Confab panel splits as Asemota submits minority report

11 December 2013



CITING the need to give President Goodluck Jonathan the best advice, a member of the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Solomon Asemota, has produced a minority report on the activities of the panel, in which his position on some of the terms of reference are in sharp disagreement with the reported recommendations in the majority report.

In the minority report, Asemota, who was a member of the Constituent Assembly that produced the 1989 Constitution that was never passed into law, essentially disagreed with the position of the majority report with regard to the use of referendum, selection of delegates and the very essence of the dialogue.

Asemota noted that with respect to the legal frame-work, Term of Reference No.5 that also bother on the use of referendum, it has been suggested to the Advisory Committee by experts that except for situations as may arise in section 8 (1b) and 8 (3b) of the 1999 Constitution, referendum defined as “action taken by people in order to make a decision about a particular subject rather than voting for a person” cannot be used without further amendment to the Constitution.

“I find it difficult to accept this view point; rather it is my view that referendum can be used without amending the Constitution.

Sovereignty, I submit, belongs to the people under Section 14 (2) of the Constitution and it will be wrong to suggest that the people’s decisions cannot be sought in a referendum except permitted under the Constitution. This suggests that sovereignty belongs to the Constitution and not the people. On whether in the draft bill, it should be stated that decisions of the conference shall be subjected to referendum, some members have suggested that the question of referendum should be left for the conference to decide and thus the law should be silent on it. I find it difficult to align myself with this view because several meanings could be read as to why this aspect was omitted and this will not be helpful to the Conference.

“One is opposed to universal adult suffrage proposed by the Majority Report notwithstanding the fact that the proposed conference is intended to produce a democratic constitution. The fact remains that the committee did not articulate who should nominate the delegates and with the challenges which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) currently has, it would be unsafe to saddle that body with a nebulous function of electing members to the National Conference. The question of referendum is easy in that Nigerians as a whole, as registered voters, would be called upon to answer a Yes or No question in order to approve a new Constitution. In any case, if the National Assembly refuses to pass the Bill into law, or decides to tinker with the conclusion of the committee, then it behoves the peoples of Nigeria to demand that they must have the final say.”

[b]Asemota said he associates himself with the position of the panel members that recommended construction of the conference structure on senatorial basis, but with modifications.

“Where there are, for example, more than 15 ethnic nationalities in a state, it is suggested that representatives of the more than 15 ethnic nationalities in places such as Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Cross River, Kaduna, Kebbi, Nasarawa, Niger, Plateau and Taraba states would meet to select the maximum approved for the Senatorial District, and those selected will have the additional duty to protect the interest of those who could not make it to the Conference. The President may be asked to consider these nationalities while considering his nominations to the conference, especially because while some ethnic nationalities will have as many as 45 members in the conference, some 42 other ethnic nationalities will not be represented in some of the states mentioned in this paragraph. The more logical thing to do is to reduce the number of the big three to accommodate some of these nationalities.”
[/b]
The minority report author recommends that President Jonathan should send a Bill to the National Assembly convening the National Conference. He said a draft Bill that provides for a referendum and other matters is included in his report for the consideration of the President. According to Asemota, the attached draft, in addition, gives the President the power to appoint members on the recommendation of ethnic associations in the country.

On why he recommended selection of delegates, Asemota said: “In most nationalities of Nigeria, selection processes are conducted to choose rulers and representatives and in any case elections in present day Nigeria are fraught with corruption. Members of the same family know themselves, so too members of the larger family (Ethnic Nationalities). Selection by the listed ethnic organizations in the Draft Bill is preferred. As a result, the best of ethnic nationalities representatives are most likely to emerge.

“Originally, I had demanded that all ethnic nationalities must be represented. Unfortunately for reasons of colonialism and neo-colonialism, Indirect Rule principles of assimilation and the effects of the tripod mentality, the inclusion of ethnicity as part of the requirements for enumeration was dropped in the last National Census in 2006. For the unity of Nigeria and the fact that human beings are more important than geographical locations, in addition to the fact that our Constitution provides for indigenes and non- indigenes, one has agreed on Senatorial districts as the basis for the selection of delegates. Ethnic nationalities at the Senatorial district levels should take into consideration ethnic diversity, professions, gender, youth and the physical challenges spread across the zones or region by way of consultations. One believes that this is one of the processes of inclusion in the politics of the nation as opposed to assimilation and exclusion. It is important that in the next census, ethnicity and religion should be included.”

According to Asemota, “the suggestion that the national conference is simply part of the process of consultations to aid the Presidency and the National Assembly in the discharge of their functions with respect to the amendment of the Constitution is untenable. The proposed national conference has a specific purpose, namely, to discuss and agree on the terms and conditions to be embodied in a New Constitution as the basis on which the diverse ethnic nationalities and peoples in Nigeria can live together in peace, security, progress, and unity as one country under a common central government. This is the primal purpose of the proposed national conference, the crux or pivot of its agenda, and to which everything else is ancillary.”

