Follow Us on Google
The ongoing constitution review by the National Assembly Joint Committee on Constitution Review has thrown up a number of uncomfortable issues. The panel not only rejected proposals for the rotation of the office of the president and governors among the six geopolitical zones in the country and the three senatorial zones in each state, it also rejected the control of mineral resources by states where they are deposited. This is not too good. Also, it rejected the proposal for the impeachment of the president, vice-president, governors and deputy governors for defection from the political parties on which they were elected to others and the prohibition of pardon for persons convicted of corruption.
The committee reportedly considered 69 proposals for alteration in the 1999 Constitution, rejected 25 and approved 44 bills for consideration by the parliament. Those approved include the reserved seats bill seeking to create six senate seats, 37 House of Representatives seats and 108 state assembly seats for women, and local autonomy bill.
We commend the committee for the job so far done, especially with regard to state police, reserved seats bill for women in the national and state assemblies, devolution of powers, and fiscal reforms.
But we urge the members to revisit their rejection of some of the proposals, including power rotation, resource control and punishment for defection. We strongly believe that rotating the office of the president and vice-president among the six geopolitical zones, until a time all zones must have taken their turn, will ensure equity and political inclusion and obliterate the cry of political marginalization. The same should be at the state level where governors and deputy governors should rotate among each state’s senatorial zone.
As an emerging democracy, we need constitutional provision on power rotation to avoid unnecessary agitation during each election cycle and to avoid one zone or region monopolizing central power or state power. The 1995 draft constitution, which emanated from the 1994/95 constitutional conference, had recommended six-regional structure for Nigeria, and rotational six principal offices of five-year single-term duration. This should be highly considered.
The committee should revisit the resource control matter as well. The current feeding-bottle federation is why some states are not developing. Fiscal federalism will make every zone or state develop at its pace. The 1960 Constitution enabled each region to run its affairs independently. Then, the regions got 50 per cent of the revenue; the centre got 20 per cent while 30 per cent went to the Distributable Pool Account. This engendered healthy competition among the regions, with each leveraging on its area of comparative advantage.
Today, the Federal Government receives 52.68 per cent of the statutory revenue while the states and local governments receive 26.72 per cent and 20.60 per cent respectively. The 13 per cent derivation fund for oil-producing states and the Value Added Tax revenue are not among this statutory revenue. This is against what obtains in some other pluralistic countries like Canada, India and the United States which operate true federal constitutions.
The committee should revisit the proposal on defection and find a way of criminalizing and punishing it. Defection will kill this democracy if there are no punitive measures to check it. It is already turning the country into a one-party state. This is antithetical to democracy. Recently, many governors elected on the platform of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). The governors include Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State, Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom State, Peter Mbah of Enugu State, and Douye Diri of Bayelsa State. This has been happening over the years with impunity. With the exception of Anambra, Osun and Oyo states, the governors of the entire southern Nigeria now belong to the APC.
A good number of opposition lawmakers have also defected to the APC. Sections 68 and 109 of the 1999 Constitution stipulate that lawmakers should vacate their seats upon defection, unless there is a party split. This has been observed in the breach. Besides, most of the defections have little to do with internal party crisis, ideology or principles but more with selfish interests and political survival. This should be halted as it will harm our multi-party democracy. It is a betrayal of the party that sponsored the election of the defecting candidate. Whoever defects without any cogent reason should be made to lose his seat.
The defects in the 1999 Constitution had elicited calls from some prominent Nigerians for a new constitution for Nigeria rather than this piecemeal amendment by the National Assembly. Those who had made these calls include Chief Wole Olanipekun, a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA); and Chief Emeka Anyaoku, a former Commonwealth Secretary-General. They suggested that the draft should be subjected to national referendum before it could become law. Perhaps, it is time we looked into this proposal. The 1999 Constitution is an imposition by the military. It is unitary in nature and demands a total overhaul.
