“The National Assembly has no powers to review the constitution”

Professor Kayode Soremekun, Dept. of Political Science, University of Lagos

– Professor Kayode Soremekun, Dept. of Political Science, University of Lagos
By Uwem Benjamin
Do you think the National Assembly will at the end of the constitution amendment come out with a constitution that will address thorny national issues?
Well, I don’t know their mindset, but I think as long as I know their pattern, the task is beyond the National Assembly. I also read somewhere in the papers that the people are against such a move. For me, I believe the National Assembly has no business amending any constitution. It’s in the papers, and opinion poll has shown that what the people desire of the lawmakers is for them to play the umpire or watchdog in the entire process. A Constitution Amendment Committee could be set up to do that while the National Assembly would ratify the issues at stake.
However, in reviewing the constitution, what is it really about? Another ploy to siphon public funds? Is it the urgent matter at stake here? Does it solve the problem of hunger and put food on our table? And you’re talking about constitutional amendment. I don’t think that is a problem in this country right now. What happened to the whopping $16.5 billion power fund? Why is no one talking about that anymore?
How do you think the National Assembly in amending the 1999 constitution will handle such controversial issues as state creation, state police, sharia, and tenure for elected office holders?
The sharia question has always been there in the constitution and should not be considered as a controversy because it has always existed. To be frank, the sharia law stakes were raised under Obasanjo administration just to rattle him. It was a political hurdle, a pothole deliberately intended to frustrate Obasanjo by the North. Now that he is no more there, do you hear anything about sharia again?
Talking about tenure of elected office holders, that is really a non-issue. It has never worked in Nigeria and will never work. I mean, is that the main issue at stake? Does tenure elongation automatically imply good governance? Of course, you and I know that in Nigeria today, if you increase politicians’ office tenure that does not mean they will rule better. Ask yourself, what is the utility value of tenure elongation? Whether it is one year or a single term of seven years, or two terms of 10 years, that will definitely not solve anything. Funny enough, Nigeria has been described by the West as the only “over-governed” nation and the only country in Africa where politicians wish to die in office.
In Mexico, it only led to a one-party system. The subtle effort of government of the day to smuggle the single party idea and impose it on Nigerians is not tenable. Imposing of one party system is what is currently tearing Zimbabwe apart today. What happens to all the other opposition parties if a single party must dominate the affairs of governance till God knows when? It is an annoying situation. Instead of trying to get ways to strengthen our institutions, judiciary and democracy, they are busy talking about sharia. I think these issues should not generate any form of controversy.
Issues like the institution of sharia law was made for adherents of the Muslim faith. It was a subtle instrument of opposition to intimidate the former president. Sharia is more of a political game than religion propped up against the past administration. It was meant to be directed at the government, not the people per se. And right now, it is not functional because Yar’Adua is in power. You see, people make a mistake in this country. Sharia was used in such a way that it was intended to impede the political ambition of the Obasanjo regime. It made progress then but not now, but it had always existed as part and parcel of the constitution.
On state creation, I think it’s also another form of distraction and deliberate derailment from the issues here. When you create new states, who is going to fund them? It is only in Nigeria that the federal government finances state budgets and major expenditure from its coffers. After creating more and more states now, they start talking about revenue allocation, derivation, land use and all the usual clamour for a share of the “national cake.”
No one says that the affected geo-political zones should not clamour for more states. Of course it’s their constitutional right to demand for expansion and economic growth. But where are the potentials in place to run new states?
Proliferation of state could also imply political independence and creation of more institutions. The states are smaller principalities. They are presently weaker to politically withstand the federal government monopoly. Our own federal government is not what you might consciously describe as a true federation. The centre is too powerful. The federal authoritys is a giant compared to the several midgets of weaker states which are financially dependent on the centre. The more their number, the greater the demand for regional, economic and political independence. Does creation of more states imply or collocate with economic prosperity?
As for state-run police, it may not be the immediate answer to questions of infrastructural development, judiciary, and education. Does it address the abject poverty for which we are known all over the world as a starving giant? What about power supply? In fact, state or regional police may lead to political thuggery, hooliganism and violence. They will end up as instruments of harassment and political rivalry among politicians. These corrupt governors, once they get their hands on the police, will definitely mobilise them against their opponents.
There is nothing really wrong with the centralised police system we are practicing now. But the police should be answerable to state governors. It is very wrong for a state Commissioner of Police to answer directly to the Inspector General of Police. The commissioner should first and foremost report to the state governors. The solution may not be decentralising the police force. If not, they may rebel. By the way, where is the structure also to properly remunerate regional police cops because even with what we have on the ground, abject poverty is the bane of the law enforcement arm? So, decentralising the police is not an immediate issue.
In the history of constitution review in Nigeria, the North-South divide has always been a big factor, especially the imbalance in the polity. Do you think the trend will rear its head during the amendment?
Well, what factor are we exactly talking about here? Because I know that there is a South geographically, but politically speaking there is no South. In terms of political consciousness, the so-called North-South divide has been severally questioned. Middle-Belters do not see themselves as northerners, even geographically.
I don’t subscribe to your “North-South divide” term. These are out-dated political concepts and labels. The Nigerian state. Itself is a product of what the western colonisers drafted in our absence which they termed as, “amalgamation” or “protectorates, bypassing the several ethnic, cultural and political consciousness of separate peoples. The fact remains that though there may be “North” in that conscious political sense, there is no South.
What in your view are likely roadblocks to amending the 1999 constitution?
Surely, there may be roadblocks because while some will benefit from the amendment others may not. Those who profit from the status-quo may not want the constitution amended. You can finger the north here if you like. But recall that during the last constitutional conference, when the Niger Delta demanded for 40 per cent derivation, it was strongly opposed by the rest of Nigeria, especially North. And coming back to the question of state police, if decentralised it could easily become the armed wing of the ruling party in the states. Why not refurbish the present structure? A structure which the states will turn into political forces is likely to lead to anarchy and violence. But we can reformulate the Nigerian police force, reform it and make them responsible to their state governors. It becomes an anomaie in that sense for a cop to report directly to the Inspector General (IG).
There is the need for sustenance of police as presently constituted to act as the neutra lobita (non-aligning) institution of the Nigeria state. The police owes it a duty to Nigerians to remain neutral no matter the regime in power.