Monday, September 16, 2013

SOLDIERS ON TRIAL FOR COMPLICITY IN BOKO HARAM & JOS CRISIS


Some soldiers are to face death penalty while others will go to jail for their alleged links to Boko Haram. The soldiers affected are one lieutenant, one warrant officer and 16 others. The General Court Martial has been trying them since July 1 of this year.
Their offences range from communicating with Boko Haram members, cowardly behaviour, murder and manslaughter. They were being tried by the Three Armoured Division as the case fell within its Area of Responsibility (AOR).
A source from the military said that those soldiers who were sentenced to death actually deserved the sentence because "for serving soldiers who swore to defend the territorial integrity of Nigeria and Nigerians therein to be found conniving with the enemies of Nigeria (Boko Haram) is a treasonable offence which attracts capital punishment.
"The Boko Haram members do not hide their sinister agenda. They want to destabilise the country. Everybody knows that. For soldiers to now secretly work with them at the expense of the country is treasonable. And it is so treated."

The Deputy Director, Army Public Relations of the Division, Col. Texas Chukwu, stated that he was preparing a formal speech in this regard, and that this might be made public. The 18 accused soldiers are drawn from the 3rd Armoured Division, Joint Task Force (JTF), otherwise known as Operation Restore Order from Maiduguri and Special Task Force (STF) known as Operation Safe Haven, from Plateau state.

PRESIDENT JONATHAN MAY CONVENE A SOVEREIGN NATIONAL CONFERERENCE


Top of Form


THERE are indications that President Goodluck Jonathan may soon consider the option of a national sovereign national conference to douse political tension ahead 2015 presidential elections.
   A group of political leaders from the South East and South South geopolitical zones were said to have prevailed on the President to wield it as master stroke that would put a stop to the crisis within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the current political instability.
    The group, made up of hardcore supporters of the President, said immediate convocation of a Sovereign National Conference among the 389 ethnic nationalities, would douse the tension in the polity and cause combatants in the political arena to pause and think as all component groups in the country take advantage of the platform, where the basis of Nigeria’s existence will be “fully discussed and agreed.”
   They are also advising the President that, in case his convoying a SNC makes it difficult for him to run for second term in 2015, he should work to hand over to a President from either the Middle Belt (North Central) or the South East geopolitical zone.
   The memo, which is receiving “serious considerations” from President Jonathan, also said the SNC is needed to put a stop to the “blackmail and balkanisation” of the PDP, and give the President “the needed Plan B and C whereby he would shame his critics and stop the domination of Presidential politics by any group or region.”
    Presidency sources in the know of the “strong memo to the President” canvases that President Jonathan should “think seriously of convoking Sovereign National Conference in which he will be the one to midwife it. It will bring out a “We, the people...” constitution, which would be an answer to the agitations of Nigerians for a forum to decide on how they want to live. After the SNC, if he contests and wins, he will be a national hero.”
   The group, however, said the move would be the best way to strengthen and deepen Nigerianism. “This makes sense because the South East has not produced a Nigerian President. They have always been denied this opportunity. Only recently, they were allowed to get the office of the Chief of Army Staff and leadership of key Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
   “For the minorities of the Middle Belt, they have always succeeded in keeping Nigeria one. If the office of the President is aimed at satisfying the North, it should be to the Middle Belt minorities and not go to those who have not only produced dictators and a civilian President.”
     Though President Jonathan is yet to give his reply to the contents of the memo “sent by some of his loyal supporters”, he is studying it and would soon give his decision to them.
    Jonathan has said that while he does not oppose a SNC, he feels that because of constitutional issues, it is better for the nation to have a national dialogue. But the new push, which is quickly gaining converts within his administration, is a direct move to permanently change the political history of the nation.
    On Thursday, August 30, 2013, President Jonathan affirmed the belief of his administration in the rights of the nation’s constituent parts to come together to discuss how they will continue to live in peace and unity.
    The President told a delegation of The Patriots, which submitted a memorandum, which, among others, demanded the convocation of a sovereign national conference to discuss Nigeria’s future, that the issue of Nigerians coming together to discuss their future should not be out of place.
    He admitted that there have been discussions within his government on how to create an acceptable and workable platform for a national dialogue that will reinforce the ties that bind the country’s many ethnic nationalities and ensure that Nigeria’s immense diversity continues to be a source of strength and greatness.
    According to Jonathan, “the limitation we have is that the Constitution appears to have given that responsibility to the National Assembly. I have also been discussing the matter with the leadership of the National Assembly. We want a situation where everyone will key into the process and agree on the way forward.”
    Leader of The Patriots, Prof Nwabueze stated that the sovereign national conference should be convened before 2015 elections because the 1999 Constitution was not prepared by the people but a schedule to Decree 24.
    Calling for a new constitution derived from the people, the renowned constitutional lawyer noted: “We have done our own research and we have in this country 389 ethnic nationalities. We need to bring these nationalities around a conference table to discuss how we are going to live together as one country – in peace, in stability, in security – as one country with the aim of achieving national unity. But as of today, we are not a nation yet. We are a state. This conference should be convened as a matter of priority as soon as possible, in any event before the 2015 general elections.”
    On the position of the National Assembly that there is no need for a sovereign conference since there is an elected National Assembly in place, Nwabueze said: “It is important that what the National Assembly is putting forward is their powers under sections 8&9, which is to alter the Constitution. Power to alter is not as important as the power to abolish what you are altering and to replace it completely. It must be directly from the people and that is the position of, at least, 85 per cent of the countries of the world.

