Do you think there is any need for another Constitutional review? I SERVED in the committee twice, in the sixth and seventh Senate. There will always be need for a review, because the constitution as the source of all our laws, is supposed to be a life and living document. That is, it is supposed to address the political and social dynamics at every point in time. So, what is of the moment today might not be so tomorrow. As such, the constitution should be able to respond to those dynamics and changes at every point. So, constitutional review or constitutional amendment or constitutional alteration, to use the word of 1999 Constitution, is going to be a continuous exercise, but to what scale has to be the issue. Also, given the background of our 1999 constitution, which did not exactly grow out of the will of the people— it was a constitution given to us by the military and even at that, we have ratified it by conduct. So, we can no longer claim it was a constitution imposed on us because we have submitted to it. We have obeyed the powers created by the Constitution. We have abided by judgments created by courts in the Constitution. We have submitted to Presidents and governors and other powers created by that Constitution. But having said so, because of its origin, the way it was drafted, the way it was given to us, we will continue to review it again and again until it gets to a point, where we would have arrived at the people’s constitution. We have altered and amended the Constitution, but has all this impacted our lives? Well, we have attempted a number of amendments. We have had a number of Constitutional review exercises, but we have only successfully amended the Constitution once in the Sixth Senate, when we made the first, second and third alterations to the constitution. The last exercise, the one in the Seventh Senate that would have seen far more extensive amendments to the constitution, got caught in the intrigues and personal expectations of the then Attorney General. So, the President did not sign those amendments into law. That exercise, which was very expensive, very extensive and very inclusive, became a wasted exercise, because at the end of the day, the President did not sign. Thus, you can say there have been several attempts at amending the constitution, but there has been only one successful amendment. Prior to this, only one amendment exercise has succeeded and that was in 1963, which resulted in the creation of the then Mid-western State. So, we can say that constitution amendment is always a very tricky exercise. What truncated the process and prevented the National Assembly from having its way? We finished the amendment. We started with a retreat in Uyo, which was attended by the then President Goodluck Jonathan in person. After that, we had the national public hearing, which held in Abuja and the Attorney General of the federation was represented. As for what truncated the process, I believe it can be traced to a number of issues. One, under the proposal, there was supposed to be an Attorney General, who was not a political office holder. We tried to separate the office of Attorney General from that of the Minister of Justice. The Attorney General wasn’t to be appointed by the President, but by National Judicial Council (NJC). I think that was what his major concern was. He did not agree with the mode of appointment of the Attorney General. And we had several meetings with the former President on this and he asked us to make our case in writing, send it back and he would sign, but he never did. That amendment just died on the table of convenience of an individual. Would you say all the money spent was worth it? You keep trying because on the part of the National Assembly, it exerted itself to its limit. The mechanics of constitutional amendment and process are actually two components. If you look at the provisions in the constitution relating to constitutional alteration, you will see that you require the approval of two/third of states’ Houses of Assembly. What that means is that you have firstly, a legislative process of passing new constitution into law. You also have a social, political process, which has to do with building a sufficient conversation around the specific issues you want to amend. That conversation must be very active to the point, where you build a national consensus on it. The fact is that you cannot amend any provision of the constitution, when you don’t have a national consensus on that issue. It is that national consensus that gives you the two/third of states’ Houses of Assembly. So, you have the legislative process, as well as the building of that consensus on the specific issues. So, it is a very expensive and time-consuming process. For instance, in the Sixth Senate, we proposed financial autonomy for the legislative arm— National Assembly at the national level and the state assembles in the states. Then, the states approved financial autonomy for the National Assembly, but rejected it for themselves. Which means that that consensus building process failed in respect of financial autonomy for the states because of the over bearing influence of the governors. They couldn’t care less about the financial autonomy for national; it was beyond them but the one within their territories, they couldn’t get that consensus. So, it is not just a legislative process, but also a political one, as well as a social engagement in which the media and civil society organisations ought to play a more active role, at least, to generate a conversation and let that consensus be on specific issues. Why didn’t the Senate use its power to veto Presidential assent? It was because we were engaging with the President then and each time we met with him, he gave us the impression that the issue had been resolved. By the time we realised a game was going on, we did not have time to…because to veto, we need to go through first reading, second reading, third reading and all of that — the entire gamut of the legislative process. Meaning in this particular case, the Presidency outsmarted you because it wanted to have its way? More or less, yes. One of the proposed amendments was that the assent of the President would no longer be required for Constitutional amendments. We argued that Constitution was a different kind of law from the normal laws because the latter emanates directly from the people and it is only when you are amending the Constitution that you require the approval of state legislators. It was part of those amendments that was proposed. So, to avoid that, we must get to the point where the chief executive or the President sees that a Constitution is the document that emanates from the people and that his assent is not required. In the United States for instance, you do not require the assent of the President for any amendment to the Constitution. You said something about the media and civil society organisations playing active role. Do you think they were carried along? I don’t think we have generated enough conversation around the issues that require alteration in the constitution. Anyone will know when an active conversation has been generated. If you ask any Nigerian today about corruption, the reaction is likely to be ‘we have heard enough of this’. And why has he/she heard enough of it? Because there has been a lot of very active interventions of the media bringing out the details and the civil society organisation saying, ‘look, we must fight this’. So, everybody is on the same page apart from the beneficiaries of corruption. Can we say that we have agreed on what aspect of the constitution to amend? I don’t think enough work has been done in that regard. What I have seen or perceived is that the public just surrendered that role to the National Assembly but paradoxically; the constitution is one document that affects everybody. So, it