Goodbye, from the National Conference

Now the ball is back where it was tossed into the political arena from the beginning: the Presidency. It is up to the denizens of that precinct of power to decide their next move. But one thing is clear; forgive me for using this rotten metaphor if you just had breakfast: anyone who attempts to […]

Now the ball is back where it was tossed into the political arena from the beginning: the Presidency. It is up to the denizens of that precinct of power to decide their next move. But one thing is clear; forgive me for using this rotten metaphor if you just had breakfast: anyone who attempts to shove an ill-prepared constitution down our throat risks drowning in our collective vomit.
Most readers will be aware that when the conference resumed last week, after three weeks break, it become embroiled in controversy over what do it with its report. In line with sentiments expressed by many delegates, who were quite open about their wish to replace the 1999 constitution with another one, the secretariat helpfully presented us with a brand new “Draft Constitution for the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2014”!
Trouble was some of us were not aware that we were engaged in the process of drafting a new constitution. Indeed in committee and at plenary, we thought we won the argument that an unelected, lopsided body of over eager elites cannot, in good conscience, convert itself into a constituent assembly. But at the end of the day, it was not about sense and sensibilities. Some delegates thought they should seize the moment to remake Nigeria in their own image. There was much excited chatter about producing a new constitution and going over the head of the National Assembly to seek the approval of Nigerians through a referendum.
While it is normal for people from diverse backgrounds to come with different expectations and for those who set up the conference to have their own agenda, I for one thought the leadership of the conference, headed by a distinguished judge, cannot be swayed into taking us into uncharted constitutional territory. But my heart sank when zonal representatives, who met with Justice Kutigi over the controversial ‘draft constitution’, said the man was dismissive and even hostile. The chairman of the conference was reported to have said that he had the mandate of the President to produce a new constitution. He added that delegates (mostly but not exclusively from the North) who were unhappy with that could walk out, since in any case they were a minority!
I couldn’t square that with the image I had of Kutigi, as a fair and apolitical judge, who had served his country well and honourably retired. To begin with I was worried when he was announced as the chair of a “National Conference” that was sprung on us a few months to a national election. I recalled that when Media Trust approached Justice Kutigi to chair the 2013 “Daily Trust Annual Dialogue”, he declined on the ground that the event was “political”. We were disappointed as we had hosted the dialogue for fourteen years as a public enlightenment programme, which three former chief justices and almost all our former heads of state and two ex-African presidents had attended. But I did not hold it against Kutigi, rather it reinforced my impression of a reticent jurist who is determined to stay above the fray. But now I wonder, for what can be more political than for a sitting president to suddenly decide that he wants to change the constitution he swore to uphold and to proceed to handpick most of the delegates that would do this job, including Justice Kutigi himself!
But perhaps Kutigi was angry with the Northern delegation because we have written him one letter too many. I had said at one of our nocturnal meetings that old judges hate to be lobbied (to which one of the judge delegates, Bilkisu Aliyu, said she heartily agreed with me). The Northern Delegates Forum had written many letters to the chairman protesting about procedure and other matters. May be he saw read when another query came questioning the source of the ‘ Draft Constitution’. Whatever it was, the former chief Justice sounded as if he had made up his mind not to listen to all sides in a brewing dispute.
So what would explain the quick climb down less than 24 hours after this stormy meeting? The best explanation I heard from a delegate who was at that meeting was that it was Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, the deputy chair of the conference, who suggested renaming the controversial document an “ Amendment to the 1999 Constitution” rather than a “Draft Constitution 2014”. It was also Akinyemi, who from all indications is in the thick of the intrigues about a new constitution, sold this compromise position to leaders of southern delegates, whom he met with Kutigi the same day.
It was this opening that allowed the deeply symbolic substitution in nomenclature. When Adamu Maina Waziri from Yobe stood up to read a resolution to effect this change at the commencement of sitting the next day, few could predict what the outcome would be. In fact some delegates, who were out of the loop, had begun to stamp their legs in protest and were shouting “counter motion.” But if the conference was not to dissolve into chaos, there was only one possible solution that day. I guess the leaders of the conference and most delegates sensed this and Adamu Waziri’s motion was loudly passed.
The tension then dissolved into palpable relief and delegates who had arrived that morning expecting to shout into each other’s face, cheered and embraced. The old national anthem rent the air and this time most joined in singing it with gusto. Deep-seated animosities do not die easily, but at that brief moment, the possibility of national healing seemed real. I saw several Yoruba delegates queuing up to take cell-phone pictures with an amiable northern emir, whom they all deferentially called “Kabeyesi”.
Indeed while the National Conference was consciously (or unconsciously) designed to pitch North against South, Muslims against Christians, in the end what separated the wheat from the chaff was character, not religion or region. The hidden persuaders, whose tails stuck out, reflected our ‘ federal character’. Fortunately they did not have a good conference. A motion on 6- year single term proposed by a former federal permanent secretary was unanimously thrown out. Even on the contentious revenue allocation debate, a delegate from Cross River told me that the interest of his state on issue was closer to that of Katsina( mine) than to that of neighbouring Akwa Ibom. If you looked closely, there were several shades of grey. A Professor of Physics from Abakaliki, who is also a Muslim activist; and Professor Andrew Haruna and Hauwa Shekarau, who though proud Christians, were the stalwarts of the northern struggle for unity and equity.
There were others who took positions of principle, at variance with the rehearsed stance of their regional blocks. Usually you could predict what a speaker would say from where he came from, after all the cameras were on us! But there were many distinguished professionals too big for such games. One of them was Chief Mike Ahamba and I singled him out because we served in the same committee, in addition to observing him at the plenary.
Whenever it came to any issue of legality, you can expect Chief Ahamba to forcefully and eloquently defend the rule of law. Even on the controversial new constitution, which had listed the additional state the Igbo delegation vigorously lobbied for, he did not waver. He understood what many weak men are willing to overlook, that when laws do not apply to all, without distinction, they will ultimately end up applying to none.

Yusuf is a delegate to the National Conference which ended last week.