Parliamentary system will restore hope in Nigeria’s democracy – Rep Dasuki
Hon. Abdussamad Dasuki is a member of the House of Representatives representing Kebbe/Tambuwal Federal Constituency of Sokoto State. He is the Chairman of the House Committee on Marine and Blue Economy (Shipping Services), and the spokesman for the group of lawmakers seeking the reinstatement of the parliamentary system of government in Nigeria. In this interview, […]
hon. abdussamad dasuki
Hon. Abdussamad Dasuki is a member of the House of Representatives representing Kebbe/Tambuwal Federal Constituency of Sokoto State. He is the Chairman of the House Committee on Marine and Blue Economy (Shipping Services), and the spokesman for the group of lawmakers seeking the reinstatement of the parliamentary system of government in Nigeria. In this interview, Dasuki speaks on the flaws of the presidential system and argues that a return to the parliamentary system, which engenders accountable, responsive and responsible governance, will restore hope in Nigeria’s democracy.
You are one of the proponents of the parliamentary system of government. I would like to ask whether your group is fully aware of the factors that led to the collapse of this system in the 1960s.
Of course, we are aware and we are also aware of the fact that our failure to retrace our steps and embrace the system of governance adopted by our founders has been the bane of Nigeria’s development.
What happened?
We need to ask ourselves why, in 1966, just after approximately five years of independence, some young officers came and killed our leaders. What were the reasons behind this, and what justification was there for such actions? Let us reflect on the achievements of those leaders, noting that their achievements were engendered by the fact that they were nationalists and operated a robust government system. You are from the northern part of the country, as I am, and I have also lived in the southern part of the country. For example, if you visit the South West, even today, they continue to honour Chief Obafemi Awolowo for the foundation of sustainable development and growth he established for them. In the northern part of the country, who do we celebrate today? We lack a hero like the Premier, Sir Ahmadu Bello. All the foundational developments were achieved through his efforts. Also, look at the developmental strides in the Eastern part of the country at that period. These were leaders who genuinely had the nation’s best interests at heart. We must note that they were enabled by a system of government that held them accountable to the people, and made them responsive and responsible. These are what the parliamentary system offers.
Are you saying there is a nexus between the parliamentary system and the achievements recorded by the First Republic politicians?
Of course, there was a nexus between the system and the achievements of the First Republic politicians. Those who exercised executive powers were representatives of the people. They were elected by their various constituents. They lived in their constituencies, they knew the challenges of their constituents, they felt their pains, they shared their aspirations, and so it was not difficult to envision a glorious future for their people. That was why at that early stage they could think of industrial hubs, major tertiary educational institutions, cluster farming and marketing boards, and other consequential projects.
- Food security: Saudi Arabia to set up farm equipment manufacturing plants in Nigeria – Kyari
- Building a culture of environmental sustainability in Nigeria
Some people believe that the parliamentary system only facilitated the emergence of powerful regions rather than a strong central government. What is your response to this?
There is a difference between the system of government and the geopolitical structure of the country. While one is about the governance system that prescribes the relationships between the arms of government, their functions and powers, the other is about the tiers of government, which define relationships between the levels of government, their jurisdictions and powers. In the First Republic, we had a parliamentary system of government; we also had a regional system. There were three regions, which could be described as the natural geographical division of the country – the North, West and East. Due to heterogeneity, a fourth region – the Midwest – was carved out of the Western region. If the First Republic was not truncated, no doubt we would have had more regions carved out because of the heterogeneity of Nigeria. In other words, the state system we now operate may have addressed that in a way. The view that the parliamentary system facilitated the emergence of powerful regions, is debatable. The regional system by itself devolves more powers to the regions and allows the regions to enjoy greater autonomy. What is not debatable is the fact that the parliamentary system allowed the regional governments to be accountable to the people and to be responsive to their yearnings and aspirations. It couldn’t have been otherwise because the members of the executive and parliament were elected representatives of the people. In other words, the parliamentary system of the First Republic facilitated the achievements of the various regional governments. Each region developed at its own pace, and as a result, Nigeria benefited overall because there was development throughout the nation. This is precisely our point. There was transparency and accountability, in contrast to the current system where leaders are elected, yet they remain unseen for a substantial part of their tenure. You elect executives who spend more than 50 per cent of their time in Abuja, and you appoint ministers who are often unaware of the needs and desires of the people. They are not only far from the people, they do not know their needs nor feel their pains. That is why you have policies initiated by the executive in a presidential system that not only impoverish the people but practically inflict pain on them.
