Inside Belgore Committee Report on Nigeria’s future
Suspicion of a hidden agenda greeted the inauguration of the Justice Alfa Belgore committee almost eight months ago. Consisting mainly of recycled political names, the Presidential Committee to review outstanding issues from recent constitutional conferences was overshadowed with the fear that President Goodluck Jonathan wanted the group to legitimise his tenure elongation dream. This fear […]
Suspicion of a hidden agenda greeted the inauguration of the Justice Alfa Belgore committee almost eight months ago. Consisting mainly of recycled political names, the Presidential Committee to review outstanding issues from recent constitutional conferences was overshadowed with the fear that President Goodluck Jonathan wanted the group to legitimise his tenure elongation dream. This fear was not unfounded.
The committee which had Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe, Senator Udo Udoma, Professor Anya O. Anya, Chief Ebenzer Babatope, Professor Jerry Gana, Dr Chukwuemeka Ezeife, Ambassador Jibrin Chinade, among 20 members, was set up shortly after Jonathan’s 7-year single tenure agenda led to an intense political debate. When Justice Belgore committee submitted its report last Tuesday and the 7-year single tenure was missing from its recommendations, Sunday Trust’s exclusive story, earlier in the year that the committee had disagreed on the issue and had thrown out the president’s intention in establishing the committee, was proved right.
Terms of Reference of Belgore Committee:
President Jonathan, on November 17, 2011, set up the committee with the following Terms of Reference (ToR):
i. To review reports and implementation guideline(s) of 1994/1995 Constitutional Conference and the 2005 National Political Reform Conference; and identify the constitutional, political, economic, social and other governance issues agreed upon in the conference(s) but which have not been implemented;
ii. To deliberate upon the currency and relevance of the issues identified above;
iii. Draft Bills for the consideration of the National Assembly in respect of the issues identified above;
iv. Prepare policy papers/memoranda for the consideration of the Govenrment as may be applicable; to ensure that the issues receive the full attention as agreed upon and intended by the originating conference(s);
v. Identify, discuss and seek agreement on issues of national importance upon which the recent conferences did not achieve consensus; and for the purposes of those specific issues only, to request for Mr President to expand the membership of the Committee as he deems appropriate; and
vi. Discuss and conduct suitable consultant on political and other problems that may be referred to from time to time by the government.
According to the committee’s report, in its attempt to tackle the issues exhaustively, four sub-committees on judicature, fundamental rights/bill of rights, legislature (federal and state) and executive (federal and state), were established to look at aspects of the previous conferences relevant to their subcommittees.
The committees studied and made remarks on the recommendations made at the 1994/1995 and 2005 political conferences. They also received memoranda from groups and individuals across the country, and intensely debated them in order to arrive at their recommendations.
MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
Beginning with the Judiciary, the committee looked at how to strengthen the Judiciary, decongest courts, executive immunity, prison reforms, among 12 other issues. The committee recommended that in deciding constitutional matters like election to the Office of the President and Vice President, the Termination of the Office of the President and Vice President or vacancy in any of these Offices, the quorum of the Supreme Court should be of the whole Court, but that the quorum of the Supreme Court should not be less than 11.
In deciding the presidential election petitions in 2007, there were seven Justices of the Supreme Court, while in 2011, there were eight justices. It, however rejected the 2005 political conference’s recommendation for the establishment of Constitutional Courts in all states of the federation and instead favoured the creation of a Constitutional Division in the Federal High Court.
One of the major recommendations in the Judiciary and which the committee made a strong point is about election petitions and electoral tribunals, which it said, at presently constituted, is wasteful. The committee’s recommendations on this issue go thus: “The Election Tribunals as presently constituted is wasteful, distrusted and riddled with allegation of corruption as judges now lobby to be appointed.
Trial of Election Petitions for office outside that of the Governor of a State by only a single judge belonging to the State of Federal Capital Territory is preferable because it would be inexpensive, time saving; and will minimise corruption. For petitions involving the election of the Governor of a State, a Chief Judge from another State/FCT is to preside over election petition. The Chief Judge of a State is the nearest Judicial Officer to the Governor in the sense that the Governor could have a hand in his appointment. Therefore, a Chief Judge of another State sitting with two other Senior Judges of that State is appropriate.”
