Arguably, President Goodluck Jonathan is
a gentleman with conscience and
passionate about Nigeria. But a school of
thought believes that he is
not the right
person to govern the country going by the
rugged political environment of Nigeria as
the country is not for the lily liveried
fathered for those with the thickness of the
skin. This school of thought argues that
Jonathan has the prerequisite to become
president in the western world, but not in
developing countries like Nigeria.
The rush with which the president
congratulated his challenger in the just
concluded presidential election, now
president-elect, Gen. Buhari, of the All
Progressives Congress, APC, even when
the Independent National Electoral
Commission, INEC, was yet to announce
the final results of the election, was a
pointer to the fact that Jonathan
considered the interest and unity of the
country over personal interest unlike his
opponent whose supporters had allegedly
started stock-pilling arms to unleash terror
on innocent citizens in case their principal
lost the election whether transparently or
otherwise.
One of the institutions that had given
massive support to the Jonathan
administration is the National Assembly,
especially the Senate, which has been
accused of being an extension of the
executive. Although Jonathan did not have
that cordial relationship with the leadership
of the House of Representatives, he drew
most of his support from the Senate
dominated by the Peoples Democratic
Party, PDP, the ruling party at the federal
level.
However, it seems that the robust
relationship between the president and the
Senate has gone sour with Jonathan’s
refusal to append his assent to the
Constitution amendment.
But then, looking at the action of the
president from the objective standpoint, it
shows the real character in Jonathan. After
all, he is not going to lose anything by the
alleged usurpation of the executive powers
by the legislature as he will be leaving
office in the next few weeks, but Jonathan
appears not to consider the person
occupying the seat of president, but the
import of the amendment.
Unfortunately, his action is pitching him
against the lawmakers who believe that
Jonathan had the whole time, even during
the public hearing that attracted all
relevant stakeholders to make their input
but he did not utilise the opportunity only
to refuse to sign the amendment to the
constitution at the last minute after
passing through the whole rigorous
process and even going to the 36 state
assemblies.
The president’s refusal to sign the
Constitution amendment was
communicated to the Senate through a
letter where he gave reasons he was not
disposed to put his signature on it.
In the letter, he alleged that the two
chambers of the National Assembly failed
to meet the requirement the alteration of
Section 9 (3) of the 1999 Constitution.
“Section 4 of the Fourth Alteration Act,
2015 seeks to alter Section 9 of the 1999
Constitution by the insertion of a new
subsection 3A, which dispenses with the
assent of the President in the process of
constitutional amendment,”Jonathan said.
“However, this alteration can only be valid
if the proposal was supported by votes of
not less than four-fifth majority of all the
members of each House of the National
Assembly and approved by a resolution of
the House of Assembly of not less than
two-thirds of all the states as provided by
Section 9 (3) of the 1999 Constitution.
“This is a fundamental requirement of the
constitution and in the absence of credible
evidence that this requirement of the
constitution was met in the votes and
proceedings of the National Assembly, it
will be unconstitutional for me to assent to
this Bill.”
Besides, the president alleged that there
were a number of provisions in the Act that
altogether constitute flagrant violations of
the doctrine of separation of powers as
enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and
unjustifiably whittling down the executive
powers of the federation vested in the
president by virture of Section 5 (1) of the
1999 Constitution.
Jonathan observed that the power vested
in the president to withhold his assent to
bills passed by the National Assembly was
part of checks and balances contained in
the Constitution.
According to him, Section 5A of Section 58,
which provides that the Bill becomes law
after the expiration of 30 days in the event
that the president fails to signify the
withholding of his assent, may be
inappropriate.
“The provision appears not to have taken
cognizance of the afore-mentioned
variables, the vagaries inherent in the
legislative process and the wisdom in
requiring two-thirds majority to override
the president’s veto. In the light of the
above, I am of the view that the failure to
signify assent by the president within the
prescribed period of 30 days should rather
be treated as dissent, which would require
two-third majority to override,” the
president stated.
Jonathan also faulted the National
Assembly over its alteration seeking to
limit the period when expenditure can be
authorized in default of appropriation from
the six months provided in the
Constitution to three months, saying:
“I am of the view that this provision has
the potential of occasioning financial
hardships and unintended shutdown of
government business particularly where for
unforeseen reason reasons and other
exigencies in the polity, the National
Assembly is unable to pass the
Appropriation Act timeously.
“Our recent experiences with the process
of passing the Appropriation Act do not
justify the reduction of six-month time
limit in the constitution.”
The president faulted Section 84A that
created the new Office of Accountant
General of the Federation distinct from the
Accountant General of the Federal
Government, saying it did not address the
funding requirements for the establishment
of the office.
“It is necessary to clarify for instance, who
staffs and funds the office of the
Accountant General of the Federation and
from whose budget he will be paid since
he serves the three tiers of government,
“he stressed.
