Finding common ground on State of the Nation Address bill

the various high pitched disagreements between different sections of Nigeria, the accusations and counter accusations between the executive and legislature, the sharp disagreement between the federal government and its component units – states, the vehemence of debates in the legislative houses, the struggle for self assertion by groups, even the merger by strange bedfellows striving […]

the various high pitched disagreements between different sections of Nigeria, the accusations and counter accusations between the executive and legislature, the sharp disagreement between the federal government and its component units – states, the vehemence of debates in the legislative houses, the struggle for self assertion by groups, even the merger by strange bedfellows striving to become the mega opposition to the ruling party, are all classic cases of democracy taking roots and boldly luxuriating in the Nigerian polity.
Only recently the debate on the proposed amendment of the State of the Nation Address bill in the Senate submitted by President Goodluck Jonathan generated a vehement rancor nearly turning the hallowed chamber into some sort of boxing ring, distinguished Senators let their tempers to fly and their emotions to take better part of them.
It is a healthy democratic practice to have the legislature host the president on some special occasions to give account of how he runs the nation; his stewardship should be made public through the instrumentality of the State of the Nation Address. In the United States the address is not just a communication between the president and the legislature, it is a communication between the president and the citizens of the United States. I believe this sort of address is necessary for the democratic principle of accountability to thrive.   
President Jonathan’s insistence on compliance with the provisions of section 67 of the 1999 constitution as amended however, must have been premised on the fact that the constitution has dealt with the issue of address extensively, and by legislating on it, the issue may stand the risk of being trapped in the snare of duplicity. All that the bill seeks to achieve has been captured in the almighty 1999 Constitution.
 Notwithstanding the mutuality that is between the executive and the legislature, the constitution is wary of the great latitude of independence that exist between them, such that it lets the whole issue of the address to be at the discretion of the president giving the powerful station he occupies in our national political hierarchy. Having another arm of government which complements him, and which Baron de Montesquieu describes as “separate” from him, to summon him in an arrangement that seems coercively denigrating will mean undermining the powers and influence of the president.
The hallowed provisions of the constitution could not have been wrong.
The proposal of President Jonathan on the State of the Nation Address bill is suggestive of his willingness to negotiate with the legislature on the matter. While the constitution gives all the discretion in this matter to the President by severally employing the conditional word “may”, Jonathan refused to insist on it to force his way on the National Assembly. Even before the bill came to life, he willingly attended a joint session of the National Assembly, thus honouring Section 67, which none of his predecessors ever did.  The legislature should have understood that Jonathan is not a hardliner on this issue and so reconsider the coercive clauses in the proposed legislation, at least, without unnecessary belabouring the nitty-gritty of technicalities. Tying the President down to a specific date of making the address without any option even when all Nigerians know the burden of leadership that rests on his shoulders may be uncharitable, so also is mandating him to appear in person without any latitude of delegating such responsibility even to his deputy.
The Vice President, who constitutionally and politically is meant to hold brief for the president should have been allowed to hold the fort for his boss in this matter, more so that the Vice President is competent enough and well placed within the hierarchy of power and politics of our land. Besides when the whole issue of the address started in the U.S., George Washington and other succeeding presidents only needed to merely send a draft of the address to the congress, until President Woodrow Wilson personally made the address as recently as 1934, today it is a standard tradition in the U.S. and most other democracies. This therefore suggests that we have to learn to allow our processes to evolve instead of forcing them to germinate overnight.

Solomon wrote from Abuja<[email protected]>;