Among the 50 issues being proposed for tinkering in the proposed amendments are revenue allocation, the enactment of true federalism and the strengthening of the nation’s anti-corruption institutions, notably the Independent Corrupt practices and other related offences Commission, ICPC and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

The momentum for the proposed reforms it was learnt flowed from the recommendations of past constitutional and political conferences in the country. Among those specifically named yesterday were the reports from the Citizens’ Forum for Constitution Reform(CFCR) which prepared a draft Constitution, the Pro-National Conference(PRORONACO) Peoples Constitution, the Abacha Constitution of 1995, the report of the National Political Reform Conference of 2005 and the 1999 Constitution.

“Looking at the performance of the last election, some people are of the view that If we strengthen the accountability institutions, the nation could make do with what we have on ground now. The views are still coalescing,” the source disclosed yesterday.

“ That NCG discussed and unanimously adopted both the roadmap to popular constitutional restructuring of Nigeria and the draft bill thereof presented by the chair of the strategy team of Project Nigeria. We have however resolved to mobilize all Nigerians with the content of this new bill and also launch this great movement in the existing six geopolitical zones of the country in our determined resolve to engage both the president and the National Assembly in their latest attempt to take a look at the constitutional and democratic structure of Nigeria.”

9jaganja:

Now That is the L I subscribe to!!! Thanks alot Negroe_mtn lol and beaf!!!

The solution to me is not always dissolution but a rather a loosen union which enables people to come in or go out!!

As it is, Nigeria is the only platform each tribe has to disrespect each other. With the FG selling oil blocks in the delta without consent of the natives? Instead of the FG to fight and protect it's natives, it gave their land to Cameroon. That is a reason for me not to trust in Nigeria because given circumstances, FG can forfeit any land and territory to any nation and have the natives kicked out of their ancestral land,  This isn't a union instead this is a rotational sacrificial alter with every member taking their turn in unproductively sacrificing themselves to keep the alter,

The FG hasn't for once spoken against shell and oil companies polluting the Niger Delta and you want the people to feel they are in a union that protects their interests? This is a looming crisis and we are all looking away from the fire on the mountain forgetting that the fire will spread down the hills!! What sort of Union are we in? Obasanjo was suppose to protect the Bakassi people because the Bakassi people didn't give up their territory to Cameroon even if it means war, it is suppose to be a union where we all fight for each other collectively,


While the Hausas/Fulanis can go about their fake Islamic propaganda and manipulative policies with deceitful intentions,  we have a southern president who's people are calling for help in the Delta getting abused by oil companies on a daily basis but do we get? A man not focused on what matters instead tenure elongation? seriously? I was disappointed. oil subsidy that was never there? Our education system is a copied one which encourages cramming and not skills,

There is manipulations coming from both sides of the external world (Europe/Middle east), but what do we do, willing sheep heading for the blade,

No one not Nigerian can solve our problems. We don't need experts from Europe or America to tell us what to do or how to build a nation,  Either we dismantle or start from scratch including name change!!

all4naija:

It surprises me that somebody would envisage such in a nation that could not find solutions to tribalism and ethnicity. In other words you are asking for the nation to go into war to find a proper solution to the failing govt.

I don't see anything wrong if we go by the so called external world constitutions, at least it has so many ways they can work better than our enslavement demanding communal laws. I can't imagine a situation where I would be serving one leader based on age or ethnicity(how have to dictate all the time even if he/she is wrong).

We have to see there is reason for amendment but it should be done to areas that need attention for the benefits of the ordinary man. There have to be avenues where the govt. can interact with the populace to get their opinions on what to do in regards to the constitutional amendment.

No matter what the thing that is still in question is the ordinary Nigerians which the govt. claimed to serve,the people(general public) have not be educated on what the constitution of Nigeria entails. So, how would they know what is happening in the govt. rather than to think otherwise when things go wrong, either during election  or in resource control to having a president from a preferred region.

