Why we were suspicious of Akinyemi’s consultation –Prof. Yadudu

There was a very rowdy session over the plan by the conference to adopt a new constitution where the deputy chairman Professor Bolaji Akinyemi was involved in consultation with some delegates over it. Tell us what actually transpired.I am going to split the matter into two; it is true that the deputy chairman approached the […]

There was a very rowdy session over the plan by the conference to adopt a new constitution where the deputy chairman Professor Bolaji Akinyemi was involved in consultation with some delegates over it. Tell us what actually transpired.
I am going to split the matter into two; it is true that the deputy chairman approached the retired IGP Ibrahim Coomassie with the co-chairman of the Northern Delegates Forum to discuss the issue of constitution and Coomassie delegated five of us to see him.  Luckily, I saw him first before the other four. I saw him earlier because I was fasting and he called us to see him at six; when I saw him, what he said was there is the issue of constitution and he was wondering what the view of the northern delegation was on a new constitution. And even before we volunteered our explanation as to what our position was, he said “look, it is just like you have a young boy who is asking you to give him a bottle of water. He has a bottle of water which has a blue cap; you give him that bottle, he throws up a tantrum, he is unhappy, so you remove the blue cap, you put on a red cap, when you give him, he accepts.”
Meaning, what is the problem with the constitution if you amend it? I told him that I think the analogy of an annoyed son who is given a red capped bottle instead of a blue one is a very wrong analogy to make having regard to the issue of constitution making.
But in any event, our position on a new constitution was very clear. One, we did not think that this conference which is an executive organ set up by the president hasn’t a legislative mandate; it has no Constituent Assembly mandate, it is not elected. So, the same charges you are making about the 1999 constitution being military, if this conference were to draw up a constitution, it would be the same thing; we were un-elected.
Secondly, we said look, we, members of the NDF are not going to accept a situation where when this conference was convened, we were under represented and then you want to use the same numerical strength which is skewed against us to draw up a constitution. We cannot draw up a constitution with our hands tied to our backs.
Thirdly, we said look, if you want to change the constitution by way of amendment or if you want to adopt a new constitution, we said no problem, all you need to do is follow the constitutional provision laid down in Section 9. It is clear who has the mandate to do that.
And finally of course we said look, whatever constitutional amendment you want to do or adopt, you must do it within the terms of the existing constitutional order and we cannot have anything to do with a process that is done outside this. That was made very clear.
When Dr. Iyorchia Ayu saw him with other members, they repeated the same thing. He explained (during plenary) that he called us by name but he didn’t tell the conference who in the South he called. We were aware that because he knew our position, he was just bouncing back the ideas he knows the southerners have on constitution making. And as far as I know, he could have mentioned who in the South he had consulted.
Our view was that we would not welcome a situation where the deputy chairman or even the chairman would be handpicking representatives, sounding out their opinions on an issue so critical and so fundamental. If he was carrying out his usual consultation, the usual consultation that we know which is fair would be to invite all sides to the case and let them sit and discuss it. I think he just called us alone and we didn’t know if he had called anybody and we are not sure if he did. That was our objection.
The reason we gave on constitution making is as I have stated; we don’t support it and I think we are just being picked and chosen to divide our rank.
Are you saying that just like the publications stated, he was only lobbying the Northern delegates to accept the new constitution and there was no consultation with the Southern delegates?
If there were any consultations we were unaware of it. We found a consultation process which only spoke to one side, in isolation of the other; suspicious! But in any event, lobbying is a term, you may say, as he had said himself, in fairness, when we run into troubled waters, he brings sides to discuss issues to find a common ground. The only difference now is that he was only calling one side and from the analogy he gave, he seems to be persuaded by the fact that there is need for a new constitution. What do you worry about giving the nation a constitution, please go along with it.
Would it be right to say he is like a judge but receding to the gallery?
No, I would not go to that extent. I have to be fair to him; he may have his reasons why he chose the process to discuss with us in the manner that he discussed with us. I don’t want to say also that he was lobbying on behalf of government or on behalf of any other organization but it was a wrong procedure that left us with no choice but to feel suspicious.