Hon. Eseme Eyiboh,  the House Committee Chairman on Media and Public Affairs, speaks on topical national issues in this interview. Excerpts:

IS the president legally authorised to assent to the amendment of the constitution?
Let me say very clearly that the problem we have as a nation is that of turning every issue into a platform of accepting every individual’s capacity to lead. Section 9 of the constitution has clearly spelt out the procedures for the amendment of the constitution. A lot of people are trying to rely on sections 58 and 318 of the constitution when it comes to the issue of the alteration. My own opinion, and I stand to be corrected, is that the process of the amendment of the constitution was followed and the moment two-thirds as required of the state Houses of Assembly backed that, then it is conclusive. Having been done in both chambers of the House of Representatives and Senate and the two thirds of the state Houses of Assembly, the results have  been vetted by the National Assembly.

So anybody who feels otherwise should go to the Supreme Court. That would help to enrich our jurisprudence. It is not to go to the television and newspaper to start talking. By doing that, we are not helping the development of the rule of law. Anybody who has a contrary opinion or who understands the constitution differently on the inappropriateness of what the National Assembly is doing should go to the court for the interpretation. Whatever the Supreme Court says since it is the issue of the constitution, all parties would be bound by it. As at now, since nobody has considered that means, we have satisfied substantially the provisions of the constitution.

The worry is that if elections hold and shortly after, someone goes to court and the court declares whatever was amended illegal since the president did not assent to it, then a fresh problem arises...
One thing you must know is that when you are talking about the president assenting to it, it is not a holistic thing. Like any other bill, assuming that it requires the president’s assent and the president declines, after 30 days, you can veto it by two-thirds. The fear of a person going to court to challenge is not reasonable. Whoever wants to be patriotic enough by saying that what we are doing is wrong, then this is the time the person ought to go to court. Take note that by the time we had public hearing, we consulted widely at zonal and national levels and the state Houses of Assembly, holding public hearings. I don’t know how an individual’s opinion would create the suspicion and almost create a state of anarchy.

Many believe that the Nigerian constitution is faulty. As a lawmaker, do you think the few aspects that the House amended are the only ones that need amendment in that constitution?
I have taken time to read about the 50 fellows who crafted the American constitution. If you read it, the fuel that fired them was the issue of national consciousness and the determination to attend to the dynamics of the American society for the years ahead. No constitution is amended holistically. You would never have a 100 per cent, including the American constitution. You would still have lacunas here and there. Ours is not an exception in that respect.

Away from the issue of constitution amendment, why is House scared of recalling the suspended members despite series of appeals?
One thing you must know is that the matter is in court. It’s in court at the instance of our brothers and sisters. For anybody to take any action either by the House or the people in that respect would amount to contempt. It is reasonable that we allow the full process of the law because as an institution, we are creatures of the law and we must obey the law.

How do you feel when National Assembly members exchange blows over minor issues?
The National Assembly is an institution and the conduct of individuals are direct consequences of the demographical and typographical variations. I am coming from a different background. My demographical type is different from yours. The character content of my personality is different from yours. If I choose to fight with you out of lack of control of my temperament or out of my character elements, I have exposed the level of my immaturity, and the level of my inability to accommodate contending opinions.

Don’t you think that such individuals should be sanctioned heavily?
As an individual, if I act as such towards you, it is better because the two of us have exposed ourselves so that the society would begin to understand the context of its leadership process. Without these things taking place, you and I would not agree that there is weakness in our leadership recruitment process. The leadership recruitment process in the country is very weak, that’s why the institutions are weak. It is there in the legislature, the judiciary, in the executive. Once the wrong person is put in the right place, the institution definitely will be weak. We are having situations where individuals are stronger than the institutions that they represent. They use those institutions and create cult personalities around themselves. We have neglected to differentiate between politics and governance. We now begin to see a  people who are benefiting from the poor leadership recruitment process taking over the institution. What you consider as fighting has been apologised for. We have apologised. Mr. Speaker is a very humble and a proactive leader in the House of Representatives. He is a creation of the collective responsibility of all of us. It is not a product of the Speaker of the House. It is not a product of the presidency. It is not a product of any party. Most of these public commentators do not have voters' cards. For the past ten years, they have not gone to where they come from. What stops them from going to where they come from and also participate in the process? They wait for the process to be concluded and the outcome. Their business is just to give analyses and criticise the process. This is not how it is done in developed democracies.

