Constitution Review: Beyond immunity clause

Umaru Yar’Adua

Drawing allusions from attempts to amend the 1999 Constitution in the last eight years, Festus Ojudun writes on the renewed calls for review of the constitution and their implications on the political process.

AT the forefront of national discourse lies the 1999 Constitution; the body of laws that has guided the nation’s quest for development in the past nine years. Though the military handed it down, its provisions are benchmarks that govern operations of the three arms of government, the civil service and Nigeria’s external relations.

But beyond these provisions lies a more pressing issue of national significance – constitution amendment. Widespread agitations for constitution review and reformation of the political system have gradually increased since the return of democracy in 1999 and had climaxed in the National Political Reform Conference organised during the era of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. The conference’s recommendations later generated resentments in the National Assembly and threatened to shatter the polity in the wake of tenure elongation debates in the Senate. In the end, the National Assembly threw out the recommendations of the conference, thus, dashing the hopes of many Nigerians for constitution amendment at that time.

The Pro-National Conference Organisations (PRONACO) had also organised a parallel constitutional conference and had come up with its own recommendations. It came up with the Draft Peoples Constitution (DPC), the content of which many people and civil society groups applauded. Last July, PRONACO chairman, Chief Anthony Enahoro; Bishop Bolanle Gbonigi, Hajia Mujaheedat Dokubo-Asari and Yerima Shetimah filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking the court to nullify the 1999 Constitution and an order that the DPC be subjected to a referendum.

Now, those spearheading the constitution review campaign hinge their argument on the fact that the 1999 Constitution was a military contraption. They claim that it was hastily harmonised through a non-participatory process that bereft it of citizens’ input and general acceptance. This line of argument stirs up disaffection with aspects of the constitution that have attracted attention and have made those demanding for constitution review more engaging. Today, their calls have received the support of the civil society and made them allies of statesmen who share in their opinion. Such provisions as immunity for elected chief executives, revenue sharing formula, tenure of elected public officers etc. have drawn the ire of well-meaning Nigerians.

President Umaru Yar’Adua recently opened another angle to constitution review debate when he reiterated his disgust for aspects of the constitution that shielded elected members of executive arm of government at the state and national levels. He said this during a dinner the Partnership Against Corruption Initiative (PACI) organised in Switzerland.

Senate President, David Mark, and other well meaning Nigerians have since joined the president to speak against the immunity clause and the desirability of constitution amendment. But such calls are not new. Former President Obasanjo made the same call in the early part of his first tenure, but the politicking that engulfed the constitution review effort of his administration rubbished his intents and jolted moves to evolve a more acceptable constitution.

As if responding to public outcry on the necessity of the review, the former president had initiated a National Political Reform Conference with the objectives of reforming the political system and making recommendations on aspects of the constitution that needed to be changed. Members of the conference were drawn from across the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.

After months of debates, the conference submitted its report and recommendations to the National Assembly. But the consideration of the fundamental issues raised took in new dimension in the legislative chambers. Political ends, rather than altruistic intentions, appeared to have overtaken the objectives of the report. Insinuations of a ploy for tenure elongation, captioned, ‘the third term agenda,’ became widespread.

The debate over-heated the polity and pitted Obasanjo and his former deputy, Atiku Abubakar, against each other. In the end, the National Assembly, sensing the dangers ahead and the damages an amendment of the constitution at that time could have on the political process, threw out the report, leaving Nigerians to grapple with the same defects in the constitution. Today, the report lies fallow in the hands of people.

Thus, with renewed calls for the removal of the immunity clause from the constitution, a new argument has come up. Should the National Assembly fall back on the previous report and its recommendations? Should it expunge the controversial aspects of the report and adopt other aspects as basis for constitution amendment? Should fresh public hearings be conducted to re-identify areas of the constitution that need amendment? Or should the National Assembly consider the outcome of the PRONACO conference to amend the constitution? Will the recommendations of a new Constitution Review Committee/Conference be significantly different from those done in the past five years? These and more are some of the questions that have become salient in national discourse in recent times.

The last administration had expended resources and time to organise the PRC in 2005. It had also raised the hopes of agitators for constitution review only to slide into the valley at a critical time when constitutional review could have earned it a pass mark, a development that confirmed the warnings of many onlookers that the constitution review process was a camouflage.

A member of the House of Representatives, Honourable Muraina Ajibola, believes that the National Assembly should adopt the report of the National Political Reform Conference.

“We should go back to the former report, remove those controversial areas we do not need and amend other aspects of the constitution based on the recommendations made at the political reform conference under Chief Obasanjo. I think one of the controversial areas has to do with tenure of elected political office holders. Even a single term of five or six years will be good as it will not allow people to crave for second term.

“But this should be for the executive only and not for legislators because we need experienced hands in the National Assembly. In the United States and Britain, legislators can be returned 10 times. Elections into the parliament should be different from those of the executive,” he said.

But a former lawmaker in the House of Representatives, Honourable Wale Okediran, thinks otherwise.

“The constitution amendment attempt by the last National Assembly was not credible because it was geared towards elongation of Obasanjo’s tenure,” said Okediran who is now a chieftain of the Action Congress (AC).

He argued that the process was a sham in which ulterior, rather altruistic motives were paramount.

“Everything about it, including the report of the Constitution Review Committee and the public hearings should be re-done,” he added.

As the debate on constitution review rages, Nigerians are optimistic that President Yar’Adua and members of the National Assembly will not toe the path of the last administration. If the president and the leadership of the National Assembly have both reiterated the salience of constitution review to democratic consolidation, analysts and political watchers contend that they must begin the process now. Whether they adopt existing reports or they decide to begin afresh, what seems more important is their ability to amend the constitution with less political considerations.