Follow Us on Google
Four months to the December 2025 target for the conclusion of another review of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), many issues stare the country in the face regarding governance, democracy and quest to have a nation that works.
Many people have argued that the problem of governance in Nigeria has a lot to do with the Constitution. The argument has always been that the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is not a “people’s constitution,” being a document hurriedly prepared by the military on the eve of the transfer of political power to a democratically elected government. Therefore, the document is seen as a “military constitution” prepared for a democratic government.
However, other people have argued that the problem with the Constitution is implementation. Those in this school of thought argue that, even though there are some flaws in the Constitution, the greatest problem is that the various arms of government have always implemented it in breach.
There is merit in this argument. If President Bola Ahmed Tinubu could impose a state of emergency on Rivers State and also remove from office the governor and state legislators, this lends credence to wrongful implementation of the Constitution, which cannot be blamed on the provisions therein. For the avoidance of doubt, whereas Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provided for the imposition of state of emergency in any part of the country, it did not give the President any power to remove from office any elected government official.
Since the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is not perfect and also not totally useless, the window becomes the review of the document, through amendments, with a view to making it better. The National Assembly and the state Houses of Assembly have, in the past, carried out amendments, which have improved the Constitution. However, more amendments are required, since a constitution is not supposed to be static but to evolve. Constitutions all over the world undergo periodic tinkering to be abreast with contemporary realities of governance.
It is, therefore, good that the legislature is working on another amendment of the Constitution. In doing this, the legislators should take into account the various complaints about the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and strive towards taking care of the grey areas. In this assignment, the legislators should be nationalistic, bearing in mind that good governance, unity, justice, equal rights and equal opportunities are some of the things that make a good nation.
It is not, however, all the things that have been canvassed for constitution amendment that should be considered. Some of the suggestions are abstract. Some others are academic. Yet some others are impracticable. People have canvassed the change of the system of government from presidential to parliamentary. The truth is that there is nothing wrong with the presidential system of government. There is also nothing superlative about parliamentary system of government. What matters is the implementation of the systems of government. While presidential system thrives in some countries, there are other countries where the parliamentary system of government has not given rise to good governance nor changed the lives of the people for the better.
What the current Constitution amendment should address, therefore, are germane things that would set the tone for restructuring. In this direction, the legislators should look at power rotation among the six geopolitical zones, state police, state creation, election disputes and issues bordering on defection of politicians from one political party to another, among others. In taking care of these issues in a Constitution amendment, time is of the essence. The practice of concluding constitution amendment towards election season or when the sitting government is winding down is a waste of precious time and resources. Constitution amendments should be concluded in ample time when the assent of the President would be possible. An amended Constitution that does not get the assent of the President is dead on arrival.
Power rotation is at the root of political stability, peace and unity in the country. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) recognised the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria: South-East, South-West, South-South, North-East, North-West and North-Central. This recognition came about owing the smart political engineering of broad-minded Nigerian statesmen, who have reasoned that equity, justice and recognition of the diversities of Nigeria would lead to greater cohesion and progress. The time has come for the nation to go a step further to also make power rotation among the six geopolitical zones a constitutional matter.
The next amendment of the Constitution should, therefore, make the rotation of power among the six geopolitical zones compulsory, with clear provisions. Simply put, the Constitution should expressly state that the presidency should rotate among the six geopolitical zones, one after another. This means that no geopolitical zone should occupy the presidency more than once until the circle is completed. By so doing, all the geopolitical zones in the country, which, to a large extent, represent the configuration of the people of Nigeria, would have equal opportunities in occupying the presidency of the country. It is worth stating that there is nothing wrong with power rotation, as no part of the country or geopolitical zone has the monopoly of knowledge in governance. All parts of Nigeria or geopolitical zones have good presidential materials or leaders, with requisite wherewhithal to offer good governance. It is just to get the right person.
Other News
Constitutional provision of power rotation among the geopolitical zones of Nigeria would ensure that no particular zone would use its political strength or population to monopolize power at the centre, to the exclusion of other zones. Since the current democratic setting in 1999, the North-West geopolitical zone has produced two Presidents (Umar Musa Yar’Adua and Muhammadu Buhari). Within the same period, the South-West zone has also produced two Presidents (Olusegun Obasanjo and Bola Ahmed Tinubu). The South-South geopolitical zone, within the period, has produced one President (Goodluck Jonathan). The South-East, North East and North-Central have not produced the President.
