Single Term Tenure Is Ideal'Governance Difficult Because There Are Too Many Irrelevant Issues In The ConstitutionNimi Walson-Jack, a former Secretary-General of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), is the Commissioner-in-Charge of Public Affairs and Civic Education, Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC). Fielding question from KELVIN EBIRI in Port Harcourt, he hails the separate committees of the National Assembly on the review of the Constitution.SHOULDN'T a joint committee of the National Assembly amend the Constitution'The way the legislature is structured actually permits the two chambers of the National Assembly to work separately.In fact, for a democratic system, it is important and necessary that they work separately, the cost notwithstanding. One is not a check on the other.Democratic system envisages that when a process has been followed and an issue passes through this double process, it should come out finer and more mature,perhaps, with a decision more acceptable to the people. To that extent, it is normal in lawmaking to have the two chambers have separate committees.If one should go to the extreme, one will say that having (or attempting to have) a unified committee at the beginning was adangerous precedent. The unification is allowed at the end, after they have each expressed their views, opinions and reflected the views and opinions of the people in the version of the law they want to pass. Then, both of them can come together to bring a unified version before passing the bill into law.The executive arm could also set up its own committee if it intends to bring the bill. What is important is not what the President, Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives want; it is what thepeople want. It is not the number of committees or how much money they spend. Of course, the spending must be reasonable and up to a limit.I always like to cite the example of the United Kingdom. When they want to change a situation, they bring about a reform. They start with a Royal Commission, which is like the executive arm setting up its own committee. The Royal Commission does all the work and then government considers it and issues a white paper.Even that white paper is still subject to debate. When the government takes its case to the Parliament, which will organise a legislative hearing where those who lost out in the white paper will come forward to put in their position.Those whose opinions are reflected in the white paper will also come to convince the legislators that their views are correct.In the United States, states have two legislative chambers. In many of those states, you have the State House of Representatives and State Senate and law still passes through these two bodies. There are also two chambers at the federal. The wholeidea is that laws are not supposed to be rushed; they are not supposed to be made in a day. That is the reality and it is expected that by the time the bill had filtered through all these multiplicityof democratic channels and institutions, we are supposed to have better laws.It is not the smallness of the institution or quickness of time that is important to us. It is the practicability and acceptance of the laws that will come through this process that we should pay more attention to.But the cost of the last exercise was over a N1 billion.Don't look at it from the cost angle. Yes, they tried to form a joint committee, which, like I said, is not even correct. A joint committee should come at the end of the day. Trying to form a joint committee at the beginning is like a man who has a field to clear and decides to go and start at the end of the field rather than at the beginning of the field.It is better that they work separately. Don't mind the cost. What is important is at the end of the day, did they arrive at a decision that reflects the general opinion and interest of the people. I think that should be the bottomline, and not the amount of money spent on the review. The amount of money could be more.Nonetheless, what do you deem wrong with the process'I have an issue with constitutional amendment.A constitutional amendment in which you sit only in Abuja or in three to six selected locations inthe country does not reflect the views of Nigerians. In each zone, you do not have homogenous or ethic interests. So, you cannot stay in Benin City and say the interest of the Kalabari, Ogba and Ikwerre, for instance, will be heardthere.Apart from we unwittingly encouraging tribalisation, we are all not likely to travel there.It'snot every Nigerianfrom the South-South zone who can travel to the zone's centre for hearing. How do you expect somebody from Rivers State to travel to Benin' Do you have to pay for hotel accommodation, transportation in order to make your views known' I don't think that it is right.They (review committees) need to go to more centres, if possible, each state capital. Or have some format for national discussion and debates and a committee to collate the issues and ideas. Then, you may need certain persons to clarify some issues. That way, a lot of us get to say something.But this present approach they are using is very restrictive. It actually limits contribution of persons who have interest except those who have financial muscle to participate. If I don't have the money to pay for transport to Abuja and hotel bills, can I participate in any constitutional debate'Some people say a Constituent Assembly is preferable to the National Assembly, due