On issues related to the Executive arm of government, the committee made recommendations on the following: power rotation, pension, public service, carpet crossing, executive immunity, ethic and anti-corruption commission, independent candidature, incapacitation of the president or governor and local government chairmen.
It touched also on issues of the establishment of the Nigerian Prisons Service Commission, tenure of Office of President/governor/local government chairmen, national security, local government reforms, traditional institutions and cultural reforms, and harmonization of prosecuting agencies.
On the issue of power rotation which is entrenched in the Peoples Democratic Party’s constitution and led to political crisis ahead of the 2011 elections, the committee described it as ‘emotive’ and recommended that it should not be included in the constitution. Rather legal backing should be given to it so that INEC can enforce it, if contained in parties’ constitutions.
Just as its position on power rotation is not dramatic, so also is the committee’s position on executive immunity. The committee called for the establishment of the Office of Independent Counsel which will be vested with the task of investigating allegations and initiated proceedings against the executive arm of government, even while office holders enjoy immunity from prosecution.
On the issue of fight against corruption, it recommended that an Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission should be established to harmonise the activities of the EFCC, ICPC, and the Code of Conduct Bureau, and its funding should be a first line charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The committee recommended also that if the president or governor is incapacitated, it is not the Federal Executive Council, but the Council of State that should take on the responsibility of calling for a full report on the President to decide that the Vice President should act as President. In the 1999 Constitution, it is stipulated that the report on the executive’s health should be submitted to the FEC, which had the power to declare the president or governor incapacitated to function, and his deputy shall take over.
Concerning the tenure of Office of President, governor and local government chairmen, the committee said, “(it) deliberated on this issue exhaustively, weighing the merits and demerits of both the single term and two-term tenures. It unanimously recommends that the matter will be best considered and resolved by a larger representative forum when the committee is enlarged as indicated by the President.” This neither here nor there position of the committee is understandable because of the tendency of this issue to generate heated political debate if a definite position were taken.
Perhaps, the tier of the executive that would benefit from the committee’s recommendations greatly are local government councils. The committee recommended that states should have the prerogative of creating local council and thereafter notify the Council of States of the Federation. However, it added that revenue allocation to the councils should be based on the principles of population, equality of states, internal revenue generation and landmass, etc, as enshrined in Section 162 (2) of the Constitution.
It also called for the scrapping of the State Joint Local Government Account Committee and the establishment of the States Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (SRMAFC) which will allocate funds to the State Government, Local Government Councils and between Local Councils of a State, using the same distribution principles from RMAFC from the Federation Accounts.
On the aspect of the Legislature, the committee deliberated on 18 areas, among them the doctrine of separation of power, legislative powers of a State, appropriation act, presidential system of government power sharing/devolution of powers; constituency projects, and aspects of amendment to the 1999 Constitution.
On the legislative power of states, the committee remarked that State Houses of Assembly looked weak and recommended that independent candidates in the State Houses of Assembly should be encouraged so that executive manipulation of the selection and election of lawmakers is minimised. It also called for financial autonomy for State Houses of Assembly as obtains in the National Assembly. Concerning the controversial remuneration of members of the National Assembly and administration of overhead cost by the legislature, the committee said it is against monetisation, and that “On no account should any allowance(s) be introduced outside those provided for by the RMAFC, and as approved by law.”
It also called for the power sharing/devolution of powers as follows:
i. Reduction of powers at the Centre and devolution of same to the States as Federating Units;
ii. Allow the Centre to retain necessary powers to enable it exercise its sovereignty;
iii. Enable the Centre to act for the Federating Units in areas of common and mutually beneficial interests and services;
iv. The system of Local Government as a tier of Government should be guaranteed, and its financial autonomy ensured, without prejudice to the creation and supervisory roles of the State Governments; and
v. A political power-sharing structure as follows: (a) Exclusive Legislative List; (b) Concurrent Legislative List; and (C) Residual Powers.
The committee called for a change in how constituency projects are being executed at the moment and rather called for lawmakers to identify the projects of their choice and allow relevant government offices to execute them.
