Mudiaga Affe, Kassim Omomia, Emma Obe, Andy Asemota, Cajetan Mmuta and Idu Jude
The issues are contentious. A way out is what it is meant to be. Now, it seems that there will be no easy route to achieving harmony or amicable resolution of sore points in the 1999 constitution, going by the heated debates, fire and brimstone the issue has provoked across the country.

Some stakeholders are either advocating the adoption of the 1963 Republican Constitution or insisting that the recommendations in the 2014 National Conference be considered for adoption.

The Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, and his deputy, who is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Review of the 1999 Constitution, Ovie Omo-Agege, and Sam Zibiri (SAN), are among Nigerians who have put up divergent views on the ongoing
debate.

Others are a former President of the Nigeria Bar Association, Onueze Okocha (SAN), John Akirika, Ezeh Onyekpere, and a member of the Presidential Committee on Power Privatisation Review, Kunle Olubiyo.

Lawan, who spoke at a public hearing, said, “Agitations for the brand new constitution are democratic expressions and indications of dissatisfaction with our extant constitution. Honestly, engaging with each other, amid good faith, is the best way forward.”

To surmount the impasse over an amended or a brand new constitution, Lawan assured critics that “there are no preconceived decisions on the outcome of the process. The final product will be shaped by the voices of citizens as harnessed from the hearings.”

The Senate President added, “The constitution review alone will not engender a successful democracy, without a concomitant shift in attitude and political will.

“It has to be backed by the requisite political will and the right attitude. Democracy demands the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraint, empathy, and the willingness to commit, concede and sacrifice for the good of the country.”

Railway vandals may face death penalty – FG

However, Omo-Agege, said, it would be difficult to repeal the 1999 Constitution and enact a new law for Nigeria, considering the stringent conditions for achieving it.

“It is not impossible but it is difficult”, he noted while featuring in a television programme last week.

Weighing in the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, said he was happy that the National Assembly had embarked on another round of review of the constitution.

The CJN declared, “The review of the constitution is a golden opportunity for us to make inputs that will go a long way in enhancing the administration of justice. I am happy that we have submitted a comprehensive input of the judiciary.”

A member of the Presidential Committee on Power Privatisation Review, Kunle Olubiyo, also supported the ongoing move by the National Assembly to amend the 1999 Constitution.

Olubiyo, a lawyer, said, “The question of changing the entire constitution to a brand new one, does not arise here, if not for ignorance, such does not happen in a presidential system of government, which Nigeria adopted from the USA in 1979 after dumping the Parliamentary system inherited from Britain in 1960.

“So, the idea remains that any change that would take place no matter how enormous it is must be titled constitution amendment and that is why that of 1999 is still as amended. In the presidential system, the nation’s constitution is not entirely dropped for a new one.

“That is because this is the constitution that brought in those working for its amendment. It also means that when a constitution is dropped, there will be no nation in place within the period the constitution was declared.

“So when Nigerians called for a return to the 1963 constitution, they forgot that the McPherson Constitution was under a parliamentary system which Nigeria had jettisoned and with a change of constitution towards a Presidential system. So people should be able to understand the implications.”

However, Onyekpere, who said a new constitution could only happen during the military era, faulted the National Assembly for embarking on the review exercise without first coming up with an electoral bill.

Onyekpere said, “No, the question here is absurd. It can only take place during the military rule, which was Nigerians’ problem with the 1999 amended constitution, which has so many flaws because it was designed by the military.

“So, we have been trying to amend so many sections of the constitution since the military handed over yet a lot is still to be done.

“May I also remind you that the National Assembly has already taken a wrong step in the amendment process? How can a country start a constitutional amendment without an electoral bill, without a Petroleum Industry Bill in place, or passed into law? So, you see that the whole process could be a jamboree.

“We should pass laws that will define critical sectors of the Nigerian economy such as the sector that brings revenue in Nigeria. How can we amend a law that does not include our electoral act on how leaders are brought into office?

“You can see that our constitution in a presidential system of government is short of every requirement needed. We should be able to amend a lot of things to enable our economy to take into account all that has been negated.

“It is not legal to advocate a total change of constitution and what we do is constitution amendment.”

Contributing, the Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Anambra State, John Akirika, said the attempt to review the 1999 Constitution was a plot to postpone the doomsday and an exercise in futility.

According to him, the 2014 National Conference is the outcome of Nigerians speaking with one language, pointing out that it behoves the present administration to ensure a holistic implementation of the outcome of that conference for a better, peaceful and united Nigeria.

Akirika, who is a lawyer added, “If you talking about having an exhaustive amendment of the constitution, what to do is to go back to the 2014 conference report, exhume that, fine-tune it, because it is all-encompassing and complete.

“And whatever they want to do the Presidency can sponsor it as an executive bill. It is cost-effective and convenient; it is even patriotic because that was an exercise in which all Nigerians participated,” he stressed.