Nigeria case is really a complicated one which I think is not starting from the scratch will proffer best solution but the govt. seeking for the opinions of the ordinary people and follow with affirmative actions. The laws are meant for the people to be obeyed, if the reverse is the case there are bound to be problems of different kinds - that's what is wrong with Nigeria's constitution.Amendment alone can't solve the problems but concerted efforts of the whole(individuals' and otherwise) nation.

Negro_Ntns:

Beaf,

I want first to let you know that you are one of the people I most respect here and I probably should not even have responded on your post like that. So let me beg your forgiveness on that. It cannot nonetheless be ignored because everything is pointing to a dangerous cresting soon.

In addition, if this move is Gej's, I find it very irritating that the President is using logical steps to rule an emotional issue. I very often disagree with some things he has done so far but he has his own style and though he has been in that executive position for two terms now (first as VP and now as Pres), his grip on national issues are dissapointing but I do believe that "while he was not the best candidate, people voted him in and as such we must respect him and repect his office. People voted on emotion and their expectations of him are tied to those emotions. So he needs to start responding emotionally to the people.

On SNC, do you know why its difficult to get it going? Ill tell you its because the Europeans have no model for it that we can copy.

Czhekoslovakia is the only Euro country that dissolved but it happened in bloodshed. Our own dissolution attempt with bloodsshed failed. N[b]ow we cannot find a safe model laid down by white man for us to use. Our academia has limits when it comes to application, goes to show we are good at copying and mimicking but incapable of originality. We want to amend constitution and experts in London and America are subnmitting ideas. Should we hate Boko for their push back on the encroachment of too much western ideologies? Is this civilization or self-enslavement?
[/b]
Thousands of people have died over the years because the balance of power is tipped away from South. If anyone ought to be upset and raising hell about the nonsense called Nigeria it ought to be a Southerner and not the Northerners. Yet we are at it every turn attempting to patch and make what is not workable go a few more years in hope that we will ultimateLy salvage it. While we are amending constitution that Hausas don't care about they are attending to what they care about and will benefit them - Sharia and islamic banking.

What will benefit us that we need to attend to in the South? I don't think its the constitution but I'm probably wrong.

Without doubt everyone in the country for the first time agree and spoke with one voice - we want SNC! The North want it, the West want it, the East want it. What are we waiting for?

I will be glad to share ideas on that topic if its opened.

Thank you sir!

all4naija:

^^^^

Your action will call for war because the different ethnic group cannot agree to start from the scratch or the so called dismantling(as if the country is not already in pieces).

We can agree on something which is the concerted effort of the general public with regards to the constitution, order than that there are a lot of things which you did not understand about the 1999 constitution(which is model along the Americans'). We had the Brit before then which didn't serve us well, which I think is based on this ethnicity line. The people who are in USA/England are quite aware things are missing in the constitution because this is their field, expert in it. Their contributions in no way cannot be all wrong - we are living in 21st century- I wouldn't want to draw anything from our irresponsible African laws which we know if they were superior they would have lead us to a more organized society by now yet the reverse is the case. I still think our govt. or rather society need external inputs with great scrutiny. Nobody is shoving anything into our throat but to see what these expert inputs would look like in comparison to what we are doing, if those could jettison the govt. to a more flexible and serving the people rightly - as in the developed world.

The union thing is a problem on one hand and on the other hand there is no way to loose the union without calling for any forms of blood shedding. For example Boko Haram might want their own state to exercise their Sharia but most intelligent Northerners would go against such idea. So, where do we start to go about your so termed union?How do we go about loosening without dealing harm?

We can disagree on so many things but we know the facts that they are not as easy as you thought nor will they be immediate solutions as such. Dividing the nation is going to come with it piece by piece of more division.

I don't need to think because this doesn't require thinking but common sense to grasp.If you like you can get angry that's your own business. All I would say is to get angry the more!

Gbenge 77:

Make dem remove immunity clause if dem serious.

