DAWODU.COM
Dedicated to Nigeria's socio-political issues
2009 US DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY INFORMATION
October 3, 2007 - December 2, 2007
LUNARPAGES.COM and IPOWERWEB.COM - Despicable WebHosts - Read My Story
|
DAWODU.COMDedicated to Nigeria's socio-political issues
2009 US DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY INFORMATION
October 3, 2007 - December 2, 2007
LUNARPAGES.COM and IPOWERWEB.COM - Despicable WebHosts - Read My Story
|
|
OPEN LETTER TO NIGER DELTA ELECTED LEGISLATORS INTHE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND THE STATE HOUSES OF ASSEMBLYMay 9, 2006
Distinguished Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
representing the Senatorial Districts and Federal Constituencies of the
Niger Delta states of Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross Rivers, Delta, Edo, and
Rivers; and
Honourable
Members of the Houses of Assembly of the Niger Delta states of Akwa Ibom,
Bayelsa, Cross Rivers, Delta, Edo, and Rivers:
Like most
Nigerians in the Diaspora we, in the South-South Peoples’ Assembly of North
America, have been following the constitutional amendment debate in Nigeria
with keen interest.
We notice that the debate over the proposed amendments to the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has generated much
controversy in and outside of Nigeria.
At the expense of other significant issues in the series of proposed
amendments contained in the Bill, the debate has been dominated by only one
item - the proposal to extend the term of office for the president and state
governors from two terms of four years each to three terms of four years
each.
This is a
pivotal time in Nigeria’s history and, as members of these legislative
chambers, the task of defining the strategic directions of Nigeria lies in
your hands. It
is a task which we are sure you take with the utmost responsibility.
Therefore, we the undersigned, on behalf of the members of the
South-South Peoples’ Assembly of North America, seize this opportunity to
advise you of our concerns on the Bill, namely that:
I.
PROCESS
The process
for amending the constitution of a country is a tedious and methodical one.
First, concerted efforts must be made to ensure that the views of all
parties are sought and evaluated.
This is particularly true in the case of a federal system like
Nigeria. From a
traditional and historical perspective (excluding the military era),
The
1960 Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria and
The
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1963 were effected
following a methodical approach with broad national consensus.
It goes without saying that the views of citizens of the federating
units - States in Nigeria - must be canvassed.
In contrast, the two-day review session hosted by the Senator Mantu-led
Joint Committee on the Review of the Constitution in the “capital” of each
“zone” in Nigeria failed to meet this imperative.
The “zones” are not federating units of Nigeria.
Second, a
constitutional amendment is different from crafting a new constitution.
The Bill as presented goes beyond the boundaries of an amendment as
it is an attempt to re-write the entire constitution, a function which is
outside the jurisdiction of the National Assembly.
Again, looking at the amendments to the 1960 and 1963 constitutions,
we submit that both documents are identical except for two amendments:
The 1963
Republican constitution marked a break from the monarchical one of 1960
where the British monarch was the head of state.
The 1963
variant recognized the four constituent units (regions) of Nigeria, with the
successful referendum of August 1963 that established the Midwest Region.
These were
the only amendments, and neither was imposed by a legislative fiat.
II.
FEDERALISM
The
proposed amendments fail to recognize the federal system of Nigeria.
The Bill reinforces the unitary structure of governance inherent in
the 1999 Constitution which has been condemned by all Nigerian federalists,
including the South-South Peoples’ Assembly of North America.
As you are well aware, the demand for returning Nigeria to its
federal roots is a fundamental issue for Niger Deltans and other Nigerians.
When
General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd) declared his presidential candidacy under
the banner of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) on November 05, 1998, he
called for an
"open dialogue among the constituents of the Nigerian federation" as
he agitated for a "democratic
federal structure.”
He also
declared:
And,
pondering how we can restore federalism in Nigeria, General Obasanjo offered
a solution as he declared:
We would
like to remind you that when Obasanjo urged Nigerians "to
return to true federalism" he was referring to
The
1960 Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria and
The
Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1963.
In the spirit of "true federalism", which he alluded to in that 1998
declaration, the constituent regions - Eastern Region, Midwest Region,
Northern Region, and Western Region
- were independent of the centre (federal government) and exercised
complete autonomy befitting units in a federation.
Let us
consider some examples of this:
The above
is a short list of the properties of true federalism that was understandably
jettisoned by Nigeria's unitary government under military rule.
That these properties were discarded in post military constitutions,
particularly in the 1999 Constitution, remains baffling for a supposedly
federalism-oriented constitution.
Therefore, the 1999 Constitution, though referred to as "federal", is
in fact a unitary constitution, as exemplified by the following.
The Bill,
which you have been asked to consider, has failed to remedy any of these
defects. It has
in fact provided reinforcement to an entrenched unitary system on a
supposedly federal polity.