He added, “After the amalgamation of the country in 1914, Nigeria had the first constitution christened the Clifford’s Constitution of 1922, that was followed by Richard’s constitution of 1945, the Littleton Constitution of 1957, and eventually the Independent Constitution of 1960.

“The Republican Constitution of 1963, the Obasanjo Constitution of 1979, the unborn Abacha constitution, the ill-fated constitution of 1989, and eventually the Abubakar Constitution of 1999 that gave birth to the current democratic dispensation.

“If you take a look at these series of constitutions you will see that the most indigenous of all these constitutions were that of 1960 and that of 1963. So, when you look at the preamble to the 1999 constitution which says that ‘We the people of Nigeria’, to me, it is a legal fraud because the antecedents of that are that Nigerians never converged, they never sat together; Nigerians never agreed to the content of that constitution.

“So, the phrase ‘we the people is a political fraud. If you are talking about an amendment we have to talk about the grundnorm, what is it? You have to go to the basics, source, and foundation of the country and that is the people.

“I would say that the current attempt, the current exercise, and current enterprise to amend the Nigerian Constitution is what I may call an attempt to delay the doomsday. It is an attempt to divert attention because it is on record that the entire segments of this country gathered in a conference and produced the widely accepted, widely comprehensive and all-encompassing 2014 National Conference.”

In a related development, a former NBA President, Onueze Okocha, who canvassed a return to the 1963 constitution, noted that there was the need for a confab.

He said, “The best thing to do is to set up machinery for a proper constitutional conference so that Nigerians can sit down, talk about the issues and formulate for themselves a constitution that would be a people’s constitution.

“A military administration empanelled a few people, got a few documents together, and said they had made a constitution. They promulgated a decree to bring it into force. The military administration also made inputs, entrenched some provisions in the constitution. The Land Use Act, for instance, the National Youth Service Corps Scheme Act. So that constitution needs to be jettisoned.

“We have to return to the 1963 Constitution, which was the constitution that was a truly republican constitution. Starting from when the colonial masters were there, they had been making constitutions. But the one that was made in 1963 was made by the Nigerian independent parliament because they elected that parliament for the 1960 Independence.

“That one had it clearly stated there. The divisions of power between the federal government and the regions that were then in place: East, West, and North. And that was where many of us saw true republican federation.”

Another SAN, Sam Zibiri, noted that the current realities could only be settled through the review and or amendment of the constitution, which is the grundnorm of “our country.”

He advised Nigerians to come together to discuss areas of failure as a country to forge a common front.

“This can only be achieved by reviewing the current provisions of the constitution in line with the existing realities and challenges currently plaguing our nation, discover our lapses and make changes where necessary,” he said.

He picked holes in the current constitution, especially the drafting, which according to him, was defective, adding that the 1999 document was simply the result of hurried efforts by the military administration of Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar (retd.) to hand over power to a civilian government.

“There was inadequate consultation with Nigerians, despite the preamble to the constitution. There were neither constitutional conferences held nor were there referendums conducted to ascertain the wishes of the people or meet the needs of a multi-ethnic society such as ours,” he lamented.

Zibiri explained that the 1999 Constitution did not holistically address economic issues, which is the superstructure upon which other structures stood, adding that as a base that determined what a society will be like, there were no provisions rooted in a strong, viable economy.

According to him, Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the duties and responsibilities of all organs of government, and all authorities and persons, exercising legislative, executive, or judicial powers, to conform to, observe and apply the provisions of the constitution in terms of political, economic, social, educational, foreign-policy, environmental, cultural objectives.

“The provisions of Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution are exciting as they represent the ideal Nigeria we dream about, the Nigeria we all deserve, however, these provisions were made non-justiciable by the provisions of Section 6(6)(c) of the same 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“This simply means that Nigerians cannot hold any organ of government, authority, or person accountable for failing to carry out their duties and responsibilities under said Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution.”

He, however, noted that even though the clamour for a return to the 1963 Constitution as the only solution to the country’s current challenges, largely revolves around the practice of federalism, fiscal control, revenue distribution, management, and control of resources in the country, the 1963 constitution had its disadvantages, which necessitated the need for the 1979 Constitution and subsequent 1999 Constitution.

“For instance, in the 1963 constitution, the parliament enjoyed excessive powers, the President as titular head of state was elected by a minority i.e. the parliament and not the people, executive and legislative functions were fused and exercised by the parliament led by the Prime Minister, notwithstanding that the provisions of the 1963 Constitution in terms of fiscal policy, revenue distribution, management and control of natural resources, among others, were in the regions,” stressed.

He added, nonetheless, that the 1999 Constitution still reflected the true nature of the Nigerian nation which is unique under its multi-ethnicity, and urged the National Assembly to look into the merits of the 1963 constitution and see how changes by way of amendments can be made to the 1999 Constitution.