That’s why we advocate for change; we need a system that is people-oriented. We seek a government system where leaders are held accountable, not on a weekly basis but daily. It is rare for a day to pass without a motion on insecurity, on the wanton killings, and the observance of a minute’s silence. Imagine that members of the federal cabinet were picked from the parliament; imagine that there is a president’s question time, either weekly or bi-weekly or even monthly; imagine that the motions were moved in parliament with the president and his ministers seated in that particular session. Will the motions not be complied with? Will the cabinet not feel the pulse of the various constituencies through their representatives in such sessions? Will they not observe the trend and quality of debates that led to the adoption of the motion? That is part of the reasons we call for a return to parliamentary system.
But why do you think the presidential system is not providing such interventions?
The fact is that by default, the presidential system has its flaws. Its flaws are fundamental. Some of these flaws are the high cost of governance, including the enormous cost of electioneering and the actual election, slow decision making and implementation pace, tendency for the emergence of an all-powerful leader who is neither accountable to the people nor their representatives in the legislature, tendency of the cabinet to comprise members who are far from the people in terms of values, vision and aspirations, and the inability to change a bad leader until the next election cycle or through a rigorous removal process. That is why after 25 years of uninterrupted democracy, Nigeria is still in search of a government system that works. On May 29, Nigeria recorded 25 years of uninterrupted democracy. This, no doubt, is a milestone, but beyond that, it has been a tale of woes for the country- economic woes, security woes, and political woes. You will agree with me that Nigerians are worse off economically in 2024 than they were in 1999. You will agree with me that the security situation in Nigeria is worse in 2024 than it was in 1999. You will also agree with me that the hope of a greater future was brighter in 1999 than it is at the moment when many Nigerians are relocating abroad having lost hope that they could have a better future in their father’s land. Let me be very clear – this is not the fault of democracy but the flaws associated with the system of government. The presidential system of government makes those who govern, both the federal and state, to be far from the people they govern. The cabinet is not even accountable to the people or their representatives in parliament, rather the cabinet is accountable to the president or the governor at the state level. That is why motions and resolutions of the National Assembly or State Houses of Assembly are treated with disdain by the executive.
Some of the policies or political actions of the government in the presidential system that have caused pains and impoverished the people could not have been possible in a parliamentary system where such would have to be scrutinised by the representatives of the people in parliament. Would the fuel removal policy of the government be possible in a parliamentary system? That is doubtful because parliament would have served as the voice of the people. Even if such was initiated by the government, it would have been constantly subjected to review through constant debates and questioning sessions involving the president in parliament. The truth is that the interest of the people against arbitrary or inhuman government policies is more guaranteed in a parliamentary system.
Also, the problem of abandoned projects across Nigeria would not have existed in a parliamentary system where government programmes and policies are sanctioned by the parliament, thereby protecting projects from being abandoned by successive governments. Take the Obasanjo administration policy on the sale of refineries and the reversal of that policy by the Yar’Adua government. In a parliamentary system, such a major policy involving the sale of the nation’s assets would have gone through the parliament, and this would have made it difficult for a new government to reverse the sale without legislative input. The reversal of the sale of refineries is why we are where we are today in terms of fuel importation and the huge cost to the nation.
Take Sokoto where I come from for example. In the COVID period, the government of Governor Aminu Tambuwal constructed a 1,200-bed hospital in Sokoto township and built almost 300-bed hospitals in each of the three senatorial districts. The government had fruitful engagements with the African Development Bank to fund the completion of the projects, and in fact, the ADB was willing to support these laudable projects that would cater for the medical needs of not just the people of Sokoto but also the neighbouring states in the North. Sadly, this project has been abandoned by the new government in the state, which has not shown any willingness to complete the project despite the fact that all was set to get the support of ADB before the Tambuwal administration ended. Such would not have happened in a parliamentary system because the governor would be subjected to constant questioning on the floor of the assembly.
