A Bizarre Turn at the National Conference

Although stiff and sustained opposition by a bloc of delegates to the announcement precipitated a somewhat watering down of the move the next day to instead make the proposed document part of a number of suggested amendments to the existing Constitution, the apparent intended goal of the conference’s conveners has been laid bare. The 11th […]

Although stiff and sustained opposition by a bloc of delegates to the announcement precipitated a somewhat watering down of the move the next day to instead make the proposed document part of a number of suggested amendments to the existing Constitution, the apparent intended goal of the conference’s conveners has been laid bare. The 11th hour announcement seemed to confirm the scepticism by sections of the public over the Conference’s ultimate mission of subverting the present democratic dispensation.   Most of the conference delegates who returned last Monday for the plenary session were stunned to find copies of what they said was a strange ‘new constitution’, produced by the conference secretariat and circulated to them along with the final report of their deliberations, for consideration.
This development elicited sharp reactions from delegates opposed to it, including a press conference by members from the northern states of the country under the leadership of Alhaji Ibrahim Coomassie. The group’s opposition was hinged on two premises. Firstly, the issue of producing a new constitution for the country was never discussed and agreed to by the Conference, either in plenary or at the committee stage. Hence its introduction, through the backdoor as it were, was a breach of procedure by the conference secretariat, and as such was tantamount to foisting a new constitution on the nation.
Secondly, the new constitution fits into an easily recognizable pattern that has become familiar in the last dispensation for executing tenure elongation agenda by currently serving elected officers in the executive arm, namely governors and the president, who are otherwise statute-barred from contesting for office again, by the present constitution, they being in their second terms.  Coomassie observed that the congruence between the present development and a court judgment delivered by Appeal Court Justice George Adesola Oguntade, which ruled that some governors who were elected and  served under the 1989 Constitution could contest under the 1999 Constitution without prejudice from their previous tenures, since such was under a different constitutional order was being cynically abused. It was on the basis of such ambivalent ruling that former governors like Messrs Segun Osoba, Audu Abubakar, Buka Abba Ibrahim and Jolly Nyame re-contested elections in 1999 and served fresh terms.
Coomassie warned that if this development was not arrested, the third term agenda which he said the new constitution represented was “capable of plunging Nigeria into another circle of political chaos with potential of violence and anarchy”. On the strength of this, he declared the unequivocal stand of the Northern delegates to dissociate themselves from the “new constitution” on legal, moral and political reasons. But questioning illegality and abuse of process is not a regional issue; it should be national call to action.
Beyond the fears that the likes of Coomassie and the northern delegates and others have expressed, the attempt by the Conference secretariat to introduce new constitution raises pertinent issues. For one, it constitutes a blatant betrayal of its stated objective to promote the rule of law in conference proceedings. For electing to engage in the surreptitious attempt to impose a new constitution on the country, through the instrumentality of the Conference, the leadership has shot itself in the foot, and attracted a credibility crisis for itself and in the entire purpose of the forum.
Even Justice Kutigi’s initial assertion that he was instructed to act accordingly by President Goodluck Jonathan is a surprising twist because of its inapplicability, as it lacks any basis in the Conference’s rules. In spite of all the drama and rhetoric associated with the conference, it should be recognised that the gathering, which is supposed to come to a close this week, is nothing beyond an unelected advisory body appointed by the president, and does not possess any constitutional powers to act otherwise.  
For clarification, there is a provision which allows for constitutional amendment in the Constitution itself. By that provision the power to amend the constitution is vested in the National Assembly, which is already engaged in such a process.
The president’s National Conference is therefore not a Constituent Assembly by the fact that an elected National Assembly is already in place in accordance with the Constitution. By pretending otherwise, and engaging in a purported venture of producing a new document to replace Nigeria’s basic law, the Conference arrogated to itself the powers it does not have, powers that are constitutionally vested in the legislature. Its action is therefore largely seen as driven by a deliberate subversive intent, aimed at compromising the democratic dispensation in the country. This cannot stand.
The National Assembly, by virtue of its position, must rise to the occasion by asserting itself and putting a stop to this questionable development that has the potential of threatening the peace and stability of the nation. In this dispensation, the National Assembly cannot act as mere spectator, or even an improbable collaborator in this unfolding constitutional matter.
Like all documents, the devil is in the details. But the issue here is not fine rhetoric or flowery words; it is one of legality and procedure.
At all times, the overriding concern is not what would benefit a few in the short term, but what would be in the larger interest of the nation in the long term.