MORE than two years of legislative work,
expectations of millions of Nigerians and
the new directions of democratic growth
that the proposed constitutional
amendment would have produced are
about to be wasted. President Goodluck
Jonathan would not
sign the document. It
would be difficult to know if his action is
based on patriotism or just indecision.
Either way, it would hurt the polity for
some time.
His arguments for not signing the
document, which has been with him for
months, include some unclear provisions
and the constitutional gaps that some of
the proposed amendments could cause.
He even claimed there was no proof that
two-third of the State Houses of Assembly
approved the amendments, as the law
requires.
State Houses of Assembly really approved
the amendments. They approved
autonomy for themselves and the National
Assembly, but rejected autonomy for local
government administration. Their decision
was unexplainable.
State Assemblies also affirmed:
*Indigeneship rights of a State to a
Nigerian citizen who has resided in a
particular community of a State for a
continuous period of not less than 10
years. The proposed amendment runs
against the more generous provisions of
the Constitution for Nigerians to be
shielded from discrimination and enjoy the
same rights everywhere they decide
to live. Would some Nigerians not be
denied rights classified as “indigeneship
rights”? Would citizens have fewer rights
than indigenes?
*Rights to free, basic education and right
to free primary and maternal health care
services, in Chapter 2 of the Constitution
were changed, and moved to Fundamental
Human Rights to make them justiciable.
*Independent candidacy in elections,
which could create more platforms for
political expression. The National
Assembly would legislate on procedures,
guidelines and qualifications for
independent candidates.
*The three-month limit for the Federation
or a State to operate without an
Appropriation Act in a new financial year
would generate more accountability than
the current six-month provision.
It is unfair to growth of democracy that the
difference independent candidacy, for
example, would have made, to be wasted.
Also thrown away are expectations that
rights to basic education and health, which
were to be made justiciable. They were
expected to make governments more
accountable.
Did the National Assembly, in 16 years,
bother about Section 16(2d) of the
Constitution? It states, “The State (country)
shall direct its policy towards ensuring:
that suitable and adequate shelter, suitable
and adequate food, reasonable national
minimum living wage, old age care and
pensions, and unemployment, sick
benefits and welfare of the
disabled are provided for all citizens”. It
did not.
Whenever we get back to amending the
Constitution, the dynamics would be
entirely different and some of these issues
may no longer count.