Some pundits argue that a parliamentary system will not reduce the cost of governance. They believe that the true solution lies in adopting a unicameral legislature…
The bicameral legislature that we have is an attempt by the framers of our constitution to ensure both equity and equality of states in representation. While membership of House Representatives is by constituency delineation based on population, that of the Senate is based on equal representation of states. Scrapping either of the two chambers under the current presidential system of government may further heighten the cry of marginalisation. However, if there is a transition to a parliamentary system of government, such options could be considered because the system by default is representative, accountable, responsive and responsible. This is so because both the executive and legislature comprise elected representatives of the people. Yes, it is true that the budget of the National Assembly has increased over the years. This is due to the fact that the National Assembly was always the major casualty of truncated democracy, as the institution is suspended and it roles usurped by the military councils. With the return of democracy in 1999, after close to two decades of military rule, there was a need to build the institution in terms of setting up physical infrastructure, bureaucracy and funding of other associated legislative services, such as constituency offices and staffing. No doubt, this may require a review depending on the kind of services or infrastructure, or bureaucracy that is required. The truth, however, is that when you place the budget of the legislature side by side that of the executive, you will see that the executive in a presidential system is characterised by the huge cost of governance that denies every other sector the needed funding. You talk of ministers and their plethora of aides such as special advisers, senior special assistants, special assistants and other bogus titles. Also, take a look at the convoy of any of the ministers, you can’t find less than four vehicles – all funded by the government. Only presiding officers of the National Assembly have convoys, apparently for security reasons because of their positions in the order of precedence. Some ministers don’t even travel within the country by commercial flights. At the state level, commissioners are appointed by governors into his cabinet. These are people that are not elected representatives of the people. The commissioners also appoint aides, further adding to the huge costs of governance. In a parliamentary system, on the other hand, the majority, if not all, of the ministers are drawn from the parliament. This was the practice, and it is what some of us are proposing with certain amendments. We are calling for a home-grown system of government, akin to the parliamentary system.
Your group visited Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, and he mentioned that he was not particularly in favour of the parliamentary system; rather, he advocated for an entirely different political system for Nigeria.
On the contrary, former President Obasanjo shares our perspective on the search for a government system that works for Nigeria. He is of the view that the Western-style democracy has failed Nigeria and Africa. He advocates a system that takes into cognisance the culture, tradition and way of life of Nigerians and Africans. In fact, he suggested what he called ‘Afro-democracy’, which would be a product of our culture and tradition. One of the aims of the lawmakers advocating for a parliamentary system of government is to ignite a national conversation on the need for a review of the governance system using the call for a home-grown parliamentary system as the launch pad. President Obasanjo is in support of such a national conversation.
When I interviewed Alhaji Tanko Yakasai in February, he suggested that we should look to France and learn from their system. Assuming we consider this, how can it be adapted to a country with hundreds of ethnic nationalities?
I am pleased that you mentioned one of our leaders, Alhaji Tanko Yakasai. We have yet to meet him, but I have read his remarks. This indicates that he also believes something is amiss with the current system. Even those who were involved in the First, Second, and Third Republics, and now the Fourth Republic, recognise that there is a problem with the current system. The French operate a hybrid system of government, which is a semi-presidential system of government with a president and prime minister. In other words, France is a republican state and a parliamentary democracy. In the French system, the president is not elected by the parliament but directly by at least half of the voting population. The president, however, appoints the prime minister, who is the head of government and proposes members of cabinet for appointment by the president. The Council of Ministers, which is the executive arm, meets weekly at the official residence of the president, and the meeting is presided over by the president, who, interestingly, is not a member of the government. The Council of Ministers is however responsible to the French parliament. Nigeria is a federal republic and operates a presidential system. But France’s diversity is not as much as Nigeria’s diversity. A better example of a parliamentary system with great diversities would have been India with its 1.4 billion people, over 100 languages, over 700 tribes and the presence of all the major religions. We are not advocating for a textbook parliamentary system or one identical to those practised in Britain, Australia, France, India or elsewhere. We seek a unique, home-grown system that is distinctly Nigerian, taking into account our specific circumstances and ensuring that leaders are consistently accountable to the people. We are not claiming to have the final solution or a definite prescription of the exact shape or form of government system that would work for Nigeria. What we are seeking is the creation of a platform for consensus building, where we can agree on what is best for us as Nigerians. We are seeking a home-grown system that draws from all systems that work anywhere in the world, taking cognisance of our history, culture and peculiarities.
