About N4 billion may have gone down the drain in the process of amending the 1999 Constitution. The National Assembly went round the 360 federal constituencies across the country to conduct public hearing on the constitution amendment which representatives of the Federal Government attended. It is also known that President Goodluck Jonathan returned the amended Constitution to the National Assembly and dragged the parliament to the Supreme Court for non-compliance with constitutional provisions and the National Assembly in turn threatened fire and brimstone to override the President’s veto. But what is not certain is why the National Assembly developed cold feet to use its threat at the eleventh hour. The journey to alter the 1999 Constitution for the fourth time started about four years ago after the attempt by the 5th Assembly of the 4th Republic, during President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration to amend the Constitution failed on May 16, 2006 following the alleged attempt by the then President to smuggle third term into it. However, there appears to be a break through by the 7th Assembly with the passage of the Constitution Amendment Bill by the two chambers of the parliament. The Fourth Alteration Bill was then forwarded to the President for his assent. After some time, the Constitution Amendment Bill was returned to the National Assembly by the President who alleged the usurpation of presidential powers and constitutional breaches in the process of the amendment. There were anger, lamentation and threats by the lawmakers to override the President’s veto. One of the contentions of the National Assembly members was that the executive and, by extension, The Presidency was carried along during the process of the amendment and the public hearings where the Attorney General of the Federation was represented. While returning the Constitution Amendment Bill, Jonathan, in a letter, addressed to the Senate President, read at the plenary session on Wednesday, April 14, 2015, noted that the withholding of his assent came after an examination of the procedure laid out in Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as other observations to the amendments that were passed. In the letter, the President pointed out that the National Assembly had failed to prove that it had complied with the stringent requirements of Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as it had not accompanied the requisite votes and proceedings of both Houses with the Fourth Alteration Act that was transmitted to him to prove that the alterations were supported by at least two-third majority of all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives in line with the aforementioned Section. He noted that the amendment to Section 9 in the 4th Alteration Act, that would dispense with the assent of the President for the purposes of altering the Constitution would constitute a flagrant breach of the doctrine of separation of powers and whittle down the powers of the Executive as provided in Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The President also noted that the amendment to Section 58(5) that would enable a bill to become law at the expiration of 30 days where the President neither signifies nor withholds assent should be revisited with the view of retaining the current provision[1], as withholding assent was an intricate part of checks and balances in a democratic society. Furthermore, the time frame of 30 days encapsulated in the amendment could prevent further consultation with stakeholders that would enable him arrive at deciding whether to signify or withhold assent; where the need arose. The President observed that Section 84(A-F) that provided for a distinct office of the Accountant-General of the Federation failed to address how the office would be funded and on which budget line the office would be placed. He was worried that the creation of the Office of the Minister of Justice as separate from the Attorney General of the Federation might affect the current structure of the Ministry of Justice in the absence of a statute that would properly define the functions and powers of both offices. Jonathan explained that the appointment of the Attorney General as espoused in the amended 174(A-H) in the 4th Alteration Bill, 2015 should be subject only to the confirmation of the Senate as his appointment was a prerogative of the President. The President queried why the Attorney-General’s powers should be subject to the determination of the courts despite a plethora of Nigerian and English case laws that decided otherwise. Consequently, he was of the view that it was the President and not the Chief Justice of Nigeria, as contained in the amendment, that could properly administer oaths on the Attorney General. The Senate and the House had passed the Constitution (Fourth Alteration) Bill last year and transmitted the amendments to the state Houses of Assembly after which the National Assembly adopted the resolutions and transmitted same to the President for his assent in February 2015. The Senate President promised to avail members of copies of the letter for further debate when Senator Abubakar Yar’Adua (APC, Katsina) questioned the propriety of the President rejecting the amendments despite the large budget allocated and spent by the National Assembly for the constitutional amendments. Options Following the development, a principal officer of the Senate, who spoke to Sunday Vanguard on the condition of anonymity, had said that there were two options before the National Assembly on the matter. He said it was either the National Assembly accepts the position of the President or go ahead to override it. He said, “We don’t know why he (Jonathan) decided to go this way. It is something that Nigerians, have been looking forward to and as we managed to break the jinx, we thought it was a legacy the 7th Senate is going to leave behind.” Commenting on the President’s action, the Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Business, Senator Ita Enang, Akwa Ibomm North East, said the decision of Jonathan was a welcome one as he preferred to follow the legal option instead of lampooning the National Assembly on the pages of newspapers. Enang said that the action of the President was an indication that he (Jonathan) was a patriotic Nigeria interested in the good of the country and not personal interest. He, however, faulted the time it took The Presidency to raise objection to certain aspects of the amendment, stressing that it will be the duty of the court to determine whether the National Assembly followed the legal procedure in the process or not. Enang, who said that whatever he said was his personal opinion as a lawyer of about 30 years standing and that