A conference of deceit

The attainment of that consensus we are told was responsible for the ‘happy’ ending to the conference.One question several others and I keep asking is, why is President Jonathan so desperate in making a new constitution? Is the 1999 document so imperfect that it must be thrown into the dustbin and have a new one […]

The attainment of that consensus we are told was responsible for the ‘happy’ ending to the conference.
One question several others and I keep asking is, why is President Jonathan so desperate in making a new constitution? Is the 1999 document so imperfect that it must be thrown into the dustbin and have a new one in place?
Let’s assume it is imperfect and the need for a new one necessary, what are the objective democratic steps that the president and those concerned supposed to take in having a new one or correcting the one that is in operation and faulty? If I get it right, one of the major criticisms of those who seem not to recognize this constitution of 1999 is that apart from the fact that it was contrived under military regime, it did not have an acceptable methodology of passage but by a military decree.
If President Jonathan is so desperate that the constitution is not working, what he and his handlers are supposed to do is to propose its amendment even if radically through the elected representatives of the people in the National and State Houses of Assembly and not by outrage of a national deception called National Conference whose existence in law at best was a presidential advisory committee that did not have any basis in either legislation through parliament or constitutional creation.
To deploy so much energy and expend so much resources on a venture that has the potency of either expanding the horizon of national confusion and confrontation or possibly threaten the corporate existence of the nation just for the ambitions of some of its ruling class in my view is not only unfortunate but also horrifically amazing.
Let’s assume the president desires to propose a new constitution, a scenario that is not contemplated by the Nigerian constitution 1999, what steps would he possibly take to get to that? Necessarily through the legislature to first of all amend the exiting order to make way for the actualization of his new reality. That was done but clumsily through the Senate constitution review and as such didn’t see the light of the day because the greater majority Nigeria saw and suspected the motif of emasculating their views with those who see everything wrong with the current order that saw them to the top.
If the conference was initially set up to redraw a constitution which Justice Kutigi told Daily Trust and it took so long to come up with the kind of report that it did, then, the motif and intention of those who convened the conference is suspect. What do I mean? If a constitution is to be proposed in Nigeria, what is critical and necessary is that the representation of people into that venture must take cognizance the peculiarities of the polity in relation to its configuration among several other issues. What happened in this case before us and why the ambition of the president will not see the light of the day is because the composition of the conference was originally tilted against the North whom the president and his handlers believe in all sincerity is less populated than the south. This debate is nauseating because it lacks logic in reality.
Through the appointment of delegates into the conference, what became clear is that Bayelsa which is a creation of federal political balancing and the lowest in population by the 2006 headcount and the voter registration exercise of 2010 is more populated than both Kano and Lagos, two states that have been contesting superiority of numbers.
What I mean is that by commission or omission, the president and or those who convened the conference selected or appointed twice delegates from Bayelsa than from Kano and Kaduna. Bayelsa had about 40 representatives at the conference while Kano had just 18 so is Kaduna the third most populous state in the country.
The delegation from Bayelsa was more than that from Lagos, more than that from Oyo. What are we saying? It is under such a representation that a new constitution would either be written or reformed. How justifiable is that in the context of Nigeria’s national federal character? I think the constitution of the conference was deliberately tilted to come up with the result that it did or that the government expected of it and the rest would be a matter of economic and social politicking to ram the outcome down the throats of Nigeria.
This is impossible and never realizable because people of the federation would resist the impunity with which it will be accompanied. The National Assembly will sharply be divided on this so are the State Houses of Assembly but at the end of the day, the story will remain the same, exercise in futility.
I cannot as a citizen of Nigeria accept a constitution whose drafting or review was membered by a majority of people who are from less populated areas. In its wisdom, the 1999 constitution has provided that elected parliamentarians should have equal stake in amending the constitution that is why the committees of the Senate and the House each has one member from the 36 states of the federation and FCT aside the principal officers of the houses.
How comes then that the president wants to propose a review of the constitution and in a meeting of more than 450 representatives, only 190 are from the 19 states of the federation and the FCT? I smell rat and it is stinking! If I were to interpret this presidential blunder, the meaning will be that everything must be done to cook figures through political restructuring so that the low population areas take precedence in political matters in the country. This is not possible.
The conference chose to delete the list of local government from the constitution and at the same time raise revenue accruable to derivation. Clever by half I would say.
The unorthodox argument from people who ordinarily should know is that why would some states have more local government areas than others? This question is not only pedestrian but also mischievous. So Bayelsa with a little over 1 million people must have same number of local government areas with Kano the most populated and Niger with the largest landmass in the country? What are these professors of ignorance saying for God sake!
I am ashamed that those who are saddled with the trust of leadership are acting as likely balkanizers. Those who should know and teach the society from their fountain of knowledge are deliberately out of mischief portraying ignorance just because of some selfish ambitions.
Nigeria certainly has a hectic task ahead in the next few months. Could all these gymnastics be mere political strategies of muddling the 2015 elections?