How will you manage the inconsistencies inherent in the parliamentary system? For example, consider what has happened in the UK over the past three years, with multiple changes in prime ministers. Do you think this system would thrive in Nigeria?
That is the beauty of parliamentary system. The ability to change a government makes the government accountable, responsive and responsible. Parliamentary system works in such a way that coalitions are built, compromises are made in the spirit of give and take, and the yearnings and interests of the people are prioritised, thereby guaranteeing the stability of the government. Take the First Republic for example, we had only one prime minister all through the period, so the fear of inconsistencies or the fear about the system thriving may be misplaced. However, to be very clear, we are not advocating for the West Minster style of parliamentary system. What we are advocating is a home-grown system that is derived from the consensus of a national conversation and rooted in the history and culture of the people.
Beyond the debate between parliamentary and presidential systems, it is often suggested that the core issue lies within us, Nigerians. Do you agree with this viewpoint?
It is a fact that human beings are the operators of government systems, and how well the system works could also be a function of its operators. That is where attitudinal changes matter. However, it is also true that a government system characterised by fundamental flaws would continue to militate against growth and development, no matter how skillful the operators of that system are. Conversely, a system, which works effectively for a society or nation, a system, which is a product of a nation’s history and values will engender the emergence of strong institutions, efficient processes, transformational leaders, and patriotic citizens and ensure growth and development. In other words, there is a nexus between a nation’s development and its government systems. If a nation’s governance system is at variance with its history, values and aspirations of the people, that nation will continue to totter. That is why the prosperous nations of the world are also nations that have their government systems rooted in their histories, cultures and values. Our intention is to kick-start a national conversation on the system of government that will work for Nigeria, a system where the operators will be accountable and responsive to the people.
In specific terms, what lessons are there for Nigerians to learn from the past?
As I said earlier, there is a difference between a system of government and the geopolitical structure or division of the country. The leaders of the First Republic were nationalists who championed the aspirations of their native peoples and operated mainly within their regions. They were the first set of leaders thrown up by the political process, apart from leaders produced by the traditional institutions. Things are different now. We are not advocating for a return to regional politics. The diversity of Nigeria would not allow that to happen. Even now, there are increasing agitations for state creation. Our proposal focuses on maintaining the state system as opposed to the regional system. For instance, we have drafted three bills suggesting that governors should be elected from their primary constituencies and subsequently elected by their respective state assemblies. The governor would serve as the first among equals, mirroring the structure seen in local governments where councillors, elected directly by the people, represent and understand local needs on a daily basis. This proposal aims to ensure that governors remain closely connected to their communities and responsive to their demands. We want to ensure that leaders serve the people, not the other way around. A government system that works for Nigeria will throw up such transformational leaders.
And then he selects commissioners from members of the state House of Assembly?
Commissioners will indeed be selected from among the members. However, some argue that the governor should have the option to appoint one or three technical experts from outside. As I mentioned earlier, it’s still a work in progress. A national discourse is quietly going on at various levels on what should be the shape and form of the government system that will work for Nigeria. We have been consulting with eminent Nigerians like former presidents, elder statesmen, traditional rulers, and opinion leaders on this. The consensus is that the current system is flawed and has put Nigeria in a quagmire of challenges. Therefore, there is a need to hold a conversation on which system would work for Nigeria. Recently, we launched an essay competition for the younger generation. We aim to engage Nigerian university students globally to write essays on whether they believe a parliamentary system would benefit us. The responses have been encouraging. We’ve received numerous entries. The deadline for submission has been extended to July 31st due to the overwhelming interest of Nigerian students around the world in the essay competition and appeals from a cross section of students for extension of the submission deadline. These are some of the steps being taken to ensure that all strata of the society are involved in the discourse.