   “If you read Section 1(1) of the Decree these are all preambles to that decree and the 1999 Constitution that you are talking about, it is a schedule to Decree 24. Repeal the decree and the constitution will disappear and you enact a brand new constitution, which would derive its authorities from the people. That was done in 1963 when we adopted the Republican Constitution to replace the Independence Constitution. That 1960 Constitution was also a schedule to British Order-In -Council just as the 1999 Constitution, is a schedule to the Decree 24.” 
THE GUARDIAN

Thursday, September 5, 2013

PROCEDURE FOR DRAFTING AN ENTIRELY NEW CONSTITUTION

The current Senate has, on its own, proposed an amendment to Section 9 of our Constitution which deals with the ‘Mode of altering provisions of the Constitution’. The Senators are proposing to add several sub-sections to this section which will effectively give the National Assembly the powers to draft and enact an entirely new constitution for Nigeria. This proposal has never been subjected to a debate in a plenary session of any of the two NASS chambers nor at a public hearing.
The 49-Member Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution introduced this proposal as the very first item on their list of proposed amendments for deliberation. On page 11 of their report to the Senate, the Committee wrote:
“The Committee feels there is the need to make an elaborate provision in Section 9 of the Constitution for a procedure to bring an entirely new Constitution into being. This is predicated on the belief that the incremental approach to constitutional amendment may not be sustainable in the long run. The need may arise in the future for a whole new document.”
The Committee therefore proposed the insertion of 14 new sub-sections to the current Constitution that provision as follows:
1.      That for the purpose of altering the provisions in the 1999 Constitution, the President’s assent shall not be required;
2.      That the NASS may propose a new Constitution for the Federation;
3.      That the new constitution shall come into effect in the manner stipulated in 4 to 14 below;
4.      That there shall be a Senate and House of Reps committee to be known as Joint Constitution Drafting Committee (JCDC);
5.      That the JCDC shall consist of 2 members from each State (one each from the Senate and House of Reps) and 2 members representing the FCT (one from the Senate and one from the House of Reps);
6.      That the Senate President and House of Reps Speaker shall appoint the JCDC chairman.
7.      That the JCDC shall produce a draft Constitution and submit same to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Reps.
8.      That the Draft Constitution shall be presented to both Houses of the NASS within 3 months as receipt of the JCDC Report.
9.      That if approved by 2/3 of the members of both Houses of the NASS, the Report shall be forwarded to all 36 State Houses of Assembly
10.   That State Assemblies shall vote on each section of the Draft Constitution, requiring just a simple majority to pass each section, while 2/3 of the State Assemblies shall be required to pass a section for it to make it into the proposed Constitution.
11.   When State Assemblies return the Draft Constitution, the Clerk of the NASS shall ensure that State Assemblies have complied with the provisions of this section.
12.   That the Clerk of the NASS shall then circulate the Draft Constitution to each member of the NASS and also forward copies to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
13.   That the INEC shall, within 6 months, conduct a referendum for the approval or otherwise of the Draft Constitution.
14.   That if the Draft Constitution receives a simple majority of votes cast in 2/3 of the States of the Federation, it shall come into force as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
This proposed amendment to the current Constitution throws up many issues that would require very careful study. It also throws up many questions that would need answers before a decision is taken whether the amendment should be allowed or not.
Firstly, the Senate constitution review committee did not give a convincing reason for seeking empowerment for the NASS to draft and enact entirely new constitutions for the country. The portion of their report quoted said the need for the NASS to be so empowered is hinged on “the incremental approach to constitutional amendment which may not be sustainable in the long run.” I find this argument hollow, shallow and unconvincing.