The Belgore committee made many recommendations for changes in Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists, asking, for instance, for the creation of an additional state in the South-East, and saying railway should now be under the concurrent list to enable states establish their own railway lines. It also deliberated and made recommendations on human rights issues, including the recommendation that an Equal Opportunities Commission should be created to replace the Federal Character Commission. It argued that, “This will ensure that, besides geographical and ethnic balancing, the rights of women and persons with disability are respected and represented.” It also recommended that anyone whose rights have been breached should have the power to institute a legal action for redress. The committee further drafted bills for the amendment of the constitution to reflect all the recommendations they have made.
REACTIONS TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT:
The National Publicity Secretary of Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) Mr Osita Okechukwu yesterday likened most recommendations of former Chief Justice Alfa Belgore-led presidential constitution review committee to a situation of building a bridge to nowhere.
Okechukwu, in an interview with Sunday Trust, said the committee did not even succeed in what President Goodluck Jonathan intended them to achieve.
He said anybody talking about the amendment of the Constitution must try to focus ‘on core impediments to the growth of our democracy, which is free and fair election’, stressing that the Belgore committee did not address the issue as Mr President and governor still have the power to appoint the head of the electoral body in their domain.
He ruled out the possibility of success the recommendations for devolution of power and provision for independent candidacy, adding that instead of putting railway under the concurrent list, Section 162 of the Nigeria Constitution ought to have been well defined.
He said, “The terms of reference given to Justice Alfa Belgore Committee are just to douse the agitation for Sovereign National Conference (SNC). From the little I read from their report it’s like they are building a bridge to nowhere.
It was unlike Uwais Committee that actually looked at issues the way they are and took the public interest at the back of their mind. You have not set the timeframe for legal framework and you devolve power. The difference between democracy and military rule is free and fair election, independence of judiciary, accountability and transparency.
Once somebody knows that the vote doesn’t count, he won’t be accountable.”
He added, “We don’t need independent candidate because in the history of the US, they have provision for independent candidate, they have never won any presidential election. Today, we have over 50 something political parties and some of the parties actually had not won a councillorship position.
We should not go there. If we want our democracy, we have to address the fundamentals; independence of the judiciary, what will make the judges to be trusted, what will make the electoral process to be trusted. On the issue of devolution of power, the committee wasn’t clear and I didn’t see anywhere in their recommendations where there is a bill to be presented to the National Assembly to help Mr President.
Even if you devolve powers and make Enugu State where I come from a zone, and there is no free and fair election, it will be like local government election. There is nowhere, so far it has been held, the party in power in that state does not almost win all.”
Also reacting, the National Chairman of Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA) Chief Sam Nkire backed the decision of the Belgore committee on the independent counsel to investigate governors with immunity from prosecution, but who are under security watch.
Nkire said, “As far as I’m concerned, nobody should have immunity. Be that as it may, since we had immunity and nothing is being done about it, there should be an allowance to investigate governors because they have become lords.
They spend money that doesn’t belong to them. They do as they wish. In fact, there is more democracy at the centre. Most governors are autocratic in their states and if there is going to be an independent investigator backed up by law, that is welcome so that they can know that power resides with the people.
I applaud the Belgore report, even the one on creation of one additional state in South-East. That will create room for equity. There is no way South-East should be short-changed. South-East needs the sixth state in the interest of justice.”
Furthermore, a former deputy governor of Kebbi State, Alhaji Suleiman Muhammed Argungu, in his reaction to the recommendations, by the Justice Belgore’s committee for the provision of financial autonomy to the nation’s state assemblies, said that it was a welcome idea as it would further strengthened the lawmakers in the performance of their constitutional duties without undue interference by state executives.
He said, “I quite agreed with the recommendation of the Justice Belgore’s committee for the provisions of financial autonomy and independent candidates in the state House of Assembly to curb the manipulation by state governors. I was in government.
As a former deputy governor, I know how we used to manipulate and dictate to the state house of assembly. I think if we should allow this to continue, we will not have good legislation and incompetent people will be imposed on competent people who are supposed to be the true representatives of the people. The idea of state governors imposing their candidates on the Houses of Assembly to do their wish at the expense of the wish of the people should be stopped.”
On the recommendation for the scrapping of the joint accounts operated by the state and local governments, he said that despite the fact that the local government chairmen are stooges of the governors, it’s high time the joint account stopped for better performance of the local governments in the country.