particularly to the manner the lawmakers emerged during the last elections, to tinker with the Constitution. Do you buy this idea'There are two issues here. First, the Constituent Assembly, to my mind, is past the point. You can only have a Constituent Assembly if you intend to increase the number of people who should debate the newConstitution. Otherwise, I am one of those who believe that the National Assembly, as constituted, should be able to do the job right because there, we have people of federal constituencies from the states. To that extent, I think that the National Assembly is equipped.But if we decide on constitutional amendment or even a discussion about the state of the nation, it will require a legislation by the National Assembly itself and that legislation will take in some interest groups that are not presently represented in the National Assembly. But that again will depend on the National Assembly.The reality is that whether or not the Constitution was bequeathed to us by the military, it is a document with which we have to work. We cannot operate in this country one day without the Constitution. It does not matter where it came from. You now have representatives in positions, who can make amendments.Some people want us to jettison the 1999 Constitution; under what legal instrument will you convene the Constituent Assembly' What other legalinstrument will be needed to keep it in place'On the issue of their (legislators') election, we have conducted four elections. The process has gradually improved. We cannot deny that. Again, you cannot have a perfect election because the instruments of a perfect election are there, but the human beings for perfect election are not there.However, I can assure that if you take the elections one by one ' if you check out the cases at the tribunals that have been thrown out or upheld ' the majority of them have been upheld. Which means that the presumption of legitimacy lies with the National Assembly members. Hence, they have a prima facie, without doubt, the legitimacy and so they can govern.And if they can make laws, what is special about amending a Constitution' There are legitimate people in office who have been governing this country and who have the right to get things done. If you say no, who else' At the end of the day, we are back to the Constitution.Let's bear it at the back of our minds that there are complaints about the Constitution and the society we live in. I think that a wholesale review of the Constitution is needed. The Constitution is not perfect, but we must work with a document. We need a complete constitutional reform process of the existing order. It is not something they will do in three or six months. Even if it will take them two years, this is the time to start so that before the next elections, we will have sorted out those knotty areas and then give people some measure of hope.What we are against is the piecemeal approach. The amendment of a Constitution in 24 hours is absurd. It just shows lack of seriousness. If you want to undertake a constitutional amendment, for God's sake, do the job well and right or leave this thing. If you wake up in the morning and you think the glass is opaque and you want to make it transparent, you order a new one. That is not how constitutional amendments are done.WHAT do you consider as core issues for amendments'We need to first move from the bottomline. We need to clarify the position of local government councils in state and national administration. Are they a tier of government; are they independent of state and federal government'If they are part of a state government, then, we need to clarify the power of the State Assembly to create local government with or without relevance to what the federal government is sharing by way of monthly allocation.We need to decide at this point whether Chapter 2 of the Constitution should not be made justiciable. In other words, Chapter 2, as it stands today, is advisory. But that is the whole essence of governance. We elect people, we give people money to administer a country and yet, we say those things they are supposed to be doing are not justiciable. Is it right at this moment'The issue of creation of states and merger of states: People want states in an era when it is obvious that some states are not viable. So, shouldn't we have a simple mechanism for state creation and a simpler mechanism for states to merge their interests if they so seek'The issue of the federal list and the residual list: In federalism, there should be three lists: the federal, state and residual list. The reality of it is that majority of the things are bundled up in the Exclusive List. Even the ones on the Concurrent List, the federal government has a super-riding influence if the two laws conflict. That means, in practical terms, there is no federalism.We really need to define if we are a federal state. If we are a federal state, then, we need to put in those things that make a federal state. People should have their destiny in their hands. If you govern your state and you govern it badly, too bad for you. If another person governs his state very well and their economy is better than yours, you have nobody to blame.That way, you begin to eliminate things like a common national minimum wage. If I need doctors, I should be able to pay such that doctors will come to my state. The same thing to do with teachers. You cannot tell me that I should be paying the same amount with a man who does not need them