Secondly, the NASS would like to grant itself powers to both draft and enact new Constitution. It may be in order for enact the document, but should they also draft it? Why should the drafting not be left for a separate committee that more broadly represents the people? The powers of drafting and enacting a new Constitution should not be vested in the same body. The legislators were elected to make laws primarily. The mandate given to them by the people cannot be construed to include the people’s sovereignty to make draft a fundamental governing document like a Constitution. Also, 2 legislators per State is far too small a representation for our huge population and diversity of opinion, culture, geography, religion and aspirations. 
Thirdly, the Senate proposed to dispense of a presidential assent to the new Constitution while they granted themselves the prerogative of drafting the document, debating on it and approving it. If they were sincere, they would have also removed the need for the NASS to tamper with the draft, provided such a draft emanated from the people. This point proves that they cannot be the drafters of any new Constitution. Even after State Assemblies have passed new provisions, the NASS wishes to arrogate to itself powers to still decide if what the State Assemblies have done is acceptable to them or not. Then the final document could not be said to be a Constitution which the people of Nigeria have decided to give themselves.
Fourthly, the popular practise the world over is for constitutional drafting to be done by representatives of the people elected purely for that purpose. However, in the proposed amendment, the NASS wishes to usurp the people’s powers to give themselves a Constitution.
Fifthly, the requirement of a simple majority as proposed for section by section State Assembly debates is unheard of in the process of Constitution drafting. The minimum requirement the world over tends to be 60% and above. The simple majority requirement as proposed is a ploy to ensure that State Assemblies very easily pass whatever the NASS has done. For example, a sizeable of opposition to a section of up to 59% will still not be able to quash the NASS proposals.
In conclusion, Nigerians are urged to oppose the proposed amendment that will empower the NASS to draft and enact new Constitutions for Nigeria. The acceptable amendment should be one that recommends the election of hundreds of representatives to constitute an independent constitutional drafting committee. The acceptable amendment should also specify that the NASS shall not tamper with the resulting draft Constitution but enact it.    
James Pam, 04 September, 2013
Jamespam2004@yahoo.com     

   

ABOLISHING REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS WAS A MISTAKE

“Scrapping of local government councils is not the issue, Nigeria should go back to the regional system of government where six regions should be the federating units.” Alhaji Balarabe Musa. 

In a nation-wide broadcast on 24 May, 1966, Gen. J. T. U. Aguiyi-Ironsi, Chairman, Supreme Military Council, announced the abolishment of the then existing three Regional Governments of Southern Region, Eastern Region and Northern Region through the promulgation of Military Decree No. 5. By the same Decree, the prefix ‘Federal’ in the name of our country was dispensed of. Our country’s name became simply the “Republic of Nigeria”. In the words of the General, the old Provinces become the administrative units for governance. He concluded his speech by saying, “The provisions of the Decree are intended to remove the last vestiges of the intense regionalism of the recent past, and to produce the cohesion in the governmental structure which is so necessary in achieving and maintaining the paramount objective of the National Military Government, and indeed, every true Nigerian, namely, national unity.”

Gowon ended the reign of the Provinces when he created 12 States in May 1967. The country has since gone through several Military Decrees and Acts of different Parliaments which have given us our present structure of 36 State Governments, the Federal Capital Territory FCT and 774 Local Governments.
I was born a few years before our Independence and have grown knowing nothing else but intense rivalry between all Nigerians on three fronts, namely, ethnicity, regionalism and religion. My observation tells me that that rivalry continues to intensify by the day.