Why do some people say that the Speaker is a dictator?
Dictatorship or tyranny in the context of semantics is like saying he is very arrogant. I can look at a man who knows what he is doing as an arrogant person. But I can tell you now that the disappointment most people, including myself, is having about Mr Speaker is that when he came in, we thought that granted his age, he is quite a very young fellow and that we would see youthful exuberance reflected in his leadership. But we have been disappointed today because instead of youthful exuberance, he is proactive, he is accommodating. A lot of people are disappointed. Instead of being a party freak and a jolly good fellow, he is very strategic. For the period he has presided over the House, the outcomes of our legislative engagements have given robust executive actions.

For example, a lot of people would have shied away from certain issues. When he became the speaker, he introduced what we call input-output outcome micro-economic approach that in every input of our progression, we need to see the outcome and trace oversights. We were able to recover funds. But before now, what happened was that there was no return of money. In 2008, we recovered 450billion as unspent fund. That money was thrown back to the treasury which was part of the money that was used in taking care of the deficits of 2009.

All this tracking of public expenditure is within the purview of public management strategy. Look at the runway. Somebody awarded a contract of 65billion for the building of the second runway. But Akwa Ibom State government has the longest runway in this country. It has two. How much did they spend? They didn’t spend up to 30billion naira. But one runway, not even to that length, was awarded for 65billion. We went after it because of that legislative engagement. The executive now came up and cancelled that contract. This is to show that in his tenure as the speaker, we have been able to create a leverage that at the moment there is a synergy among the executive, legislature and the judiciary. But at the same time, we are trying as much as possible to ensure that we don’t become appendages of the executives. The days of legislative rascalism are gone.

Last year, we looked at over 3trillion naira from the special committee set up under the leadership of Dimeji Bankole to look at internally generated revenue. We have found out that over 3trillion was not remitted to the federation account which of course is a violation, substantially, of the constitution.

Now, internally generated revenue initially was seen to be a windfall for ministries, departments and agencies of government. You would see an agency generating 1.9billion but what it needs in the budget is 1.8. What happens to the rest of the money? But today, people are trying to make sure that they spend the money to execute projects so that they would not return the money. We’ve been able to make sure that the appropriation is done the way it should be.

No matter how much people criticise the outcome of the power investigation that we undertook, it was an investigation. We were able to prompt the executive to rise up in its responsibilities. Today, power is the utmost thing in the agenda of the executive because we were able to activate them.

The era of legislative rascalism is over, so you said.
Yes.

Are you assuring Nigerians that there won’t be exchange of blows and other derogatory actions in the House again?
No, the issue of legislative rascalism is one whereby you just sit down in the chambers and profess money. The next thing you say is that the executive must give you this money if not, Mr President would be impeached. This has to do with individuals.

As the spokesperson for the House, what would you recommend as sanction for any member who engages in such untoward attitude?
We are talking about the issue of leadership recruitment process. You have to look at the people you are bringing to various positions of responsibility. Leadership is not a gift, leadership is earned. There is a concomitance of responsibility which goes with accountability.

You belong to the group that recently adopted Mr President to continue in 2011. Legally it’s right but do you think that it is morally right in view of the agreement on ground?
What we did was not to adopt to continue. Because if you talk about it, then you are talking about the breach of the rule of law.  Personally, I believe in zoning. But first and foremost, we must give meaning to what zoning is. Zoning is a mechanism to redress perceived injustice. To that extent, I believe in zoning. In 1999, PDP decided to do the zoning. It said that presidency should go to the southwest because of the circumstances of that time - the circumstances of the death of Abiola. That zoning was intended to redress the perceived injustice of June 12 election, the injustice to Abiola and the Yoruba man. But because the presidency went to the southwest, every other position was now zoned.