He also said it was important to state who
will exercise oversight powers over the
office, noting that the National Economic
Council, which was mainly an advisory
body, was now charged with the
responsibility of recommending those to
be appointed to the office of the
Accountant General.
Jonathan picked holes in the National
Assembly’s position separating the Office
of the Attorney General of the Federation
from that of the Minister of Justice and the
Attorney General from the Commissioner
for Justice in the states and also the
provision for independence of the Office of
Attorney General by guaranteeing tenure
and funding.
He said as desirable as the alteration was,
there were some provisions that violate the
doctrine of separation of powers and also
negate what he called “the age-long
independence and absolute discretion that
the office has enjoyed for centuries since
its creation in the middle ages”.
He said the first setback was that the
alteration was silent on who was the Chief
Law Officer of the Federation. “This is a
serious lacuna, which may create
implementation challenges, “he reasoned.
The Senate President, David Mark, had
turned down attempts made by some
senators, especially Senator Sadiq
Yar’Adua, from Katsina State, through a
Point of Order, to debate Mr. President’s
letter.
Instead, he announced that the Joint
Constitution Amendment Review
Committee, headed by the Deputy Senate
President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, would
be meeting to study the president’s letter
and then the Senate to take a position on
it.
But some members of the red chamber are
of the view that Jonathan’s refusal to put
down his assent on the Constitution
amendment was a slight on them and
should be ignored.
Specifically, Yar’Adua, who raised the Point
of Order for the Senate to debate the letter,
said that the National Assembly, will go
ahead to override the president’s assent.
He said Jonathan had the time to raise the
objections before the amendment bill was
passed by the National Assembly and even
the state Houses of Assembly but he
refused to make any input, adding that it
was after the legislature had taken pains to
ensure that the exercise was a success
that the president was raising points.
Also a principal officer, who spoke to
Sunday Vanguard on the condition of
anonymity, said there were two options
before the National Assembly on the
matter.
The principal officer said the National
Assembly either accepts the position of the
president or go ahead to override it.
Also contributing, Senator Ita Enang, from
Akwa Ibom State, said the president should
have raised the issues during the public
hearings held by the National Assembly
and not wait until after it was approved by
the parliament.
However, the Senate Leader, Senator Victor
Ndoma-Egba, SAN, when contacted for
comments on the matter, said both houses
were meeting to study the letter and that it
was after that decision could be taken.
But during the sitting on Thursday, the
Senate mandated its president, Mark, to
immediately write Jonathan, asking for the
return of the original copy of the amended
bill to the National Assembly.
Ekweremadu said Jonathan failed to
accompany his letter vetoeing the bill with
the original copy of the bill sent to him for
assent by the National Assembly.
He also informed the Senate that the two-
day retreat which the Joint Constitution
Amendment Review Committee, headed by
him, had convened to discuss the
president’s letter could not make much
progress due to the absence of the original
copy of the bill.
He said the committee temporarily
suspended the retreat until it was in
possession of the original copy of the
amended bill,adding that the work of the
committee would be guided by the
contents of the bill. The Deputy Senate
President said, “In the letter from Mr
President,he raised a number of objections
with respect to the fourth alteration of our
Constitution. That letter was appropriately
referred to the Senate Committee on
Constitutional Review.
“We slated to have two-day retreat to
consider the letter and advise the Senate
appropriately. In the course of our sitting
yesterday, we noticed that second to the
last paragraph of that letter, the President
said he was returning the bill with the
letter.
“Unfortunately, the bill was not returned
with the letter and we could not proceed
because we would like to see the returned
bill.
“The committee has asked me to raise this
point, to request the President of the
Senate, to ask the President of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria to send back the
original copy of the bill as sent to him
especially the signature page to enable us
to proceed with our work.
“Especially since he had indicated in his
own letter that the letter was accompanied
by the bill, so we would like to have the bill
in its original form, especially the
signature page.”
Responding, the Senate President said:
“There is a bit of urgency of this, so in
writing, we should indicate that we should
have it at the earliest possible time. We
cannot put a time frame like within two
days or three days, that would not be
correct. The motion, as it is, it’s a correct
motion without the time frame.”
But there are indications that contrary to
the view expressed by some senators that
the National Assembly would override the
president’s veto,there is little or nothing
the legislators can do to make the bill
become law.
This is because there is no legal framework
for the legislature to solely carry out an
amendment to the Constitution without the
president’s assent.
The 1999 Constitution, which empowers
only the president to assent or veto any bill
passed and sent to him by the National
Assembly, does not give the legislature the
power to override the president’s veto on
the amendment of the Constitution.
The National Assembly would only have
derived such power to override the
president if the amended bill had received
Jonathan’s assent.