cannot just be the business of 469 people. But you are the representatives of the people… The fact that I am a representative of the people does not give me a monopoly of perspectives or a monopoly of wisdom. When government engages people on corruption, it took the case to the media. The government must have set aside substantial budget for the media. Do you think the National Assembly did it or the lawmakers are just interested in what they can get? I don’t think the National Assembly did not adequately take the media along. There was a practising senior journalist who covered the Senate. He was the Spokesman for the Constitution review exercise, which took us to the six geopolitical zones after Abuja for public hearings. Then, the House of Representatives aspect of the exercise took them to every federal constituency. The Senate component took the Senate to every Senatorial district and in each of these exercises, the media was adequately involved. It is possible that our strategy for engaging the media and civil society was wrong, because I am beginning to see from this question that there should be specific engagements first with the media and civil society and not just engaging with them as part of the public. So, they can distil the issues and throw them in the public domain for conversations, as well as engage the governors. In the sixth and seventh exercises, I remember I was part of the team that went to engage with the governors to narrow the extents of disagreement because we realised they exercise a lot of influence on the states Houses of Assembly. What does not meet the governors’ wishes is certainly unlikely to pass in the states Houses of Assembly. You said the process of amending the Constitution in the Sixth and Seventh Assembly was more comprehensive but you only mentioned one or two things… They were quite many. What would you advise the present committee to look out for? When you are doing a constitutional review, every material is a resource material. So, what the previous National Assembly did would certainly be a resource material, but it would not be one in the nature of the scripture— the Bible or the Qur’an that must not be amended. There would definitely be new perspectives and new insights to what we may have done. They can use that as resource material to inform their current positions. So, there is no way we can hold them to bound by what was done in the past. There are new circumstances and perspectives. However, for me, and I have been giving this a lot of thought lately, there is a severe limitation to the constitutional review process because if you look at the constitution, it makes allowance only for an alteration. It did not make any allowance on how a new constitution can come about. One of the amendments that were proposed was how a new constitution can come about. That proposal was misread by some of our colleagues because they thought it was a back door strategy to grant elongation to the former President. So, there was a lot of suspicion around that issue. That issue actually failed, as it didn’t get to President Jonathan for assent. As long as there is no leeway on how a new constitution would come about, you will be curtailed by the provisions in the extant constitution that limits you from altering what was on ground. It will make restructuring of the polity very difficult in that situation. Like I said, I have been giving serious thought to ambition. Why did corruption grow in Nigeria? What is corruption? Corruption is somebody taking personal advantage of the inefficiency in the system. When you have more efficient systems, corruption is minimised. Now, can we have the kind of systemic efficiency that will minimise corruption in our current 36 states structure? You have 36 opportunities for creating 36 infrastructures for corruption. The multiplication of our federating units has made the system too bogus and too inefficient, which allows corruption to grow. We were told that at some point, Nigeria, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore were at par as at 1960. By 1965, Nigerian economy was one of the fastest growing in the world. As at 1965, our economy history told us that the then Eastern Region’s economy was the fastest growing in the world. What happened that these other countries left us behind? At some point, I thought it was our experience with military rule but I have checked, Brazil also experienced military rule. It is only India that has not been ruled by the military among these nations. So, military rule cannot be the reason. One thing that we did differently from these other countries was that whereas their federating units have remained the same since 1960, it has not been so in our own case. We were three regions in 1960, four by 1963, 12 states by 1967, 19 states by 1981, 21 states by 1987 and now 36 states. Their federating units remained the same. With the limitations imposed on the constitution review by the provisions limiting us from altering certain things, can you address this kind of structural challenge? Is there no way we can amend the constitution to allow for a new one? It is possible but just as I said, the timing was wrong. We made very elaborate preparations, but they failed. Again, because we did not generate the kind of national conversation around the issue that would have brought about a consensus, because some people saw it as an extension of the President’s tenure through the back door. In fact, that proposal was very specific— that nobody holding an office under the previous administration would be a beneficiary of the alteration. With your experience, how do we go about getting a new constitution? You have to amend the provisions of Section nine to include a procedure for a new Constitution. So, the consensus should be on what should be that procedure. I can only have a view, but I don’t have an answer. What is that view? You necessarily must subject a new constitution to a referendum; a national referendum and we must agree on the various stages it must pass through before it gets to that process. And the proposal must be very clear on how the referendum should be conducted and who should participate in it, how the outcome should be determined and who should determine it. Don’t you think someone seated in Abuja can manipulate the system to suit his purpose? What will be the person’s individual purpose? Tenure elongation, Presidency for life… What if the governors use state resources to influence it? Our recent political experience is that incumbent has his limitations. How can we prevent a situation, where a governor runs the local government and state House of Assembly? Unfortunately, the way the constitution is, you still need the consent of state House of Assembly to say, “We want autonomy”. But if we try having a new constitution, what would you advise? You still have to go back to the 1999 Constitution. You have to amend Section nine. And I don’t see the National Assembly being able to do that on its own without the active participation of civil society and the media. You have to generate the public appreciation of the need for a new constitution and that appreciation has to come from outside the National Assembly. It has to be a process, a conversation that is driven by an institution beyond the National Assembly. Why didn’t the 2014 National Confab get the approval of the Presidency? There was no provision in the constitution creating the National Conference. It had no legal support. It was not in the constitution, and not in any law, which means it was just an executive initiative. It was the President’s initiative to set up a body to advise him on the way forward. They did their work, submitted the report to their principal, who appointed them and he was at liberty to do whatever he wanted with the report. In this case, he decided to do nothing.]]>