9jaganja:

Haahahahhah so one tribe has more authority over the other because one is unwilling to be in the union? Biafra war was a result of protection of the Nigerian territory being invaded by Biafra. So let's not keep using Biafra as an example of result of secession ok? secession doesn't lead to war; war leads to secession,

And it is the conflict of interests that is likely to lead to an ethnic war, Millions of Northerners were happy when Sharia was declared but this lead to blood shed later on. The huge majority of the North supports Sharia as sole source of civic law while less than 0.03% (lol) of southerners want Sharia even southern Muslims,

Now, Sharia will make the North inhabitable for majority of Southerners and if that is the case, what is the essence of a union when I can't be welcomed in your land?

What do you mean by "irresponsible African law" we are currently practicing the white man's legal system and how good is that representing everyone? Look, majority of the British/American legal system is buit on Xtianity not until the 20th century before those laws were being modified,

Now how is such law suitable for Africans who have tons and tons of religion? England is just one language, one people and they weren't all forced to be english, they were all english. So your uk/American analogy for a case like Nigeria's is a false and inadequate analogy,

China as much as they still control their minority ethnic groups, there are still uprising between the Muslims in South east China, England is one culture traditionally so you can't compare that with Nigeria,

Any ethnic group that wants a nation of it's own has the right to do so without violence and we don't need UN to get involved in it if the "American/UK" laws are civil enough to encourage the freedom of association of people,

It doesn't matter how many ethnic group there are in Nigeria, each one deserves authority over themselves and not others over them no matter how small,

To lead Nigeria to being organized, you have to promote a culture which includes all the ethnic nationalities of the nation. Can you wait 50years please? As Nigeria is, no tribe is willing to shed their identity to become "Nigerian" which is right if you ask me, I am Yoruba and deserve to be without an imposed identity,

now given this freedom, am I suppose to sit back and watch as a majority run over my tribe? NO!!! Every tribe has the right to keep their identity, "multiculturalism" is a fallacy my friend don't fall for liberal propaganda, Multiculturalism means everyone speaks there language, everyone practices their culture etc, Now how will a nation move forward without one super dominant culture? tell me please!! And don't use US/Canada/UK as an example because they are not multicultural just that they have people of different cultures who all dress same way to work, have to speak English before they can get a Job etc,

So please!!!!!!!! For a nation to work, it needs a dominant culture, and people willing to abandon their culture for the dominant one, Is that right to you? This is why Nigeria is suppose to be a confederation or every tribe goes there own WAYS!!!!!!!

Deep Sight:

^^^ To the extent that he speaks of a dominant culture, he has a point, and you have misunderstood him. He specifically stated that that culture must be a pot pouri of the various ethnic cultures.

It is beyond cavil that every coherent nation-state must have a dominant culture. By this I believe he refers to a supervening national world view which stamps the nation state with a given identity.

As a simple example: The United States comprises people from every part of the world, immigrants, decendants of conquistadors and slaves, few indigenous tribes, etc. However the United States remains a coherent nation-state because there is a supervening common world-view and culture that stamps the US with its unique identity as a nation-state. That world-view is based on the ideals of freedom and capitalism.

Thus that forms the plank for the dominant culture. If there were no dominant culture, the nation-state would lack cohesion, would lack direcvtion and would also lack an identity. It would have a personality crisis and would be schizophrenic. Such is the dilemma Nigeria has, and the gentleman had a strong point in so saying.

Beaf:

What you are attempting to describe is a contract between citizen and state, not a dominant culture. It is a contract that establishes the responsibilities and duties of both parties (state and citizen) in concrete. In the US, it is a legal document they lean on, their constitution. If Nigeria is able to generate changes in the areas the govt is thinking about, in such a way that the people, their ethnicities, religions etc are carried along, then Nigeria would have successfully forged a citizen-state contract that engenders a sense of belonging in every citizen. Today, there is nothing to point at as the definition for the word, Nigerian; the place is just a piece of land our parents happened to be born on.