Were power rotation among the six geopolitical zones enshrined in the Constitution, three geopolitical zones would have, by now, produced the President, with the fourth zone holding power at present. This means that in the next 24 years all the geopolitical zones would have produced a President for two terms each. This would have ensured better political stability, trust among Nigerians and a feeling of inclusion for all components of the country. With two geopolitical zones producing two Presidents each and three others not smelling power or having any hope of occupying the presidency, the feeling of marginalisation and exclusion would always fester.
The ongoing Constitution amendment is a great opportunity to address the fad that governors are the Chief Security Officers (CSOs) of their states. A situation where someone is called a CSO without the inherent power is simply a joke. This is why the lamentation and expression of frustration by the Zamfara State governor, Dauda Lawal, over insecurity will continue to resonate. Governor Lawal told the world that he, as governor, provides equipment, logistics, intelligence reports and others for security agencies, but has no power to give them directive to act. He revealed that, with the security architecture he has set up, with a view to gathering intelligence, his government tracks the movement and activities of bandits and criminals in the state, supplies the information to federal government-controlled security agencies but action is not taken real-time by the security agencies. He said, with a good measure of confidence, that were he in control of security in his state, in the true sense of it and could deploy security operatives, insecurity would have long been addressed in Zamfara State.
This brings to the fore the agitation for state police. The current Constitution amendment should address this by giving state police constitutional backing. This will not dismantle the federal police but, rather, complement the institution for better crime fighting and provision of security. Many states of the federation have demonstrated capacity and ability to independently police their space. Zamfara has a security surveillance mechanism to see what is going on in parts of the state. Enugu State has the same surveillance system at its Command and Control Centre. There are many other states that have the same setup and are ready to take up the challenge of security.
Governors buy patrol vehicles and provide logistics for the police in their states. Governors provide requisite equipment for security agencies. There was a time in the country when a state government, on the approval of the federal government, sponsored the training of some policemen abroad to combat terrorism, kidnapping and sundry crimes, as a special force for its use. When governors are already spending money on the police, it goes to show that funding state police would not be much of an issue for them. The bone of contention has always been the payment of salaries for the personnel. When total funding of police, for instance, becomes the responsibility of the governors, they would face it squarely.
The time has come for the Constitution to devolve security power to the states, for the establishment of state police. In implementation, criteria and conditions should be listed that must be met before this is activated by any state. When governors fund security (police) in their states, by provision of logistics and equipment, and also have control over the apparatus that will complement the federal police, the country will have a better security situation.
A lot has been said about state creation. Those who say that there should be no more state creation because of the fact that some of the existing states are not viable have their say. Those who think that more states should be created to further bring development to the people have their say too. However, what is true is that state creation has done much in the socio-economic development of Nigeria. Without state creation, many parts of the country would still be in darkness, figuratively speaking. But with state creation, some of these areas have seen the light and the people have been put on the map.
However, in saying this, I am not canvassing the creation of a large number of states. As currently constituted, there is imbalance in the state creation structure. Four geopolitical zones in Nigeria, South-South, South-West, North-Central and North-East have six states. North-West has seven states. South-East has five states. There should be a Constitution amendment to correct the imbalance in the number of states in the geopolitical zones of the country. There has to be the creation of an additional state in the South-East to bring the zone at par with at least the other five geopolitical zones. Doing so is to ensure equity, fairness and justice. With one more state, the South-East will have six states and would enjoy equal say and benefits like others. The additional state to be created for South-East should be Anioma State, comprising all Igbo speaking areas of Delta State.
The constitution amendment should also address the ridicule, which defection has made of the political system of Nigeria. A constitutional provision is needed to the effect that elected officials, who dump the political parties that gave them elective positions, should automatically lose such positions. Since, by law, political parties field candidates and nobody can stand an election without a political party, it should be a fiat accompli that elective positions won by political parties should either be retained by them or relinquished when the candidates leave the political parties within the tenure. This would bring sanity to the system and stop the vexatious defection by politicians due to exigencies and selfish interest.
Also, the constitution should address the time-limit of election disputes. A situation where people assume office while their election cases are still on gives undue advantage. All election disputes should be settled at the courts before swearing in. To ensure this, the constitution should stipulate a time-frame between when election results are declared and the swearing in date. At least election dispute should be dispensed with two weeks before swearing in date.
There are other areas that need amendment in the 1999 Constitution (as amended), but first addressing the above listed areas would go a long way in creating a good environment for adaption of evolving needs as well as correcting some structural flaws hindering unity and progress in Nigeria.
