[size=14pt]A president on constitutional offensive [/size]
Written by Olawale Rasheed Monday, 21 November 2011


President Goodluck Jonathan

President Goodluck Jonathan has inaugurated a presidential advisory panel on the amendment of the constitution. Regional Editor (News), Olawale Rasheed, delves into issues and politics of  constitution reform in Nigeria.

The many structural challenges facing the nation, indeed, demand a fundamental restructuring of the national constitution. This fact, accepted by successive administrations in the country has, nevertheless, been a hard nut to crack, due to entrenched regional and geopolitical interest. President Goodluck Jonathan has however vowed to break the jinx to ensure a far-reaching review of the constitution in the life of his administration.

While the last National Assembly, in reality, amended the constitution, the review did not touched on fundamental issues which many citizens count as imperative for the continued existence of the nation. It was thus not surprising that the president, under his transformation agenda, priotised the amendments and is prepared to expend political capital to realise the dream. Prior to the recent empanelling of a body of distinguished Nigerians, many had questioned the approach adopted in communicating the proposed amendments to the public.

This is particularly so in the case of the single tenure presidency which ran into severe controversy, even before the bill was drafted by the presidency. The storm which greeted the hint dropped on the single tenure proposal has, however, made the administration smarter in its handling of the amendment politics. President Jonathan recently openly admitted that his proposal was misunderstood by some Nigerians.

The perception of hidden motive, referred to by the president, is mostly seen by many observers as the fault of the administration in doing the first thing last. The inauguration of the panel of distinguished and eminent Nigerians to collate view on the proposed amendments, and possibly prepare draft amendments bill, was the needed first thing capable of dousing the flame of suspicion by placing the issue before the public. If this was done originally, the issue of single tenure and others would not have brought about that controversy.

The panel has a daunting task at hand, as the public space is already energised due to the controversies of recent times. The first issue for the committee is to restore public confidence by affirming, as repeatedly as possible, that no issue is already predetermined. As the ultimate powers of amendment rest with the legislature at states and national levels, no issue should be regarded as decided, because the politics of amendments may be complicated, if such impression is entrenched in the mind of the public.

The basic reality which most Nigerians are not disputing is that the constitution needs amendment. As the chair of the panel, retired Justice Alfa Belgore, put it, the 1999 Constitution was hurriedly put up, hence its many lapses and the need to amend it to address subsisting national challenges. This view is a popular one, but the attendant issue is possible fatigue of citizens’ participation.

The impression that government has failed to make effective use of previous reports of constitutional conferences may elicit public fatigue. For example, the 1994 conference on political reform was one of the most exhaustive and far-reaching confab on Nigerian constitutional development. Best of Nigerian minds from all walks of life were direct and active participants. The late General Shehu Yar’Adua, Alhaji Adamu Ciroma, Dr Olusola Saraki, late Chief Sunday Awoniyi, Dr Oluremi Atanda and many others were deeply involved in the conference which directly addressed many touchy issues. Many of the proposals are waiting to be lifted into an amendment bill. The same thing happened to the 2005 political reform conference.

To address issue of neglect of previous reports, the president has also specifically charged the committee to review previous reports and integrate relevant amendment proposals into a draft bill. This singular directive to the panel may serve to tell the public that the new exercise will not go the way of previous ones as the new exercise is structured to be holistic and integrative of all previous efforts at constitution review.

The panel is however restricted in certain respect. According to the president, its focus should be on areas of common agreements in the amendment process. Here, the panel is to focus more on agreed issues in constitutional review while an enlarged panel to be put up late is to expand the net of consultation and address touchy issues. Hence, the directive to the panel to eschew sensitive and controversial areas is seen by some analysts as a great drawback.

There is a perceived problem when it comes to determining what are agreed and contentious areas. Agreed, there are some minor areas in the constitution, which are not controversial. But the unsettling reality is that amendments needed to stabilise the polity and address federalist challenges are controversial and touchy. The Belgore-led panel should have been asked to address all the issues and prepare an amendment bills which can now be deliberated upon by an enlarged consultative body. This has the capacity to fast-track the process.

When the government addresses issue of constitutional amendment, the citizenry are keenly interested in specific areas which affected their lives. The issue of true federalism is now a challenge the government can no longer shy away from addressing. Restructuring the federation to strengthen the states through devolution of more powers and funding is an amendment required to maintain national unity and stability.

Such specific amendments demand the review of the legislative list to unbundle the exclusive legislative list which presently confer too much powers and responsibilities on the Federal Government. More worrisome is the concurrent legislative list which, again, gives the Federal Government so much say, even in matters that should be left to the states to handle. Many constitutional experts are always quick to note that Nigeria is operating a unitary constitution under the tag of federalism.

The reforms needed therefore include increase in the percentage of derivation concept in revenue sharing, a review of the revenue sharing formula in favour of states and local governments, stripping of Federal Government’s roles in lower and medium level education and health, creation of state police and creation of new states to address imbalance in representation within the National Assembly. The day the nation genuinely reduce the over-bearing influence of the centre, typified by its unitary hold on the nation, will be the era of true federalism.

Of course, the president’s baby-single tenure presidency is also one of such fundamental issues the nation must address. The president is apparently determined to effect the amendment and his team may have to do everything necessary to achieve such. However, that the goal may now necessitate horse-trading with those opposed to the idea  may kill such initiatives as state police and sound a death knell of true federalism.

There are those who believe the present constitution is deliberately crafted as it is due to the peculiar nature of the Nigerian state. A strong centre is believed to be a condition for the continuous existence of the nation. What the late Head of State, General Aguiyi Ironsi, experimented with and failed was later successfully implemented by successive leaders who saw reason in enforcing a unitary Nigeria due to the fear of regional break up and national instability. A Nigerian nation with a state police and states with strong financial base is seen as a potent trigger for national disintegration. But how true is this?