at all.There is this inconsistence between this military approach to governance and the federal system. We need to address it. I think the Constitution is too bulky. Many things that should be left to law have found their way into the Constitution because we don't trust each other. For example, how many people should be in the Supreme Court' Should that be a constitutional matter'Yes, there shall be a Supreme Court. But what the Supreme Court should be doing and how many people will be doing the works of the Supreme Court are matters of law. The National Assembly should be in a position to change it any time. If we have reason to, we can increase the number of Justices.Recently, we had the National Industrial Court being inserted in the Constitution, why because every other superior court is in the Constitution. So, they, too, must be in the Constitution. In how many countries do you have courts listed in the Constitution'We have so many things that are irrelevant and you go to spell them out in details in the Constitution. These are things that should be in the law and then we make governance difficult. It is more difficult to interpret and change a Constitution than a law.We need a Constitution that can help us build a civil society. The Constitution is not a magic instrument; it has to be worked on by human beings and implemented by them. But a Constitution gives us faith and hope in the society, in the country. Therefore, we must design a Constitution that gives us that hope and faith in our continual existence.The Constitution must address issues, principles that will solve the problems of the component units and sections of the society. It is not right that sections of the country are crying out against perceived injustice and we carry on as if nothing is wrong. That is not fair and it is not going to last for long because we are not together. That is the reality.We should frame a Constitution that can address these issues so that at least, people can say we are working at it. The Constitution must have to address the various needs of all the sections of this country. I cannot think of any section that is not complaining. We have talked a lot; there is nothing to be discussed.We should start with committees or study groups that can define the issues. The committees should give us recommendations that will be subject to another round of debate and discussion and then a referendum. That way, we can arrive at something. If you open the debate now, all we have to do is go and dust up the same memoranda we submitted to previous governments and repeat the same discussion.Do you suggest the amended Constitution be subjected to a referendum'Yes. The Nigerian Constitution has no provision for a referendum for the authentication of the Constitution and I will suggest that we have a referendum. But the first snag here is that we don't even have areferendum law.The Constitution talks about local government creation and says if the people in the area where the demand is coming from vote by the majority, then a council will be created.They vote by which law' There is no law on referendum.The National Assembly should start with a law on referendum, because right now, everything is between the state Houses of Assembly and the National Assembly, and the way they did in the last one wasn't right. Once they agree in their caucus, that is it.How do we ensure that sectional, personal and political interests are not inserted in the Constitution'You cannot avoid that. The dominance of personal and sectional interests is a function of development of the society; and so, society cannot be at level zero and one expects to achieve level 10 success.However, it is expected that with about 109 senators and over 300 Representatives, one person's personal interest should never dominate. With every ethnic group so represented in both chambers of the National Assembly, the dominance of one ethnic group's interest should not be talked about, but you cannot rule out the fact that these things exist.As I said, it is the function of our development. Unfortunately, if you dominate today, you will not be there forever. Somebody will come tomorrowand remove the clause that gives you the edge.What is important is for us to have principles that can pass the test of time and survive all situations ' that when applied to your ethnic group they are fair; when applied to my ethnic group, they are fair. That is all we need.Do you subscribe to a single term of six years for a president and governor'I have always believed right from my university days that we needed something like the French model. It may not be seven years, I don't know if it should be six years but I believe in one term.Whether it is one, two, three terms, there are arguments for and against. The issue is you must weigh the merit and demerit of each argument and convince yourself that the merits of the argument overweigh the demerits.I think that at this level of our development, where people are elected into the executive arm and it becomes very difficult for them to leave office even when it is obvious that they are not performing well, a single term will be better. I have always believed in it long before President Goodluck Jonathan suggested it.Maybe in future, we could come back to the two-termoption. But in this era we have found ourselves, the people should be allowed to experiment, so that if they make a mistake, they will not have to live with that mistake for two terms.
Click here to read full news..