In 2006, some other circumstances arose; the Niger Delta crises. We as a people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria came to an agreement that there should be amnesty and there was amnesty. We agreed that there should be a ministry of the Niger Delta. NDDC was part of the intervening initiative of the people of Nigeria because they have perceived the Niger Deltans to have been unjustly treated. Fortunately, a Niger Delta son was picked as a running mate subsequently, as a vice president because of this case of injustice. Unfortunately, the president died. That is the issue of providence. It was not done by any man. The vice president became acting president and became substantive president. This is the issue of providence. If those circumstances have thrown themselves today, we have to review the zoning. We have to review the zoning on the fact that with the intervention of providence and our agreement that Niger Delta is perceived (and of course we’ve agreed that they have been unjustly treated) and it is no longer a perception.

Is the injustice not by their leaders in the Niger Delta?
No. It is by Nigeria. We provide 98 per cent of the earnings of this country. Do you have roads there?

But what have their leaders been doing all this while?
We are talking about governance. Well I can give you the example of a governor who is trying to give value for money. That is the Akwa Ibom State governor. If you go to Akwa Ibom today, every road there is like a runway. I may not be able to talk about other states but I am talking about the state that I come from.

If you talk about the issue of morality, it becomes right that zoning should be reviewed. I am begging others to come together for the integration of this country that the thing should be zoned to the south south because the subsisting president is still in office. Providence has made it so.

If you are inside an aircraft, when the pilot dies, the co-pilot takes over. You won’t ask that the journey should be aborted so that they would bring another pilot. The president died, he had a vice president. The vice president by our law should become the president which he had.

You are a lawyer by profession; you are at the National Assembly as a lawmaker. Why did you engage yourself in buying an illegal property to the extent that you were embarrassed as an illegal occupant?
I can tell you as a Christian, a law abiding citizen and I am going to show you how legally-minded I am. I bought this property, signed the agreement on July 2, 2007. It’s because I legally bought it that I was given the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O), the keys, and physical protection. In 2007, I renovated the place to my taste and packed in. I have been living here since 2007. Then suddenly, one Senator Hassan Guzo representing Zamfara Central came to me through the biological son of the late former owner of the property that he would like to buy the property. I said no. Then I thanked him for recognising my ownership of the property. I told him I couldn’t sell it. The next thing he did by February 2008 was to come with policemen that a Sharia court had given the title to him. I said it could happen in the theatre of the absurd. The documents he had were written in Hausa. I said I needed a translation. He said he would go to Kaduna to get me someone to translate it.

I went to court. The court gave a ruling on the 4th of May, 2009, restraining Senator Guzo and any of them from executing the release of the sharia court. That judgment is still subsisting. On the 3rd of June, Guzo took that sharia document and went to court 24, Abuja High Court, presided over by Justice Usman Musa to go and collect the execution of the judgment of the upper sharia court that a previous court of jurisdiction had already restrained him from. That judge went ahead and granted it even when he had no jurisdiction to do what he did. The judgment in question is about distribution of family estate and has nothing to do with title. I was in the United States when they came in and vandalised my house. An Islamic cleric came with some street urchins and vandalised the place. I had to go back because I am law-abiding. I went back to that court. I said “My lord what you did was wrong. You have to reverse yourself.”  We propounded eight questions for him to answer. The man saw the issues and he was handicapped. He went ahead and lamented that the counsel, incidentally a SAN, misled him for God-knows-why. He did not disclose the material facts. I have written to the NBA about the said SAN and his junior in chambers; I’ve also written to the National Judicial Council against the judge. To bring sharia from Jigawa State to the Federal Capital Territory is amazing. What has happened to me is like casting your vote in a state  and the winner declared by INEC,then another person who never contested election would go to a Sharia Court and bring a ruling that it was Mr. B who won the election and the court says go ahead and execute the judgment. We have never really approached the issue. A lot of people are talking about politicians and Prof. Jega. What about the judiciary? We need to pay attention to the judiciary. A bad judge is worse than an armed robber.