people, and therefore, have come to naught without any force of legitimacy. These lessons should be taken into account in the current process. The multiple engagements by sundry committees on the review of the constitution have turned the whole exercise into an industry of some sort. Incumbent lawmakers were elected to run the country, not to change the constitution; the task of overhaul or a change of the constitution must be done by the Nigerian people.
No comments:
Post a Comment