New Nigerian Newspapers Online Edition

The festering rivalry between the two chambers of the National Assembly over the headship of the Joint Committee on Constitution Review [JCCR] blew into the open recently, and has heightened fears that the exercise may have been dealt a fatal blow as a result. SUNDAY ODE reports. |

The decision of the National Assembly to embark on the review of the 1999 Constitution, which they say would be one of their priorities, was received with mixed feelings as it was trailed by smouldering criticisms. In fact, some vocal members of the public put it bluntly to the distinguished and honourable members of the two hallowed chambers that they lacked the capacity to carry out the onerous task. Governor of Edo State, Adams Oshiomhole, is one such pessimistic Nigerian. The House of Representatives did not take kindly to his rather sarcastic remarks in a newspaper story last year that the present crop of lawmakers did not possess the ability to undertake a review of the nation’s statutes book. So angry were some lawmaker in the House that the issue generated heated sentimental and emotional debate in one of its plenary sessions. It took the wisdom of Speaker Dimeji Bankole who counselled that the House should not join issues with members of the public over the matter, to douse the rising emotions. Some of the enraged members were almost asking for the groin of the former labour leader.

But Oshiomhole was mild because his suggestion that the National Assembly should hands off the project was not occasioned by his perception of members as lacking credibility. For the vocal Lagos lawyer, Dr Tunji Abayomi, however, the reason the lawmakers should not venture into the constitution review project is that of credibility. The lawyer and human rights activist has long been canvassing the argument that the present crop of lawmakers would be committing an illegality to think that because they were simply elected or deemed to have been elected by the people, they had the powers to review the constitution.

The controversial retreat of the constitution review panel of the National Assembly which held last weekend in Minna , Niger State capital provided Abayomi the needed environment to bring his message down to the right audience. He was one of the high caliber resource persons for that event. The others were Reverend Father Matthew Kukah and the Vice Chancellor of Bayero University, Kano , Prof. Attahiru Jega.

Abayomi told the senators who formed his audience that as people elected to the National Assembly for the singular purpose of lawmaking, their concern should be how to make a law that would enable Nigerians to give themselves a constitution. According to him, such a law would enable Nigerians to elect people for the sole purpose of making for them a constitution, and it is only when that happens that the country would have been deemed to have a constitution. And only then could the opening sentence of the constitution which says “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria have decided to give to ourselves this constitution “stand.

At the moment, he said the country does not have a constitution because the 1999 constitution which it currently operates and which the lawmakers are fighting over its review is a document imposed on Nigerians by the military. He argued further that what mattered most in constitution making was the process and not the content, adding that “if I, Abayomi wrote the finest constitution in the world, it is not a constitution because the people are not involved.”

The fiery Lagos lawyer cited the case of Britain which has no written constitution but still have both the upper and lower legislative chambers to make laws for it, to remind the lawmakers that the only legitimate purpose for which they were elected was lawmaking for the good governance of the country.

But these arguments have not deterred the federal legislators from carrying out or expressing determination to carry out the review of the constitution. For many Nigerians, unlike Abayomi, a constitution exists and the time to amend some of the clauses has come. Indeed, Abayomi’s thesis could not have possible held any impression on the lawmakers because the current effort to review the constitution is about the third attempt in the past ten nine years.

Between 1999 and 2004 an attempt was made by the National Assembly to review the constitution but somehow that effort did not produce any positive result as the final document could not be generated before the end of that tenure. The exercise continued in the following legislative tenure-2004 to 2004-but was marred by the inclusion of tenure elongation clause, otherwise known as Third Term.

Third term was an issue many Nigerians didn’t want to hear about. It was brought about by the inordinate ambition of former president Olusegun Obasanjo to transmute to life president. In the eyes of many citizens, Third Term was leprous. Third Term was demonic. And third was a bad dream which nobody would want to have. So when the lawmakers sacrificed the whole process for its sake, something akin to throwing the bath water with the baby, most Nigerians still applauded them.

The fact however remains that the 1999 Constitution is still fundamentally flawed and no legislature worth its name would ignore it. For instance, what is the Immunity Clause still doing in the constitution in the face of bare faced thievery and the resultant anti corruption crusade? This and many more provisions in the constitution currently need re-examination and scrutiny.

Perhaps the best way to describe the apathetic posture of the citizens towards the current review exercise is wait-and-see. What with the same citizens being witnesses to the past successive failed attempts by the same National Assembly some of whose members have been repeatedly involved in the exercise. The natural reaction is to be indifferent, and that is what Nigerians are on this matter.

But as events have shown, their posture has been vindicated so early in the day. If the event at the retreat where the 44 members of the House walked out is anything to go by, then the review exercise could be described as stillborn. The retreat in Minna was organized to fine tune the framework for the execution of the review exercise. But with the boycott of the House members of the Joint Committee on Constitution Review [JCCR], the task became impossible. Though the senate pretended to have continued with the so called retreat, the real truth is that the absence of House members has completely invalidated the outcome of that retreat because it was meant to be a joint event.

The real tragedy, however, is not the walkout of the honourable members. The tragedy is the war of words that the two chambers have engaged in since the Minna event. Somehow the distinguished and honourable members have forgotten that they need not wash their dirty linen in public. It is however unfortunate that the two chambers have taken their naked dance to the market place as some would say.

Many believe that the issues involved in the fierce rivalry between the chambers are more than meet the eyes. But what the two chambers have been able to disclose so far is the issue of who becomes what in the review panel from the two chambers. Addressing a press conference at the venue of the retreat in Minna before their hurried departure to Abuja, members of the House admitted that the issue of the designation of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives as vice chairman rather than co-chairman as consensually agreed was just one of many issues that must be sorted out before their participation in the joint committee could be guaranteed.

Chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary, Bala Ibn Na’Allah who spoke on behalf of the angry lawmakers said beyond the objectionable designation of the Deputy Speaker as vice chairman, a motley of other issues which required sorting out in the interest of what the review is meant to achieve abound. He however declined to disclose those other issues of disagreement with their senate counterpart.

Sources close to the committee, however, told New Nigerian Weekly that the House was insisting on co-chairman because of the need to produce a counter force so as to guard against attempts by anybody to impose a personal or sectional agenda using his vantage position.

Another reason, according to the source is the need to manager the finances of the panel prudently. “With Deputy Speaker as co-chairman, he would be entitled to have or demand information regarding how the resource of the committee which is tax payer’s money is expended. This is important in view of the fact that so much money had been wasted on the previous attempts to alter the constitution. We also have to prove that we are serious this time by the way we expend our resources, especially in the light of global economic depression.”

In another press briefing addressed by the senate about an hour after the departure of the protesting honourable members, the senate insisted that their insistence of heading the committee has a foundation in the constitution and the precedence that has become tradition in the federal parliament since 1999. The Deputy Senate Leader, Victor Ndoma-Egba who spoke on behalf of the senate in Minna retreat did not only copiously display copies of documents signed by the former Deputy Senate president, Alhaji Ibrahim Mantu and his counterpart in the House, Mr. Austin Opara to justify their insistence that Senator Ike Ekweremadu remains seat as chairman of the committee, he also quotes extensively from Section 53 of the 1999 Constitution which provides that at any joint sitting of the two chambers of the National Assembly, the senate president shall preside and in his absence the Speaker, and in the absence of the senate president and the speaker, the deputy senate president shall president and in his absence the deputy speaker.

Senator Egba while affirming that the senate would always be guided by the constitution wondered why members of the House were fretting over an issue that had historical justification. “They should reflect on this issue and see the futility of pressing an issue that has long been settled,” he admonished.

The hurried conclusion of the controversial retreat did not abate the raging war of words; the battle ground simply shifted to where the two chambers are housed. From both the senate and the Representatives wings, the spin doctors have been shooting from the hip each trying vociferously to justify its action and laying the blame squarely on the door step of the other.

In Abuja , the first salvo came from the House. Chairman, House Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Sunday Eseme Eyiboh in defending the action of honourable members, it was wrong for the distinguished senators to perceive members of the House as their junior partners. He asserted the independence of the House as a distinct chamber, citing Part II 4[1] which recognizes the two chambers of the National Assembly as distinct legislative entities.

Expectedly, the legislative week began in the two chambers with executive sessions where far reaching decisions were taken on the festering crisis. In the House, when plenary session resumed Tuesday after the marathon closed door meeting, the matter was tabled on the floor via a motion by Tochukwu Halims Agoda. The lawmaker representing Ethiope Federal Constituency in his motion asserted that the House of Representatives was not established to play second fiddle in the federal legislature. He argued that the agreement by the House to participate in the joint committee to review the constitution was borne out of convenience and the need to cut cost. Accordingly, he urged the House to resolve to go its own way on the review of the constitution.

Contributions to the debate on the motion only revealed how much this seemingly simplistic issue had deepened the rivalry between the two chambers. Speaker after speaker who supported the motion regretted that their counterparts had over reacted to the development by calling them names and engaging in the use of un-parliamentary and derogatory language.

After exhaustive out pour of emotions and sentiments, the House passed the motion with a resolution to embark on the review project independently and in accordance with Section nine of the 1999 constitution. Section 9 [2] states: “An act of the national Assembly for the alteration of this constitution, not being an act to which section 8 of this constitution applies, shall not be passed in either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of that House and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the states.”

The Senate did not shift ground either. It has clinched to its position that the chairmanship of the committee naturally belongs to it. In the reaction from the blue chamber, the constitution as well as precedence is on its side. Senator Ayogu Eze, Chairman, Senate Committee on Information and Media, said after a two hour executive session of the senate Tuesday that the blue House had resolved never to compromise on the designation of the Deputy Speaker as vice chairman of the JCCR.

Ayogu did not stop there; he also alleged that their intelligence gathering had indicated that the House was being used by a fifth columnist. ‘Senate has met behind closed doors and we have decided as a body that there is no going back on the fact that the Deputy Senate president is the chairman of that committee and the Deputy Speaker can only be his vice”. He explained that the senate premised its position on the provisions o the constitution, tradition in the National Assembly and a decision to that effect at the plenary of the JCCR in December.

What has become apparent now is the fact that the two chambers have parted ways and the joint committee has collapsed. The option left is for them to embark on independent amendment with a view to bring them to the Conference Committee for harmonization as they are required to do on any bill where there are differences in their clauses passed by the different chambers.

But fears are that the two chambers cannot go into any conference committee and resolve the grey areas in the constitution that may arise from their different amendments if this sentiment over which chamber is superior to the other is not amicably resolved. And if that happened, the nation would be taken back to the starting point once again.

It is this fear that has, perhaps, informed the torrent of appeals from a cross section of the citizen to the lawmakers to turn their swords to ploughshares. Former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chibudom Nwuche, said the misunderstanding between the two Houses was an indication of a robust and vibrant legislature where all ideas contend, noting that it was though unfortunate.

He urged the urged the two Houses to synergise, saying: “It goes without saying that the National Assembly is always much stronger and effective in carrying out its role of lawmaking and oversight, when the two chambers work in harmony and understanding.”