III.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
As noted above, it
is our position that local government areas should be of state instead of
federal jurisdiction.
The constitution has no jurisdiction to regulate the conduct of a
state House of Assembly, to determine the language of business of a state
House of Assembly, or to determine the salary scale of state officials -
governors, deputy governors, members of the House of Assembly, much less
that of local government chairmen.
The
constitution has no jurisdiction to determine the capital of a state or of a
local government council.
In a federal political system, the constitution does not have
jurisdiction to determine the schedule of elections for the offices of state
governors, deputy governors, members of a state House of Assembly, and local
government chairmen; therefore INEC has no jurisdiction to conduct elections
for the offices of state governors, deputy governors, members of a state
House of Assembly, and local government chairmen.
The
placement of the affairs of the state in the hands of the federal government
is an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of states, and is consistent
with the unitary system of government, instead of the federal system that
Nigeria is supposed to be operating.
The
creation of local government areas and the establishment of the
number of
local governments, under the jurisdiction of a federal body, the federal
House of Assembly, contradict the spirit and letter of true federalism.
In our view, a local government council should be under the
jurisdiction of a given state.
A state can create any number of local government councils depending
on its internal resources, without seeking additional revenue for this
purpose from the central government.
The creation of local government councils remains the exclusive
jurisdiction of a state.
IV.
RESOURCE OWNERSHIP
Each state
should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over agriculture and natural
resources (oil, gas, mining, etc) within its respective territories.
Each state shall pay appropriate tax to the federal government from
the proceeds of the natural resources and other economic activities carried
out in the state.
As defined in both the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, the continental
shelf of a State shall be deemed to be part of that State.
V.
POWER SHIFT
The Bill
proposes the rotation of the presidency between the North and South of
Nigeria, and the rotation of governorship among senatorial districts in each
State. By
legislating the choice of a president, state governor, senator or local
government chairman, etc, the Bill is denying the electorates their
fundamental rights to elect candidates of their choice. This is an
undemocratic method, and is tantamount to selecting (instead of electing)
political officials in a supposedly democratic polity.
The intent of this clause is to impose a choice on the population,
and calls into question the basis for an election.
In a
democracy, power shift is not decreed or legislated.
It is a function of the correlation of forces in a vibrant democratic
political system where candidates and political parties are free to canvass
for votes in a free and fair election to elect the best candidate for the
given office.
Furthermore, power shift is not a synonym for good governance which is the
main problem paralysing the Nigerian society.
What Nigeria needs, therefore, is a dedicated and an incorruptible
leadership at all levels of government to manage the economy in a
sustainable way and to provide for the basic necessities of the population
under a democratic dispensation.
VI.
TERM ELONGATION (THIRD TERM)
The
proposal to extend the tenure of the president (and state governors) beyond
the two-four year term as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution is immoral if
it is designed to benefit those elected under the terms of the 1999
Constitution.
While we recognize that a two-third majority of the Senate and the House of
Representatives could amend the constitution to reflect this term
elongation, such an amendment must exclude the current president and the
state governors elected in 1999.
Nigeria has
been vocal against other Africa leaders who had amended the constitutions of
their respective countries to permit them to "sit tight" in office.
To amend the constitution in this fashion is a tyranny of the elected
representatives against the population.
It is an abuse of democracy.
Concluding Remarks
The
constitution of a nation is a sacred document, and the process of its
amendment must reflect the broad consensus of the population.
In our view, the Bill under consideration in the National Assembly
transcends the boundaries of constitutional amendments, as it proposes a
"new" constitution.
It is
noteworthy that the chief proponents of the term elongation were also the
promoters of "Abacha Forever" whom General Obasanjo (rtd) had severely
condemned for their anti-democratic practices.
We are, therefore, troubled that President Obasanjo has (or appears
to have) sought an alliance with this group in a scheme to subvert the term
limit as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution which he swore to uphold and
defend.
In view of
the above, we respectfully urge you to vote against the entire Bill to amend
the constitution.
The Bill under consideration reinforces the unitary characteristics
of the 1999 military constitution.
We join other Nigerians in demanding the convocation of a constituent
assembly to draft a new federal constitution that will replace the 1999
constitution bequeathed by the military government.
Such a constitution would accord due consideration to the
jurisdictions of the federating units, as well as to the ethnic
nationalities that constitute the basis of a federal Nigeria.
Signed for
and on behalf of the South-South Peoples' Assembly of North America:
|
|
© 1999 - 2006 Segun Toyin Dawodu. All rights reserved. All unauthorized copying or adaptation of any content of this site will be liable to legal recourse. Contact: webmaster@dawodu.com Segun Toyin Dawodu, P. O. BOX 710080, HERNDON, VA 20171-0080, USA. This page was last updated on 10/27/07. |