As a simple example: The United States comprises people from every part of the world, immigrants, decendants of conquistadors and slaves, few indigenous tribes, etc. However the United States remains a coherent nation-state because there is a supervening common world-view and culture that stamps the US with its unique identity as a nation-state. That world-view is based on the ideals of freedom and capitalism.

That world-view is based on the ideals of freedom and capitalism.

Deep Sight:

^^^ To the extent that he speaks of a dominant culture, he has a point, and you have misunderstood him. He specifically stated that that culture must be a pot pouri of the various ethnic cultures.

It is beyond cavil that every coherent nation-state must have a dominant culture. By this I believe he refers to a supervening national world view which stamps the nation state with a given identity.

As a simple example: The United States comprises people from every part of the world, immigrants, decendants of conquistadors and slaves, few indigenous tribes, etc. However the United States remains a coherent nation-state because there is a supervening common world-view and culture that stamps the US with its unique identity as a nation-state. That world-view is based on the ideals of freedom and capitalism.

Thus that forms the plank for the dominant culture. If there were no dominant culture, the nation-state would lack cohesion, would lack direcvtion and would also lack an identity. It would have a personality crisis and would be schizophrenic. Such is the dilemma Nigeria has, and the gentleman had a strong point in so saying.

9jaganja:

Haahahahhah so one tribe has more authority over the other because one is unwilling to be in the union? Biafra war was a result of protection of the Nigerian territory being invaded by Biafra. So let's not keep using Biafra as an example of result of secession ok? secession doesn't lead to war; war leads to secession,

And it is the conflict of interests that is likely to lead  to an ethnic war,  Millions of Northerners were happy when Sharia was declared but this lead to blood shed later on. The huge majority of the North supports Sharia as sole source of civic law while less than 0.03% (lol) of southerners want Sharia even southern Muslims,

Now, Sharia will make the North inhabitable for majority of Southerners and if that is the case, what is the essence of a union when I can't be welcomed in your land?

What do you mean by "irresponsible African law" we are currently practicing the white man's legal system and how good is that representing everyone? Look, majority of the British/American legal system is buit on Xtianity not until the 20th century before those laws were being modified,

Now how is such law suitable for Africans who have tons and tons of religion? England is just one language, one people and they weren't all forced to be english, they were all english. So your uk/American analogy for a case like Nigeria's is a false and inadequate analogy,

China as much as they still control their minority ethnic groups, there are still uprising between the Muslims in South east China,  England is one culture traditionally so you can't compare that with Nigeria,

Any ethnic group that wants a nation of it's own has the right to do so without violence and we don't need UN to get involved in it if the "American/UK" laws are civil enough to encourage the freedom of association of people,

It doesn't matter how many ethnic group there are in Nigeria, each one deserves authority over themselves and not others over them no matter how small,

To lead Nigeria to being organized, you have to promote a culture which includes all the ethnic nationalities of the nation. Can you wait 50years please? As Nigeria is, no tribe is willing to shed their identity to become "Nigerian" which is right if you ask me,  I am Yoruba and deserve to be without an imposed identity,

all4naija:
^^^^

Your action will call for war because the different ethnic group cannot agree to start from the scratch or the so called dismantling(as if the country is not already in pieces).

We can agree on something which is the concerted effort of the general public with regards to the constitution, order than that there are a lot of things which you did not understand about the 1999 constitution(which is model along the Americans'). We had the Brit before then which didn't serve us well, which I think is based on this ethnicity line. The people who are in USA/England are quite aware things are missing in the constitution because this is their field, expert in it. Their contributions in no way cannot be all wrong - we are living in 21st century- I wouldn't want to draw anything from our irresponsible African laws which we know if they were superior they would have lead us to a more organized society by now yet the reverse is the case. I still think our govt. or rather society need external inputs with great scrutiny. Nobody is shoving anything into our throat but to see what these expert inputs would look like in comparison to what we are doing, if those could jettison the govt. to a more flexible and serving the people rightly - as in the developed world.