the National Assembly, when served the court process, would apply for accelerated hearing in order to ensure that the case is dispensed of before the end of the 7th Senate. Regret The Senate Leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, SAN, said it was regrettable that The Presidency had taken the path of rejecting the amendment even when it had the opportunity during the public hearing to raise any objections on the exercise. On the letter to the President to return the original copy of the bill, Ndoma-Egba said the Senate was still expecting it. The Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu had also said that no amount of propaganda from any quarter would deter the National Assembly from going ahead with the constitution amendment. While returning the Constitution Amendment Bill, Jonathan, in a letter, addressed to the Senate President, read at the plenary session on Wednesday, April 14, 2015, noted that the withholding of his assent came after an examination of the procedure laid out in Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as well as other observations to the amendments that were passed. In the letter, the President pointed out that the National Assembly had failed to prove that it had complied with the stringent requirements of Section 9(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as it had not accompanied the requisite votes and proceedings of both Houses with the Fourth Alteration Act that was transmitted to him to prove that the alterations were supported by at least two-third majority of all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives in line with the aforementioned Section. He noted that the amendment to Section 9 in the 4th Alteration Act, that would dispense with the assent of the President for the purposes of altering the Constitution would constitute a flagrant breach of the doctrine of separation of powers and whittle down the powers of the Executive as provided in Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The President also noted that the amendment to Section 58(5) that would enable a bill to become law at the expiration of 30 days where the President neither signifies nor withholds assent should be revisited with the view of retaining the current provision[1], as withholding assent was an intricate part of checks and balances in a democratic society. Furthermore, the time frame of 30 days encapsulated in the amendment could prevent further consultation with stakeholders that would enable him arrive at deciding whether to signify or withhold assent; where the need arose. The President observed that Section 84(A-F) that provided for a distinct office of the Accountant-General of the Federation failed to address how the office would be funded and on which budget line the office would be placed. He was worried that the creation of the Office of the Minister of Justice as separate from the Attorney General of the Federation might affect the current structure of the Ministry of Justice in the absence of a statute that would properly define the functions and powers of both offices. Jonathan explained that the appointment of the Attorney General as espoused in the amended 174(A-H) in the 4th Alteration Bill, 2015 should be subject only to the confirmation of the Senate as his appointment was a prerogative of the President. The President queried why the Attorney-General’s powers should be subject to the determination of the courts despite a plethora of Nigerian and English case laws that decided otherwise. Consequently, he was of the view that it was the President and not the Chief Justice of Nigeria, as contained in the amendment, that could properly administer oaths on the Attorney General. The Senate and the House had passed the Constitution (Fourth Alteration) Bill last year and transmitted the amendments to the state Houses of Assembly after which the National Assembly adopted the resolutions and transmitted same to the President for his assent in February 2015. The Senate President promised to avail members of copies of the letter for further debate when Senator Abubakar Yar’Adua (APC, Katsina) questioned the propriety of the President rejecting the amendments despite the large budget allocated and spent by the National Assembly for the constitutional amendments. Options Following the development, a principal officer of the Senate, who spoke to Sunday Vanguard on the condition of anonymity, had said that there were two options before the National Assembly on the matter. He said it was either the National Assembly accepts the position of the President or go ahead to override it. He said, “We don’t know why he (Jonathan) decided to go this way. It is something that Nigerians, have been looking forward to and as we managed to break the jinx, we thought it was a legacy the 7th Senate is going to leave behind.” Commenting on the President’s action, the Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Business, Senator Ita Enang, Akwa Ibomm North East, said the decision of Jonathan was a welcome one as he preferred to follow the legal option instead of lampooning the National Assembly on the pages of newspapers. Enang said that the action of the President was an indication that he (Jonathan) was a patriotic Nigeria interested in the good of the country and not personal interest. He, however, faulted the time it took The Presidency to raise objection to certain aspects of the amendment, stressing that it will be the duty of the court to determine whether the National Assembly followed the legal procedure in the process or not. Enang, who said that whatever he said was his personal opinion as a lawyer of about 30 years standing and that the National Assembly, when served the court process, would apply for accelerated hearing in order to ensure that the case is dispensed of before the end of the 7th Senate. Regret The Senate Leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, SAN, said it was regrettable that The Presidency had taken the path of rejecting the amendment even when it had the opportunity during the public hearing to raise any objections on the exercise. On the letter to the President to return the original copy of the bill, Ndoma-Egba said the Senate was still expecting it. The Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu had also said that no amount of propaganda from any quarter would deter the National Assembly from going ahead with the constitution amendment.

Source: http://www.jotscroll.com/forums/1/posts/173

can't read it

oluface:
can't read it

I'm reading it. I will comment on the post if need be.

VoteOutPDPJona:


I'm reading it. I will comment on the post if need be.

please summarize when you are through.

Qmab:
please summarize when you are through.