President
Goodluck Jonathan has run into trouble water over his comment that he will
subject the outcome of the proposed national conference to the ratification of
the National Assembly.
Prominent Nigerians and groups
yesterday kicked against the decision, describing it as “a poison” that would
make the initiative a waste. Others said sceptics of the national dialogue had
been vindicated by the President’s decision.
But the Senate said the
President’s position was in order and constitutional.
President Jonathan had on Tuesday
said that the recommendations of the planned national conference would be
passed to the National Assembly for deliberation, ratification and possible
inclusion in the process of amendment of the constitution.
National Publicity Secretary of
the Yoruba sociopolitical group, Afenifere, Mr. Yinka Odumakin, told National
Mirror that the National Assembly had no business with the outcome of the
national confab.
He said: “The comments by the
President that the decisions of the conference would be sent to the National
Assembly confirms the view that we have no institutional memory to fall back on
as far as a national conference is concerned.
“The President may be thinking
that this would have the status of a constitutional conference. This is why it
is good he did not rush us to a conference without setting up an advisory
committee on the modalities for the conference as this may also be a learning
curve for all of us.
“When the principals of
corporate Nigeria are going to the table to draft their memorandum of
understanding and articles of association, such documents cannot be subjected
to any ratification by their agents who are current managers of the
corporation.
“All the agents have to do is
to implement the decisions of their principals. It is a mute point in law that
an agent cannot be greater than the principal. Sovereignty belongs to the
people who exercise it indirectly through their elected representatives. But
the moment they come to exercise that power directly their representatives have
no power over their decisions. The very reason why we have never had a
legitimate constitution is that the people have never been allowed to own the
process.”
The Arewa Consultative Forum,
ACF, said the development has only shown that the President is only trying to
satisfy some interest.
Speaking with National Mirror,
ACF National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Anthony Sani, said they have been
vindicated by the president’s position.
ACF said: “Mr. President’s
clarification as reported in newspapers vindicated the wisdom of those who have
said the proposed national dialogue/conversation cannot reasonably be a
Sovereign National Conference as this amounts to vote of no confidence on our
democracy and its institutions, considering the sitting government has been
elected by Nigerians and not by ghosts.
“It also proves right those who
submit that the National Assembly could as well go through recommendations of
past conferences together with what they get from their public hearings and use
them to inform their constitutional amendments.
“We want to believe this
government is pandering to the hankering by some groups for conference in order
to calm nerves and enable the nation to move forward.”
The Conference of Nigerian
Political Parties, CNPP, said that the President’s position had shown that the
national conference was dead on arrival.
CNPP National Publicity
Secretary, Osita Okechukwu, criticised the submission, maintaining that it was
a sheer waste of resources, time and diversionary.
Part of CNPP’s statement reads:
“CNPP recalls that since our return to democracy in 1999, the National Assembly
at various times had embarked on the process of amendment of the 1999
Constitution and at no time was any of the fundamental issues amended.
“We stand to be corrected that
handing over the outcome of the proposed national conference report to the
National Assembly is better than convening a Sovereign National Conference.
“In other words, the present national
and state assemblies lack the political will to insert in a new constitution,
critical issues like devolution of powers to the regions; unicameral
legislature under a parliamentary system; truly independent INEC, EFCC, ICPC;
creation of additional state for South-East; fiscal federalism among other
issues. Therefore, the Jonathan’s conference is dead on arrival.”
The Coordinator of Voters
Assembly, Moshood Erubami, flayed the President’s decision.
Speaking with National Mirror,
he said this had vindicated their opposition to the national conference of the
President that it would not take the country out of its problems.
He said: “There is nothing bad
in having a national conference, but this one by President Jonathan is
unacceptable. And to now say that the outcome of the conference will be sent to
the National Assembly which has failed us can only be the height of
insensitivity to the feelings of Nigerians.
“To have an idea that some
people will have to tinker with what Nigerians decide shows that there is no
sincerity behind it.”
Erubami stated that anything
short of a sovereign national conference is not in the best interest of the
country.
Speaking with National Mirror
yesterday, constitutional lawyer, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN); former President of the
Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Chief Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) and human rights
activist, Bamidele Aturu condemned the move, saying that it would reduce the
conference to a wasteful exercise.
According to Sagay, the
National Assembly has no role to play in the making of a new constitution,
adding that it can only amend existing laws.
He said: “It confirms the
scepticism of those who are saying that the conference is diversionary because,
if the President was really serious of a national conference that will make the
changes this country really need, he would not have planted that poison of
sending it to the National Assembly.
“So, it’s clear that he is not
serious about national conference because the National Assembly has no role in
making a new constitution; they can only amend existing laws and the amendment
they have done so far have been disastrous and totally irrelevant.”
Sagay accused members of the
National Assembly of having vested interest and oppose to change because they
are benefiting from the faulty system.