That’s the question I would have asked… If everything boils down to elections, it means a large segment of society is excluded, and those elected would wield power over them.
Society elects representatives to parliament. Anyone elected has the potential to become a minister or commissioner, so people are unlikely to send someone incompetent. The incentive to select capable leaders, professionals, and experts in diverse fields who can deliver results would be higher. If we are not deliberate about choosing leaders committed to serving the people, we will remain where we are, and the consequences could be dire.
Don’t you think you might be putting the cart before the horse, instead of, say, focusing on strengthening the judiciary and improving the civil service?
If the government system is flawed, the flaws would impact the arms of government and the bureaucracy, and consequently retard the development of the country. That is what the imperfections of the presidential system have done to Nigeria. The starting point is to first devise a home-grown government system that addresses the flaws of the presidential system and reflects the history, culture and aspirations of the people. Our proposal starts at the grassroots level. We suggest that in the 2027 elections, local government elections should coincide with the general election, granting them autonomy. Let’s implement a genuine and home-grown parliamentary system in local governments and observe its development. This will provide us with valuable insights and allow for necessary legislative amendments. By 2031, our aim is to extend this model to the state level and potentially to the national level.
A significant undertaking like changing the system of government necessitates alignment between the legislature and the executive. How would you ensure that you garner the president’s support?
The president has demonstrated a commitment to democracy. The proposal aims at democratic consolidation. Many Nigerians feel disconnected from the democratic process, as evidenced by declining voter turnout. The parliamentary system brings governance closer to the people. We are confident that as more Nigerians embrace the proposal to return to our roots with a parliamentary system, the president, as a staunch advocate of democracy, will uphold the democratic will of the Nigerian people. Perhaps, the president may even be more enthusiastic about the proposal than those currently leading the charge.
In what way does the parliamentary system reduce costs, especially concerning elections?
Our Presidential system gulps a lot of funds for the conduct of elections. For instance, INEC expended received N323.4bn to conduct 2023 general election. This is more than the budgets of some of the states. The parliamentary system is empirically proven to be cost-effective in several respects. Consider campaign expenses, for instance. In a presidential system, a candidate vying for the presidency must mobilise substantial resources to campaign nationwide because the entire country constitutes a single constituency in presidential elections. For a candidate vying for governorship, the entire state is a single constituency in a presidential system. This contrasts with the parliamentary system, where a prospective prime minister only needs to campaign in their immediate parliamentary constituency. If their party secures a majority of parliamentary seats, the leader of that party, who contested in a specific constituency, is invited to form the government as prime minister. Furthermore, ministers are chosen from among parliamentarians, and the same applies to commissioners at the state level, significantly reducing the overall cost of governance.
Will the system also facilitate the development of opposition parties?
The parliamentary system facilitates the development of opposition parties by officially recognising them as the shadow government. The opposition party is granted the right to form its own shadow cabinet, which is officially acknowledged and empowered to monitor the activities and policies of the ruling party. This contrasts with the presidential system, where the opposition lacks such formal recognition and is limited to holding minority leadership positions in the legislature. Imagine a parliament that has Atiku, Peter Obi and others who command the respect of their parties’ supporters. Imagine what would be the quality of opposition in parliament.
You are a prince of Sokoto Sultanate. What is your take on the Kano Emirate crisis?
The unfolding development in Kano is quite unfortunate. The traditional institution is an embodiment of our tradition, culture and values. It embodies our history. Occupants of traditional stools are custodians of our heritage. My appeal and caution to us as politicians is to ensure that we preserve this institution and the occupant of the stool. Some of these traditional institutions have endured for centuries. Any attempt to distort this history is a disservice to posterity. The future generations will not forgive us. We must do everything to preserve our heritage and the honour of its custodian.