Amendments and review of laws and constitutions are not done for mere
atavism. They are done for the purpose of correcting mischief in
existing law or to provide for subjects not already covered in the
extant law and for a number of other utilitarian purposes. The
understanding of law as an instrument of social engineering, to resolve
social challenges and guide human intercourse finds relevance in review
of existing laws. Within this context, the recently released results
by the House of Representatives of the “peoples’ public sessions on
constitution review” present some interesting and rather curious
conclusions.
First, the people were reported to have voted down the idea of including the six geopolitical zones of the country in the constitution for administrative purposes only. By 134 votes in support and 212 against, Nigerians were reported to have rejected this suggestion. By 27 votes in support to 330 against, they were said to have voted down making geopolitical zones another tier of government. Again by 275 votes to 80, Nigerians voted down the idea of rotation of the Presidency between the Northern and Southern parts of Nigeria. Further, the constituencies by 210 to 47 reportedly voted against presidential power rotating among the six geopolitical zones. And the question of the rotation of the office of the governor among the zones in the state was also turned down.
It is extremely doubtful whether these results reflect the popular will of the Nigerian people or the natural sequence of developments in the polity over the years. First, the geopolitical zones in the country are already being used for administrative purposes. A plethora of Nigerian laws now demand that the President appoints commissioners, board members or representatives based on the geopolitical zones. These laws include the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2007 (section 5 [1] [d]) and the Electric Power Sector Reform Act of 2005 (section 34 [3]). These were laws duly passed by the National Assembly and given presidential assent. So, of what use is this result when the three arms of government and the people are beginning to internalise the geopolitical zones as the basis for the distribution and sharing of national resources? These laws seem to provide an implementation mechanism for the constitutional federal character principle.
Admittedly, it makes no sense for now to start constituting the geopolitical zones into another tier of government. This will only increase the bureaucracy and the running cost of governance while adding nothing to address the developmental needs of the people. It can only make sense if some other tier(s) of government is abolished before adding this layer.
On the question of the rotation of the office of the president between the North and the South or among the geopolitical zones, the result seems to be directly opposite to the popular mood of the various nationalities, interest groups and constituencies of Nigeria. Let us remember the pre-1999 political scenario when it was virtually the position of most Nigerians of Southern extraction, with the tacit endorsement of Nigerians of Northern extraction, that political power having been monopolised by the North for almost the entire period after independence, presidential power should shift to the South. It was not even the entire South but the South-West considering the June 12 debacle. This led to two main presidential candidates being of the South-West extraction. It was on this understanding that power shifted back to the North after the Obasanjo regime in 2007.
Nigerians will also recall that in the heat of the 2011 electoral contest, they were told that the ruling Peoples Democratic Party had a power rotation pact between the North and South. Essentially, the position of the president is to rotate between the North and South. This was denied by those who stood to benefit from its truncation. But during the presidential campaigns, President Goodluck Jonathan campaigned with the fact that he came from a zone that had not produced a president and as such, equity and justice demand that their zone be given the opportunity to produce the president. This disputation would not have arisen if not for the death of President Yar’adua. Those who denied the pact in 2010 also rested their claims on legality and constitutionality, great legal principles that empowered the incumbent to contest.
As I write, the Igbo are demanding that it is their turn to produce the president in 2015 and the North is insisting that power must come back to them. In the heat of the crisis in the run up to the 2011 elections, certain individuals of Northern extraction were reported to have threatened that Nigeria would not know peace if their candidate lost the election. Recently, some elements in the Niger Delta had also vowed to make Nigeria ungovernable if their candidate lost in 2015. At the state level, across the length and breadth of Nigeria, there are written and unwritten pacts for sharing power among the senatorial zones or old divisions that make up each state. Even where two groups are sharing a federal constituency, there are known written and unwritten pacts on rotation of representation.
With all these facts which could be a basis for calling upon a court to take judicial notice of power rotation as a settled principle of present day Nigerian political practice, the House of Representatives is returning a poll against overwhelming evidence. I make bold to say that power rotation is part of the DNA of our politics. Those who threatened fire and brimstone if their candidate(s) failed are legally wrong but some of them did so out of a feeling that a pact freely entered had been breached. And that pact was not in any sense illegal, immoral or against public policy. The law is often supplemented by sub rules and agreements, not contrary to the enabling law that ensures that everyone benefits from the provisions of the law.
It is either the questions leading to these returns were not properly framed or the returns do not represent the popular votes of majority of Nigerians. Rotation is dictated by our history and stage of development. We need it now to stabilise the polity and sometime in the future, after power has gone round, we can then renegotiate the principles of our national leadership. It may not be out of place to state that the insurgency currently experienced in certain parts of the country started and took a new lease of life after the 2011 presidential election. It is not too late for us to retrace our steps and guarantee all parts of Nigeria equal access to the highest office in the land. If we have enshrined the federal character principle into our constitution and even established a commission to ensure that agencies of government comply with federal character, why are we insisting that it should not apply to the highest office in the land? There is no part of Nigeria that cannot produce candidates worthy of being president. The only caveat is that the qualifications should be clearly stated and the choice of who occupies the seat should be pan Nigerian.