“They have vested interest in
status quo and they don’t want any change because they are benefiting from the
misruling of Nigeria. A proper constitution will not benefit them because they
will lose out. “So, sending the outcome of a national conference for their
approval is equal to killing it. Jonathan is setting up a National Conference
in order to kill it at the same time. So, those who are sceptical are right.”
Akeredolu said the statement of
the President was uncalled for.
He said: “A genuine national
confab cannot be subjected to the dictate of anyone or anybody if we seriously
want to engage that process. Surreptitious approach of teleguiding the process
only leads credence to the fears of those of us who doubt the sincerity of
purpose of the President embarking on the confab at this point in time.
“The President should be
advised to wait for the recommendations of the advisory committee before
polluting the waters with his hidden agenda at least to allow for a little
credence to be accorded the process.”
Aturu said: “As far as I am
concerned, what should happen is a referendum. The National Assembly is not the
same thing as the people of Nigeria. So, for the President to be reducing the
whole efforts of the conference to the National Assembly is different from what
the people demanded and that has exposed the fraud about it.
“But, nevertheless, my position
is that, if you’re holding a sovereign national conference, the people must
still ratify it in a referendum and anything short of that is a mere waste of
time. But, that does not mean that people cannot talk; we have been talking and
we will continue to talk.
“What is the essence of holding
a national conference when at the end of the day you will subject its outcome
to the approval of the National Assembly? If National Assembly could do it,
then we don’t need a conference. So, I think the President should have a
rethink on what he has done; he should revise himself and allow people to
endorse whatever the conference comes up with.”
But, a senior lawyer, Mallam
Yusuf Ali, SAN, said there was nothing wrong in sending the recommendations of
the proposed national conference to the National Assembly for approval.
According to him, there was no
other body aside the National Assembly saddled with the responsibility of
making law for the federation.
“Except the constitution is
amended to accommodate any other legislative body, today it is only the
National Assembly and for the state the State Houses of Assembly that can make
law. The constitution assumes that it is the people that elected members of the
National Assembly and the Houses,” he argued.
A chieftain of Afenifere, Chief
Ayo Adebanjo, told National Mirror that he was more concerned about holding the
national dialogue than what to be done with its outcome.
“I’m not bothering myself with
the end of the conference but the initiative taking place,” he said.
Adebanjo, however, opposed the
idea of the National Assembly ratifying the outcome of the confab.
He said: “The National Assembly
is a product of awkward federation. And many of the members are beneficiaries
of the faulty system.
“So, how do you submit the
decisions of the conference that they are not part of ?”
He believed that President
Jonathan would have a rethink on the matter.
But Deputy Senate President Ike
Ekweremadu said the President’s position was in order and constitutional.
Agreeing with Jonathan’s
submission, Ekweremadu said there was no other legal option to whatever would
be the resolution of the dialogue other than getting the sanction of the
National Assembly, adding that it’s in accordance with the rule of law.
Asked why Nigeria has to waste
effort in a national conference that would be ratified by the National
Assembly, the Deputy Senate President said: “Nigerians said they want to
dialogue. President said you should go and do that but whatever you decide will
not be binding unless it is legislated upon by the National Assembly. We didn’t
set up any conference. We don’t have problem with the process so far.”
A member of the House of
Representatives from Ebonyi State, Hon. Linus Okorie concurred with Ekweremadu.
He said: “Mr. President is simply complying with the provisions of the
constitution which empowers the legislature, to the exclusion of all others, to
amend it. What the President said remains the only route to legitimizing the
decisions of the National Conference. Even if we call it a Sovereign National
Conference, which is outside our constitution, we’ll still require the
endorsement of the National Assembly to put it to a national referendum as
being canvassed by a section of the populace.”
Second Republic Deputy Senate
President, Senator John Wash Pam, told National Mirror in Jos, the Plateau
State capital, that President Jonathan’s submission was in order.
Pam, however, warned that the
conference should not be used to cause confusion in the country.
He said: “Well, I think
President Jonathan’s submission was in order but there is a little confusion
there. Don’t forget that the National Assembly is currently working on the
amendment of the constitution and we just hope that the outcome of the
conference does not conflict with the constitutional amendment especially since
we don’t know yet the form which the conference will take eventually; whether
sovereign or just dialogue or whatever, that is the confusion.”
Former Minister of Information,
Alhaji Ibrahim Nakande, cautioned President Jonathan to wait until the
modalities set out by the conference committee are accepted by all Nigerians
before talking about what to do with its outcome.
His words: “To me, it’s like
putting the cart before the horse. Let the committee that was given six weeks
first complete their assignment before we decide what to do with the outcome.
Unless the modalities have the acceptability of all Nigerians, the conference
may be of no benefit at all.
“Nigerians first want to see
how the committee will do their work; whether people will be nominated,
co-opted, elected or chosen on what basis and how. These are the issues. For me
talking about sending the outcome to the NASS now when the issues that are germane
to the success of the conference have not been trashed is neither here nor
there.”
National Mirror
0 comments:
Post a Comment