“I completely support the scrapping of the joint account being operated by state and local governments. I think it will allow them to discharge their duties in line with the provisions of the constitution. They will also do more and even allow their electorate to enjoy dividend of democracy.
“You will discover that in states where governors were reported to EFCC or ICPC, local government fund was involved because this is where a lot of money is put, especially when the tenure of the elective officers there has expired and the governors are yet to conduct another election to elect new local government chairmen. The governors took advantage of this to siphon a lot of money from the local government coffers. This has to be stopped,” he said.
The former deputy governor also bemoaned the manipulation which has almost incapacitated the anti-graft agencies in the country. He submitted that “I think the establishment of the EFCC and ICPC is the wish of the president without any serious commitment to fight corruption. Tell me, from 1999 to date, out of all the governors and other government officials that were alleged to have stolen from the coffers of their states, how many of them have been prosecuted? How many ministers, commissioners have been prosecuted?
Only few. What you hear at the end is plea bargaining, where the indicted governor or minister can go free by releasing some of whatever he has stolen, and you don’t even know where the stolen money is kept after that. Therefore, there is need for a commission to harmonize the activities of the anti-graft agencies if we are determined to curb corruption in this country.”
Alhaji Argungu in his reaction to the Belgore’s committee recommendation on the monetization issue in the National Assembly stated that what accrued to the legislators, particularly the National legislators, is so high and this is responsible for the do-or-die affairs that are going on at the National Assembly and in PDP, the ruling party.
“I think this can be regulated by scrapping the monetization policy, which has rather created more corruption in the National Assembly. When there is no bogus enticement, I believe, they can sit down to perform their legislative duty, corruption will reduce at the National Assembly then we can have good legislation.”
In similar manner, a Lagos constitutional lawyer, Chief Fred Agbaje has said that the recommendation by the committee for unified rules for courts is a welcome idea. Speaking to Sunday Trust on phone he said “A situation where a court will give verdict and another one else will give contrary verdict does not augur well for certainty in the law. We know that one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law is that law must be certain at all time so that the people whom the law is to regulate will know it.
This problem of recurring different judicial decisions is prominent in the Court of Appeal. A Lagos division will give judgment another one in Sokoto will say that is not our stand, until when the issue is dragged to the Supreme Court, which will now say, a particular Court of Appeal was wrong and a particular one was right. What about those who do not have money to go to the Supreme Court? They suffer injustice in the process. This is why I’m in accord with Justice Belgore recommendation,” he said
Chief Agbaje also argued that there should be proper coordination between the anti-graft agencies. He posited that the duplication of duty by the EFCC and ICPC has not helped the war against corruption in the country.
According to him, “I think there should be proper coordination of the anti-graft agencies. Where EFCC just released you and ICPC immediately comes after you, does not show any coordination and complementation in their campaign against corruption. There must be coordination. For instance, what is EFCC doing that ICPC cannot do? I think we can have one of them doing whatever they are doing on corruption, but because of our political mentality, our political leaders must create job for their own and tax payers must face the brunt.
“The EFCC can be better funded, equipped to do what both ICPC and Code of Conduct Bureau are doing. And if you ask me, what are these two anti-corruption agencies are doing that the police cannot do? The police special fraud unit can do better than both EFCC and ICPC. Give them independence to fight corruption, equip them with necessary logistics and fund and see if they will not perform better. The EFCC has only survived on media hype. Let them tell us what achievements they have recorded on corruption in the last one year. Most of the cases they have against indicted public officials have been thrown out, so, what are they talking about?”
Senator Sadiq Abubakar Yar’adua (CPC, Katsina Central), commenting on the recommendation that rotational presidency should not be in Nigeria’s constitution, said Nigeria does not need rotational presidency. According to him, “I always want the best person to be president of Nigeria.
We should discourage rotation of power and zoning. Let the best Nigerian go out and canvass for the support of all Nigerians to be president of Nigeria. How do we rotate power? If we rotate it among the six geo-political zones, it means that if every zone is going to produce president twice, it will take about 40 years before some other geo-political zones can produce president.
Even within a zone, each state may want to have that opportunity. So, it is a cumbersome thing. The best thing for us is to allow people to contest for the presidency on the basis of merit, and whoever emerges is the president of Nigeria, not the president of a particular zone or tribe”.