First, the people were reported to have voted down the idea of including the six geopolitical zones of the country in the constitution for administrative purposes only. By 134 votes in support and 212 against, Nigerians were reported to have rejected this suggestion. By 27 votes in support to 330 against, they were said to have voted down making geopolitical zones another tier of government. Again by 275 votes to 80, Nigerians voted down the idea of rotation of the Presidency between the Northern and Southern parts of Nigeria. Further, the constituencies by 210 to 47 reportedly voted against presidential power rotating among the six geopolitical zones. And the question of the rotation of the office of the governor among the zones in the state was also turned down.
It is extremely doubtful whether these results reflect the popular will of the Nigerian people or the natural sequence of developments in the polity over the years. First, the geopolitical zones in the country are already being used for administrative purposes. A plethora of Nigerian laws now demand that the President appoints commissioners, board members or representatives based on the geopolitical zones. These laws include the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2007 (section 5 [1] [d]) and the Electric Power Sector Reform Act of 2005 (section 34 [3]). These were laws duly passed by the National Assembly and given presidential assent. So, of what use is this result when the three arms of government and the people are beginning to internalise the geopolitical zones as the basis for the distribution and sharing of national resources? These laws seem to provide an implementation mechanism for the constitutional federal character principle.
Admittedly, it makes no sense for now to start constituting the geopolitical zones into another tier of government. This will only increase the bureaucracy and the running cost of governance while adding nothing to address the developmental needs of the people. It can only make sense if some other tier(s) of government is abolished before adding this layer.
On the question of the rotation of the office of the president between the North and the South or among the geopolitical zones, the result seems to be directly opposite to the popular mood of the various nationalities, interest groups and constituencies of Nigeria. Let us remember the pre-1999 political scenario when it was virtually the position of most Nigerians of Southern extraction, with the tacit endorsement of Nigerians of Northern extraction, that political power having been monopolised by the North for almost the entire period after independence, presidential power should shift to the South. It was not even the entire South but the South-West considering the June 12 debacle. This led to two main presidential candidates being of the South-West extraction. It was on this understanding that power shifted back to the North after the Obasanjo regime in 2007.
Nigerians will also recall that in the heat of the 2011 electoral contest, they were told that the ruling Peoples Democratic Party had a power rotation pact between the North and South. Essentially, the position of the president is to rotate between the North and South. This was denied by those who stood to benefit from its truncation. But during the presidential campaigns, President Goodluck Jonathan campaigned with the fact that he came from a zone that had not produced a president and as such, equity and justice demand that their zone be given the opportunity to produce the president. This disputation would not have arisen if not for the death of President Yar’adua. Those who denied the pact in 2010 also rested their claims on legality and constitutionality, great legal principles that empowered the incumbent to contest.
As I write, the Igbo are demanding that it is their turn to produce the president in 2015 and the North is insisting that power must come back to them. In the heat of the crisis in the run up to the 2011 elections, certain individuals of Northern extraction were reported to have threatened that Nigeria would not know peace if their candidate lost the election. Recently, some elements in the Niger Delta had also vowed to make Nigeria ungovernable if their candidate lost in 2015. At the state level, across the length and breadth of Nigeria, there are written and unwritten pacts for sharing power among the senatorial zones or old divisions that make up each state. Even where two groups are sharing a federal constituency, there are known written and unwritten pacts on rotation of representation.
With all these facts which could be a basis for calling upon a court to take judicial notice of power rotation as a settled principle of present day Nigerian political practice, the House of Representatives is returning a poll against overwhelming evidence. I make bold to say that power rotation is part of the DNA of our politics. Those who threatened fire and brimstone if their candidate(s) failed are legally wrong but some of them did so out of a feeling that a pact freely entered had been breached. And that pact was not in any sense illegal, immoral or against public policy. The law is often supplemented by sub rules and agreements, not contrary to the enabling law that ensures that everyone benefits from the provisions of the law.
It is either the questions leading to these returns were not properly framed or the returns do not represent the popular votes of majority of Nigerians. Rotation is dictated by our history and stage of development. We need it now to stabilise the polity and sometime in the future, after power has gone round, we can then renegotiate the principles of our national leadership. It may not be out of place to state that the insurgency currently experienced in certain parts of the country started and took a new lease of life after the 2011 presidential election. It is not too late for us to retrace our steps and guarantee all parts of Nigeria equal access to the highest office in the land. If we have enshrined the federal character principle into our constitution and even established a commission to ensure that agencies of government comply with federal character, why are we insisting that it should not apply to the highest office in the land? There is no part of Nigeria that cannot produce candidates worthy of being president. The only caveat is that the qualifications should be clearly stated and the choice of who occupies the seat should be pan Nigerian.
No comments:
Post a Comment