Many national leaders have faulted that line of thought as they reasoned that the best way to remain a happily united entity is to ensure the practice of true federalism in the country. Anything short of that is considered to be a deliberate waiting on edge and a concealed invitation to national implosion.

Recent developments in the polity have however opened the eyes of many to the need for constitutional reforms. Tackling security challenges cannot be solved without a state police. The current insurgency is a testimony. The Federal Government is over-bloated. The near insolvency of the states is a pointer. Jerking up the derivation factor in revenue sharing formula is unavoidable. The clamour for fiscal federalism is an argument. Creating new states is not about viability alone, it is about balancing the existing imbalance which gives the core North superior representation in the National Assembly.

The above are at the centre of the nation’s quest for sustainable political structure. The creeping fear is that politics of single tenure may cloud the realisation of this key reform. The president is, no doubt, very keen about a single tenure presidency and if such amendment were to be successfully passed, the Bayelsan politician would have made an indelible mark on the nation’s constitutional history. Interestingly, the president is also passionate about his desire to effect the amendment, as he believes it will go a long way to resolve part of the nation’s political malaise.

As the process is now kick-started with the advisory panel, issues likely to be thrown up by the geopolitics of the amendment process are multi-various. For a start, there is an expected block of opposition to certain aspects of likely proposed amendments. For one, there is an eternal fear of state police and derivation formula. The president’s single term tenure is already a contentious issue.

To get the process moving, most amendment bills are likely to be subjected to geopolitics with regional interests battling to retain certain aspects of the status quo considered favourable to them. For example, the position of the North is predictable with respect to certain aspects of likely proposed amendments. Higher derivation formula in revenue sharing is expectedly contentious for the North. Summing up the northern perspective is to simply note the fear of the South angling to structure the federation to gain advantage in national politics.

The South is sure to push for in-depth amendments; the North is sure to oppose certain provisions; the North-Central can resolve the face off. What is more, Senate President David Mark is expected to be the jinx breaker. With his deft spirit and commando-like hold on the upper chamber, he will be a strong ally of the presidency in this respect. If the presidency will consent to a new state, the Senate may be taken for granted as a support base.

For the House of Representratives, the House Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, represents a fresh block. He is however said to be amenable to amendments considered to be in the national interests. The problem is, who defines that national interest and what constitutes national interest in this circumstance? What can the presidency do to tame or conciliate with the House caucus known for its entrenched position and perspective? How will the presidency engage the North seen as the bulwark against fundamental amendments to the constitution?

Many watchers of the expected battle are worried about possible compromises and horse trading among the power wielders. If the North opposes derivation formula and accept single tenure presidency, a dangerous horse-trading would have occurred. Put differently, if the core North accept single tenure presidency in return for the dropping of state police and revenue derivation, how will the presidency react?

The reality is that horse trading is a normal part of political life. If the president is not disposed to such option, there will be many within the inner caucus who will prevail on him to accept the compromise. In any case, the single tenure issue is about the only provision the president has expended political capital. However, the amendment process can only have meaning, if it resulted in the emergence of true federalism.

An amendment which enthrone single tenure presidency may satisfy a presidential agenda, but will fall short of what is needed for national harmony and stability to be sustained. Many Nigerians will be happy seeing more funds and responsibilities going to the state and local government levels, with correspondence improvement in their lives. Increased derivation percentage will finally pacify the oil producing communities and state police will appease those angry about porous national security situation.

The president, nonetheless, deserves commendations for bending backwards to satisfy the clamour of the citizens for a broader consultative process to deliberate on the contentious aspects of the reform. The agenda he gave the panel is also a manifestation of his responsiveness to public yearnings. The panel and the subsequent one that will follow thus have the heavy task of justifying presidential confidence by conducting their assignment in public rather than parochial interests.

The journey to a new constitutional life for the nation has begun.  Many only hopes the exercise will be driven by the interest of the citizenry, rather than the agenda of the power elite.

http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/politics/31490-a-president-on-constitutional-offensive

The reforms needed therefore include increase in the percentage of derivation concept in revenue sharing, a review of the revenue sharing formula in favour of states and local governments, stripping of Federal Government’s roles in lower and medium level education and health, creation of state police and creation of new states to address imbalance in representation within the National Assembly. The day the nation genuinely reduce the over-bearing influence of the centre, typified by its unitary hold on the nation, will be the era of true federalism.

There is nothing clever about the above paragraph. The states and LG's need to produce their own money instead of relying on Abuja for survival. It is also foolishness to even consider creating new states to address a so-called "imbalance."
That so-called "imbalance" simply means closeness to oil money and more rounds of vicious corruption.

If the states and LG's still want to rely on the FG in this day and age, then Nigeria will never ever develop. We need to weed out these funny folk who preach the incredibly annoying and ignorant falsehood that true federalism means more oil money. It doesn't, it means greater self reliance, greater autonomy and the tools to move away from our id!otic oil dependence to developing functioning economies.

We have way too many loudmouths in the country, spouting stuff that is dangerously foolish.

Beaf:

There is nothing clever about the above paragraph. The states and LG's need to produce their own money instead of relying on Abuja for survival. It is also foolishness to even consider creating new states to address a so-called "imbalance."
That so-called "imbalance" simply means closeness to oil money and more rounds of vicious corruption.

If the states and LG's still want to rely on the FG in this day and age, then Nigeria will never ever develop. We need to weed out these funny folk who preach the incredibly annoying and ignorant falsehood that true federalism means more oil money. It doesn't, it means greater self reliance, greater autonomy and the tools to move away from our id!otic oil dependence to developing functioning economies.

We have way too many loudmouths in the country, spouting stuff that is dangerously foolish.

True talk.