WITH the National Assembly turning the latest opportunity to amend some sections of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution into a farce, it is imperative for all citizens interested in a stable democratic future for this country to urgently come together and stoutly resist the subtle, yet flagrant, manipulation being foisted on them by the federal lawmakers. Once a legislature has gone from bad to worse, where does it go next? To the realm of the absurd, no doubt. That is exactly what the National Assembly did when it dumped the crucial issues that gave rise to the constitution review and immersed itself in patently self-serving issues that do not offer any lasting benefit to the Nigerian people. The dubious package should be rejected.
While citizens entertained hope that our parliamentarians would consider the clauses hindering democratic growth and economic development in the exercise, feelers from the latest sessions of the National Assembly give cause for concern about the future of the country. At the outset of this new attempt at constitution review in 2012, we had argued, "What Nigeria really needs is a complete overhaul of the constitution. It is very doubtful if the National Assembly will be able to achieve this. To make this possible, Section 9 of the Constitution, which spells out the mode of altering provisions of the Constitution, should be amended in order to pave the way for the creation of a National Conference that will be tasked with crafting a new document. Nigeria must come out of its self-delusion. Our current system that is federal in name but unitary in practice is not working and cannot work. What can hold Nigeria together is a constitution that truly reflects the aspirations of its diverse ethnic nationalities." No doubt, we have been proved right, given the National Assembly's unimaginative handling of the exercise.
Less critical but divisive issues have now taken centre stage. For example, the National Assembly has surreptitiously opened the window for the creation of more states in the country by giving it an undeserved attention in the scheme of things. How can conscientious legislators even entertain such proposals in the first place? It is irresponsible of them to consider this proposal at this stage of our history, when the nation is battling with an uncertain economic future arising from the predicted decline in earnings from oil imports, unwieldy bureaucracy at the federal, state and local government levels, high level insecurity and an unsustainable recurrent expenditure brought on by a large army of legislators, executive members and public officials at the three tiers of government.
Why is a small, self-serving clique in the parliament bent on throwing the whole nation into financial jeopardy by moving to create more states when only one, Lagos, out of the existing 36 states, is viable? It raises N20 billion internally each month, and is the only one that can survive without statutory allocations from the centre. The rest depend on monthly revenue allocations from Abuja to survive, including the oil-rich states that cannot sustain their bloated bureaucracies without the monthly derivation funds.
Another absurd — even incongruous — clause getting unmerited consideration is that of the tenure of executive public office holders, that is, the president, his deputy, governors, and their deputies. Why is the National Assembly toying with the fate of the country by introducing a single tenure of six years — or seven years depending on which side the proposal is coming from — when it has already been settled in many polities that it is a healthy practice to contest office twice in a four-year cycle determined by the electorate? This is a proposal that is bound to worsen governance in the polity, as "in the single tenure system, there are no incentives, motivation and reward that can inspire for excellent performance." The National Assembly should heed the voice of Nigerians, who also rejected this clause during the public hearing sessions in the 360 federal constituencies, and voted to stick with the renewable four-year term through elections.
Though no constitution is perfect, whether written or based on conventions, yet ours is a disjointed document that failed to capture the distinctive peculiarities of our society. Worse still, patriotic leaders and a high-minded judiciary that largely determine the success of every legal framework are lacking. Our politicians and the judicial officers have not shown the kind of high-principled and strong patriotic zeal to make the current constitution work, in spite of its flaws.
For the current review not to end disastrously like the previous one during the second term of President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2006 that was headlined by the ill-conceived Third Term saga, the National Assembly has to jettison the omnibus approach it has adopted. The critical areas of the Constitution crying for amendment have to do with provisions that will return Nigeria to the path of fiscal federalism and true democracy.
Those manipulating the ongoing exercise for selfish ends should instead be seriously concerned about how to make the electoral system work so much so that all litigation can be resolved before candidates are sworn in; how to punish electoral thieves, and ballot box snatchers; how to modernise the system through e-voting; how those who are suffering environmental degradation because of oil exploration activities can enjoy the perks that come with the resource; how to rework the patently harmful, bastardised and lopsided federal system; and how insecurity can be tackled through state police.
