THERE are Nigerians who will never be forgotten in the nation’s political history due to their immense positive contributions towards good governance. The living among these men and women have continued to offer suggestions aimed at launching the country into the comity of developed societies. And many of them can be found among the country’s foremost patriotic group – the Patriots who are led by a former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku. Given the intimidating profile of the members, it is difficult to fault their contributions thus far.
However, their recent visit to Aso Rock Villa, the seat of Nigeria’s power with a request to the President for the setting up of a constitutional conference to give Nigeria a new constitution. Just as they were coming out from the presidential visit, news began to make the rounds that Governor Sheriff Oborevwori, Hope Uzodimma, and Alex Oti of Delta, Imo and Abia states respectively have made suggestions to the House of Representatives’ committee on the nation’s constitution review.
These governors were specific in areas of guiding laws that can bring about better and more acceptable governance. While Oborevwori and Uzodimma harped on issues such as revenue generation, state police, devolution of powers and revenue derivation formula, amongst others, Alex Oti added the need for free and compulsory basic education to be enshrined in the constitution.
For many reasons, reviewing the constitution is far better than writing a new one. To begin with, there are four major types of constitutions known. They include written and unwritten, rigid or flexible, unitary or federal, and parliamentary or presidential. A written constitution contains all provisions in a single document, while an unwritten constitution’s provisions are in multiple documents. Nigeria’s happens to fall into the categories of written, flexible, federal and presidential. The flexibility provision therein makes it possible to be reviewed as the needs arises. This attribute is one of the best constitutional practices in the world.
If change of constitution guarantees good governance, the Dominican Republic that has changed her constitution 32 times since independence in 1844 would have been the greatest nation in the world. On the contrary, the United States of America have had only two. The current one was drafted in 1787, ratified in 1788 and came into use and remained so since 1789 (236 years ago). It has witnessed 27 amendments out of about 11,000 suggestions. That of India which was one of the ones cited by Anyaoku as an example for Nigeria to follow have been in use since 1950 (three years after the country’s independence in 1947) with 26 amendments, not changes. Nigeria has had four (1960, 1963, 1979 and 1999) since her independence in 1960.
While people complain that the drafting of Nigeria’s constitution was supervised by the military, they probably do not know that the one of America was drafted by 55 men with orthodox Christian backgrounds and headed by George Washington, then the commander-in-chief of the continental army. He was also of British descent. This was unlike Nigeria’s where the framers were purely civilian Nigerians made up of the major religions in the country and headed by a legal luminary and the first Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Frederic Rotimi Alani Williams.
Additionally, many of those who complain of the country’s constitution have not even read it enough to identify some of the remarkable striking acceptance-oriented differences between it and that of the United States. For example the American Constitution began with; – “We, The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. Nigeria’s own says in the beginning; “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.
On human rights, while the US and other advanced nations say; “All persons are equal”, the Nigerian constitution proclaims that; “All citizens are equal”.
All these and many more are language semantics that can always be altered to suit prevailing circumstances.
Furthermore, producing a new national law takes a lot of time and money, including heavily misappropriated ones in the case of countries such as Nigeria. It took about three years to draft and implement the American Constitution. That of India also took the same time. The nation spent about N1.18 billion as monthly allowances only to the 492-member delegates who participated in the National Conference of 2014 organised by former President, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and lasted for three months.
In the meantime, there are critical areas that urgently need to be addressed as commencement points in the bid to have a better constitution. The first is the inclusion of rotational presidency and other key positions in the document as already suggested. Deserving consideration should be given to Rt. Hon. Sheriff Oborevwore’s Resource Control and Fiscal Federalism, Maritime Issues and the Legislative List, Local Government Autonomy, State Police, devolution of Powers and Judicial Reforms, amongst others.
Beyond mere amendments, the document should be readily available in book stores and libraries in order to ensure accessibility by all Nigerians. This will also guarantee respect by Nigerians of all walks of life.
There is no amount of colours that the national constitution gets decorated with that can make it work without the people’s disciplined mindset. The country remains one of the places in the world where election results are determined by courts of law. Even when the constitution provides that the Supreme Court is the last arbiter in judicial matters, many people, especially politicians still protest against its decided cases.
Worst still, those who have benefited from court judgments in the past remain in the forefront of protests against the country’s legal system. These and many more confusing circunstances influencing the calls for a new constitution must be diligently tackled by the orientation agencies and stakeholders generally.
Above all, the press must do everything possible to ensure adequate reporting of the activities of the constitution review committee in all nooks and crannies. This will enable the populace have first-hand feeling of how the inclusivity clauses in the 1999 constitution is impacting on the different segments of the society.
