WITH the inauguration on October 7 of the committee on national dialogue, President Goodluck Jonathan took a significant step towards providing Nigerians with a credible platform to fashion for themselves a document that can be truly referred to as the People’s Constitution. This is bearing in mind that the current constitution cannot be said to be a true representation of the feelings of Nigerians about the way they should be governed, since it was cobbled together by the cronies of the late maximum ruler, Gen. Sani Abacha, primarily to facilitate his transmutation from a military despot into an “elected” civilian President. We agree strongly with President Jonathan’s overall goal. As the existing document has become unworkable, nothing short of a new document, drawn up by a democratically-elected constituent assembly without “no-go areas”, and adopted by a referendum, will meet the challenges of the times.

This is a defining moment in Nigeria’s history. As is widely known, Nigeria amended its 1960 independence constitution in 1963. There was a military coup in 1966; various attempts were made to produce a new constitution, which were largely thwarted by a civil war and other coups, until a new constitution was adopted in 1979. This was also overthrown by a coup in 1983. A new constitution adopted in 1989 was again ended by a coup, and yet another constitution had to be adopted in 1999.

Although the mandate of the 13-member National Advisory Committee on Conversation towards a Greater Nigeria, as the name indicates, is purely advisory, it is nevertheless of enormous significance, since the committee is expected to produce the framework for the conference. This means that, barring further tinkering with its report by the President, the committee will determine whether this conference will be different from the previous ones or will actually succeed in allowing Nigerians to confront their destinies and determine the best way for them to live together as a nation. As a former Attorney-General of the Federation, the late Bola Ige put it. “There are two basic questions that must be answered by all of us Nigerians. One, do we want to remain as one country? Two, if the answer is yes, under what conditions?” An adjunct to these questions naturally is: if the answer is no, how do we go our separate ways?

It is not surprising that Jonathan’s decision to give a national dialogue a chance has attracted so much reaction. Is the President sincere or just playing political games? Does he possess the necessary strong political will to see it through? This must not be seen as the President’s project, but a national task that must be accomplished. Just as opinions have tended to be convergent on the need for a national conference, respondents have however differed on whether the conference should be sovereign or not. Most of those who oppose giving the conference a sovereign status have argued that sovereignty belongs to the National Assembly. They are dead wrong. Sovereignty belongs to the people.

The National Assembly may claim to be representing the people, yet, real and ultimate sovereignty belongs to the people. So, if the people are saying that this is what they want, no amount of representation should deny them what rightly belongs to them. Jonathan was spot on when, in his speech, while inaugurating the committee, he said, “Sovereignty continues to be with the people, even as the people evolve strategies and tactics to strengthen its foundation for the benefit of successor generations.” This means that not even the National Assembly can usurp the legitimate rights of the people on matters bordering on sovereignty.

Many may wonder if the purpose here is to advocate a disintegration of the country; it is not. What is being advocated is a return to the path once trod in the past, which brought about peace and development. In the First Republic, with the 1963 Republican Constitution – which to date remains the best model for the country – every region had its own autonomy. Each controlled its own resources and paid royalties to the centre. As a result, there were healthy rivalry and economic prosperity. While the West held fast to its cocoa, the North made good use of its groundnuts and cotton. In the East, it was palm produce, which Nigeria was the number one producer in the world, while the Mid West had rubber and timber as its economic mainstay. For the purpose of re-negotiating Nigeria, the constitutional model that seems acceptable is the 1963 constitution; one shorn of unitary military elements that have defined the country since 1966.

Unfortunately, since the advent of the unitary system, where the centre has appropriated all the resources and now determines what goes to the constituents, things have never been the same again. The urge to control the centre has become too overwhelming that the primordial differences that were covered up by the semi-autonomous nature of the First Republic are now being openly flaunted. The danger is real.

There is no doubt that ours is a country of diversities. There is no way that a country of over 400 ethnic groups can be the same. It is these differences that should be acknowledged and debated. The conference should focus on how the different nationalities can be made to live in peace, with none being subservient to the other. That is what obtains in the United States of America, Canada and other known federations.

In embarking on this national conference, therefore, it is important to find out how other countries that trod this path did theirs. In 1990, the Republic of Benin organised its national conference under a centrally-controlled government and took far-reaching decisions that paved the way for democratic rule. In the recently-concluded Somali conference, decisions taken by the conference included the making of a new constitution, federalism and resource sharing, among others. In countries such as Bosnia, Brazil, South Africa, Sudan and Russia, national conferences took decisions that led to new constitutions. Nigeria’s conference should not be different.

Fear of disintegration must not be allowed to hold us back perpetually. As George Bernard Shaw, an Irish playwright and co-founder of the London School of Economics, once said, “In this world, there is always danger for those who are afraid of it.” There must not be any legal limit to the issues that can be addressed at the conference. So, as the committee sets about doing its work, it is important that whatever it does must be given a legal backing. A proper legal foundation will ensure that the decisions of the conference cannot be tampered with or overturned by anybody or group, not even by the President himself or the parliament. Anything short of that will amount to a journey in futility.


http://www.punchng.com/editorial/window-for-a-peoples-constitution/

This is a dumb article!

The National Conference is not a Constitutional Draft Conference, two totally different concepts. The author of the above article is mis-educated in civics education.

National Conference is a dialogue conference to review and seal socio-cultural agreements, it has nothing to do with drafting legal documents.

National Conference is a discussion on sovereingty and dependence/independence.

Someone need to sponsor the author to go take civic lessons.

Dudu_Negro: This is a dumb article!

The National Conference is not a Constitutional Draft Conference, two totally different concepts. The author of the above article is mis-educated in civics education.

National Conference is a dialogue conference to review and seal socio-cultural agreements, it has nothing to do with drafting legal documents.

National Conference is a discussion on sovereingty and dependence/independence.

Someone need to sponsor the author to go take civic lessons.

Imagine you that attended an "ASUU strike bastardized" school, trying to teach someone else. Teacher dont teach me nonsense!

theoctopus:

Imagine you that attended an "ASUU strike bastardized" school, trying to teach someone else. Teacher dont teach me nonsense!