Nigerians And Current Constitution Review

Since its inception as a country, Nigeria has had many constitutions: the Clifford’s in 1922; Richard’s in 1946; McPherson’s of 1952; down to the 1960 independence constitution; 1963 Republican Constitution; 1979; and the present 1999, which is an amendment of the 1979 constitution.

The existence and subsequent amendment of these constitutions had expectedly defined the Nigerian society at any given point with many elements, the operation of which was either viewed satisfactory or otherwise.

Of all the amendments, none has been described people-oriented as the on-going constitutional review, which gained such recognition by virtue of it being held at the grassroots in order to get the true feelings of the people and reflect same in the final document.

Going by the manner in which the nation-wide referendum on the constitutional review was organised, Nigerians have shown great expectations regarding the final report being truly representative of their various interests. They are thus highly expectant of that constitution that would adequately make provision for their dues and their security before laying emphasis on their obligations.

However, their wait may be longer than envisaged. This is because the National Assembly has continued to disagree over various issues in which they had indicated their stands when their opinions were sort at the grassroots late last year.

Though the reports of the referendum conducted across the country by both the House of Representatives and Senate are yet to be made public, there are already indications that the lawmakers may find it difficult to speak in unison in certain key issues. Such issues include state creation and local government autonomy.

This disagreement has already stalled the first public hearing for the report of the National Assembly on the nationwide referendum by the Constitution Review Committee of the House of Representatives. The Speaker, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal cancelled the event last month after a marathon meeting of principal officers that lasted over three hours.

According to him, the cancellation was necessitated by the need to put certain things right by carrying out more consultations on contentious issues.

“As a  leadership, we have reviewed the process so far and realised that we cannot go ahead with this programme today. Just like any other things associated with humans, there are hitches here and there, that is normal”, Tambuwal said.

Contrarily, indications are rife that part of the disagreement in the Lower House borders on the fact that the Deputy Speaker, Emeka Ihedioha, who is the Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee, is not on the same page with his principal on certain provisions suggested in the report.

After several efforts to reach a compromise failed, Tambuwal and his loyalists chose to “stop what they christened unfavourable report, from becoming a public document, saying that such presentation may further complicate the hitherto fragile situation among the lawmakers.

The position of Tambuwal and his loyalists was alleged to be a reaction against such issues as state creation and immunity. It was alleged that the Speaker and his Deputy disagreed on several occasions when attempts were made to reach a compromise on the grey areas.

The implication is that the leadership of the House is currently divided into two with each supporting either Tambuwal or Ihedioha on the issues. The situation is almost the same in the Upper House, Senate.

According to inside sources, the arguments for and against the need for new states have also caused a sharp division among principal officers of the Senate: While Senate President, David Mark and his Deputy, Ike Ekweremadu, are for state creation, some principal officers mostly from the North, are opposed to the creation of more states.

In fact, as at the last debate, it was difficult to determine what the result would be if the lawmakers had decided to vote on the contentious issue of state creation. The reason was that while a good number of senators from the South and North Central were in support, most lawmakers from the North were strongly against it.

The Senate President was quoted to have said: “the argument of those opposing state creation is based on whether existing states are viable or not. But they forget that a state might be unviable just because the administrator is not ingenious with internal revenue generation, or the people are not united and the administrator has to spend the available resources on achieving peace.

“I am for the creation of Aba State and any other State that may fit the conditions. I have never shied  away from my agitation for creation of additional states…”, he said.

Ordinarily, all these and other arguments from the perspective of a selfless broadminded person, which is what those the legislators represent expect them to be, can only be for the best, if the aim is to create an egalitarian society in the Nigerian state. Anything outside this can only further heat-up the polity.