Insisting that the planned dialogue is primarily to produce a new constitution for the country, the minority report gives the title of its proposed bill as “A Bill for an Act to make provisions for Convening a National Conference of the Peoples of Nigeria for the Purpose of Discussing and Adopting a new Constitution to be Submitted for Consideration and Approval by the People of Nigeria at a Referendum and Matters Incidental Thereto.”

Asemota said: “The long title thus provides a clear enough description of the character of the conference proposed. This is reaffirmed by a declaration in a preamble that the proposed conference is a conference of the nationalities and ethnic groups comprised in this nation so as to give them the opportunity to exercise their inherent right to determine democratically for themselves the constitution by which they wish to be governed in one united Nigeria The preamble further declares that the need for the conference arises from the fact that the constitution under which the country is governed came into existence as a result of a Decree enacted by the Federal Military Government.

“The Bill spells out the machinery and process for the selection or election of delegates, quorum at the conference, conduct of proceedings, method of taking decisions, oath by delegates, appointment of conference secretary and other support staff, laying before the National Assembly of draft constitution passed by the conference, publication and presentation of the draft to the public, and the process for holding a referendum for the approval of the constitution by the entire mass of the people, which is to bestow legally binding force upon it.”

He argued that “a referendum of the people to approve the constitution is the most fundamental aspect of the whole process. It is no doubt a novel process in the country but that is what is legitimately due to the Nigerian people - an opportunity, for the first time since the creation of the Nigerian state in 1914, to adopt, through referendum, a constitution by and for themselves in exercise of the constituent power inherent in them as a sovereign people, not just to make an input in the amendment of an imposed Constitution.”

According to Asemota, the Committee’s decision to the effect that a constitution adopted at the National Conference shall not be subject to any change or amendment by the National Assembly or the presidency (section 21 (1)), and that the constitution, so adopted, shall become law and be binding on all persons and authorities immediately it is approved at a Referendum (Section 22 (), do not make the conference a sovereign body, in the strict sense of the term, inasmuch as the finality of its decisions and legally binding force of the approval of its decisions by the Referendum derive from a law enacted by the sovereign legislative authorities under the country’s existing legal order.

“But refusal by the National Assembly or the Presidency to enact into law, the provisions in sections 21 (1) and 22 ( of the Bill, or to abide by them after their enactment into law will provide an opportunity to test the ability of the Nigerian people, in spite of the impediments, to assert and demonstrate their power and supremacy as the repository of the country’s sovereignty and the source of the sovereign power exercised by the legislative and executive organs of government.”

To Asemota, Nigerian unity is not only negotiable but must indeed be re-negotiated for it to stand or survive the test of time. “The reality over the years remains that in spite of the best efforts of all our leaders past or present, Nigerian unity is not guaranteed. It is simply, at best, an aspiration and not yet an achievement. Hence, the statement that Nigerian unity is ‘not negotiable’ is simply a historical fallacy.

“Many Nigerians are losing the dream of a united Nigeria because of the obstinate resistance of a few to any idea of reform or restructure of the country. This indeed is dangerous to Nigeria’s survival as one nation. However, history teaches us that those who make reforms impossible make revolution inevitable. Many Nigerians love their country, but forced to choose, they would choose their liberty/freedom.”

Leyelyzo: I just hope, like other fruitless efforts, this confab won't turn out to be so. They haven't started anything, the panel is splitting already.

To Asemota, Nigerian unity is not only negotiable but must indeed be re-negotiated for it to stand or survive the test of time. “The reality over the years remains that in spite of the best efforts of all our leaders past or present, Nigerian unity is not guaranteed. It is simply, at best, an aspiration and not yet an achievement. Hence, the statement that Nigerian unity is ‘not negotiable’ is simply a historical fallacy.

Yujin: On point Mr. Asemota! Imagine some group of persons blaring that they are 'born to rule' and yet saying 'the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable'. In other words, they are telling us that we were born to serve and we have no choice.
Never while we are alive! Restructure the empire or risk her disintegration.

eGuerrilla:

Source

Sovereignty, I submit, belongs to the people under Section 14 (2) of the Constitution and it will be wrong to suggest that the people’s decisions cannot be sought in a referendum except permitted under the Constitution. This suggests that sovereignty belongs to the Constitution and not the people. On whether in the draft bill, it should be stated that decisions of the conference shall be subjected to referendum, some members have suggested that the question of referendum should be left for the conference to decide and thus the law should be silent on it. I find it difficult to align myself with this view because several meanings could be read as to why this aspect was omitted and this will not be helpful to the Conference.

suolboy: Please why is everything under GEJ Divided?
PDP IS DIVIDED.
NGF IS DIVIDED.
NORTH IS DIVIDED.
RIVERS STATE IS DIVIDED.
ASUU IS DIVIDED.
NOW CONFAB COMMITEE DIVIDED.
REALLY, THERE WAS A COUNTRY.

suolboy: Please why is everything under GEJ Divided?
PDP IS DIVIDED.
NGF IS DIVIDED.
NORTH IS DIVIDED.
RIVERS STATE IS DIVIDED.
ASUU IS DIVIDED.
NOW CONFAB COMMITEE DIVIDED.
REALLY, THERE WAS A COUNTRY.

satowind: Nigeria self. Smh


Happy birthday to me sha.