MOVES to give Nigerians a constitution they can call their own culminated in President Goodluck Jonathan inaugurating a committee on the subject matter recently. KUNLE ODEREMI highlights the public expectations and fears over the president’s action.

Weeks after President Goodluck Jonathan inaugurated a 21-man Presidential Committee on Constitutional Reforms, the exercise is still generating widespread public comments.

Some are questioning the rationale behind the setting up of such body in view of the pattern of public clamour for the evolution of an acceptable constitution for the country.

Others are of the opinion that there is no need for such committee since the presidency has enough qualified and competent draftsmen that could synthesise the assignment the president has mandated the committee to carry out. A few critics also contend that the move was a mere distraction from core issues of governance since the National Assembly and other stakeholders have taken a similar initiative with a lot of gusto.

There are those who claim that the current exercise might lead to nowhere since similar efforts at giving Nigerians the kind of constitution befitting their peculiar political arrangement ended in a fiasco. This was in spite of the huge public funds that went into the projects during and after military rule in 1999. Nonetheless, it is not about condemnations galore. There are those who are optimistic that a new dawn could be here, given the calibre of personalities that constitute the presidential committee. According to them, their looming image could change a lot of things, as some of the eminent persons are known to be part of the tribe of advocates of genuine and sincere constitutional reforms. They said the president needed to be encouraged rather than be criticised for the latest initiative because, according to them, he has also adopted a cost-effective approach.

However, the major plank of public criticism of the presidency is the specific areas Jonathan, in his speech, itemised as constituting certain agreed issues pertaining to the Nigerian project. Jonathan had declared that the job of the body was “to develop draft bill on previously agreed issues that would go a long way to strengthen the bonds of our union.”

The settled issues, he said, include strong recommendations from past Constitutional and Political Reform Conferences on national security, human rights and social security; people’s charter and social obligations; environment and natural resources, models and structure of government, public service, power sharing, local government reforms and the economy.  Other areas the president described as of a firm agreement include proposals for judiciary and legal reforms, constitutional amendments pertaining to the public service, anti-corruption, state joint local government account, traditional institutions and cultural reforms; civil society, labour, national media reforms, among many others.

Some critics see this as an attempt by the president to gag the committee. They have categorized them as no go areas, claiming that a similar pitfall thwarted past efforts at constitutional reforms. In their opinion, the president’s speech seems to have foreclosed issues that bother on fiscal federalism, power sharing, model and form of government (presidential or parliamentary) and a federal arrangement or loose federal system. But in another breath, Jonathan had made attempts to clarify the real intention of his administration in setting up the committee, saying its report will come in draft bills to be “considered by the executive branch of government and then sent to the National Assembly.” The purpose, he stated, “is to identify with and reinforce the ongoing efforts of committees of Senate and House of Representatives as they grapple with outstanding constitutional issues.”

On their part, a couple of members of the presidential committee have been taking pains to explain their primary assignment, with an emphasis that it is not to write a new constitution. The 21-member committee include Senator Udoma Udo Udoma, as  vice chairman; leader of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People [MOSOP], Mr. Ledum Mitee; Dr. Abubakar Saddique, Ambassador Babagana Kingibe; a publisher, Ms. Comfort Obi; the President of the Trade Union Congress [TUC], Mr. Peter Esele and Professor Oladipo Afolabi. The list also include a former minister, Professor Jerry Gana; Barrister Tessy Ikimi, Mr. G.O.S. Miri, Amb. Jibrin Chinade, Alhaji Abubakar Mustapha, Professor Anya o. Anya, Alhaja Salimot Badru, Hajia Najatu Mohammed, Mr. Ferdinand Agu, Alhaji Wakil Mohammed and Barrister Halima Alfa. The team comprises a fair percentage of the consistent advocates of a constitution that reflects the genuine yearnings of the people, as the list cuts across diverse backgrounds such academia, politics, labour and the bureaucracy.

That notwithstanding, there are fears that the committee might not be able to truly present the long-held views of different main stakeholders in the Nigerian project on core issues that have constituted a stumbling block towards Nigeria’s attainment of true unity, enduring peace and stability which is sine qua non for progress and development. They fear that it might lack the will to include issues like the demand for state police, fiscal federalism, scrapping of quota system, local government autonomy and in fact, true devolution of power from the centre. Such observers say the president would have done himself and indeed the country a world of good and engrave his name in history if he had acquiesced to the convening of a national conference to tackle the National Question, a euphemism for agenda on the terms the diverse ethnic groups in the country would agreed to live together as a single entity.

Chief Ayo Adebanjo, a nationalist and seasoned politician, is a strong advocate of a conference to address those issues that have slowed down the development of the country.

He does not see any sense in the latest official move on constitutional reforms. He told Weekend Politics, “We have not had democracy really in action. It is under this period that we have the rule of law being violated, we have elections not being properly done, but we can thank God that the last one was an improvement. But for those of us who fought for independence and looking back as to the positions at independence, there is not much for us to cheer, and those in authority don’t seem to understand the problem, like (President Goodluck) Jonathan now setting up a committee to amend the constitution. We have got to the position where we should have a constitutional conference, not any committee patching the constitution for us. Who are they?”

He added, “Since we had our independence, we have been patching the constitution by setting up series of committees by people elected and unelected, some of whom don’t understand the problem. Some of those who are in the committee are fair, but they would do better with a representation of the ethnic nationalities in the country sitting down to discuss our problem, not the people we discussed earlier.” Adebanjo, who was among those in the forefront during the fierce battle against military rule in the country, said there was no alternative to the convening of a conference. He queried, “Why can’t he call a conference and let us decide it there? What I am saying is that the idea is good but the step is wrong. We are conscious that something is wrong with the constitution, but it is not a committee that should look into it.”

The founder and president of Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), Dr. Fredrick Fasehun, also faulted the president on the setting up of the committee, equating the move to trying to panel-beat the 1999 Constitution.  He said the outcome was predictable. “Jonathan should explain to Nigerians why he is spending money on panel-beating a military constitution when we could get a fresh constitution, because the product of panel-beating will not address the issues,” Fasehun said.

Similarly, PRONACO Director of Security and Logistics, Comrade Linus Okoroji, said the step was a wrong one by the presidency judging from what he saw as the aspiration of the Nigerian people. “With respect to members of the Committee, the outcome of the committee would not address the yearnings for a sovereign national conference, where the people would be effectively represented. We cannot continue to concoct things and call it amendment,” he stated.

To allay some of the fears, a couple of the committee members have explained the principal aim of the president in setting up the body. They stated that its assignment was to peruse the report of all past conferences and summarise them into a report that could be prepared into a bill to be submitted to the National Assembly. For example, Chief Ebenezer Babatope cautioned against equating the job of the committee to the task the National Assembly has set for itself on the same matter. He said, “The duty of the presidential committee is not the same thing with what the National Assembly is doing. Ours is to review the 1994/95 constitutional Conference recommendations as well as the National Political Reform Conference of 2005 and make our recommendations based on these, to the Presidency. So, it has nothing to do with the National Assembly.”

As the committee intensifies efforts on its assignment, it will be curious to see how far the president’s men overcome some of the issues being raised by critics in the incoming year. There is similar public expectations for the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the National Assembly that have shown zest in the renewed move to evolve a popular constitution for the country.