In the 1980s we did not object to our States of NYSC posting. We simply went there and made the best of the one year national service. Today, requests for redeployment are the order of the day for reasons of religious or ethnic or geographical dislike. Today, my children cannot pick up jobs in the companies I worked in the 80s for reasons of religious, ethnic and geographical incompatibility. Neighborhoods in which I had bosom friends and could enter and have a good meal are today ‘no-go’ areas for me because I am no more welcome there and because I am concerned for my personal security. Friends I could trust with my family before, I can no longer trust even to deliver a common letter to them. I, therefore, cannot find the justification in Gen. Ironsi’s optimism in “cohesion in governmental structure” or “national unity” and therefore I have remained an unrepentant regionalist.  

Today, Christians are migrating out of the north-eastern parts of the country due to direct and open physical attacks on them. Fulani herdsmen are having too many clashes with their host communities all over Nigeria. The settler/indigene syndrome has resulted in deadly clashes in many parts of Nigeria. The National Assembly is currently considering the removal of all references to ethnicity in our Constitution. One of the contentious political issues in the ruling Party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, is the rotation of the presidency between the regions of the country.

For any Government in Nigeria, whether Federal, State or Local, to pass a law that installs any religion as the official religion is a constitutional violation. Yet twelve State Governments in Nigeria have done just that in blatant violation of our Constitution with no one challenging them in Court. Government sponsorship of religious pilgrimages is as unconstitutional as the enthronement of State religion, yet all Nigerian States are engaged in this act. Part II, Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states categorically and without equivocation that, “The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State religion.” States that have passed Shariah Laws have violated this section and also Section 38 - Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Sub-sections (1), (2), (3) & (4), and Section 42 - Right to freedom from discrimination, Sub-sections (1), (a) & (b).

My readers should not get me wrong. I am not about to advocate for the balkanisation of Nigeria into several sovereign States. To the contrary, I want us to avoid that by all means. Unfortunately, many of our actions and utterances suggest that we prefer disintegration while preaching unity with our lips. Breaking up into several countries like Yugoslavia did is not desirable. Nigeria should remain one country but with an internal governmental arrangement that recognizes our natural cleavages and capitalizes on them for foster peace and rapid development. Refusing to give these natural phenomena recognition and our pretense that we shall somehow surmount them someday baffles me.

A true federal structure for us is one with a few, say 6 or 8, fairly autonomous regional governments. Greater regional resource control, pursuit of developmental objectives as dictated by natural regional needs and the creation of opportunities for the exploitation of naturally endowed capacities should go along with this suggested structure. This is the panacea for optimum and sustainable economic growth as opposed to the current monthly sharing of revenue from one wasting asset - petroleum. This suggestion will guarantee self-determination, which is an instinctive desire of all human beings. Demands for the convocation of a ‘Sovereign National Conference’ by Prof. Wole Soyinka and many others, the demand for true federalism and the devolution of powers by Prof. Ben Magbueze, Chief Emeka Anyoku and many others give credence to my suggestions.

Recent write ups by many eloquent Nigerians have helped to re-enforce my belief in the concept of regionalism as the best governmental structure for Nigeria. I will make reference to some of them.

An article was recently written by Okey Ndibe and titled, “Lagos Deportations & the Crisis of Citizenship”. Okey Nidibe is a professor, novelist, essayist and political columnist who works at Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. While commenting on the recent deportations of some Igbo people by the Lagos State Government from Lagos to their State of origin, he said the episode “has underlined the shakiness of the idea of one Nigeria.” He added that “a policy that forcibly removes undesirable citizens from their State of residency to their State of origin does grave violence to the concept of national unity... More than fifty years into our game of pretending we have a nation; ethnic identity pretty much trumps every other consideration. For many Nigerians, ethnicity is not merely a virtue, it is the sole virtue.” He captures exactly what I am saying – that we are, first and foremost, ethnic bigots before being compulsory Nigerians.

Section 41(1) of our Constitution provides that, “Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof....” Therefore, regarding the recent Lagos State deportations and all other earlier internal deportations, my conviction is that they were unconstitutional and criminal acts against the victims.

Another recent write up by Ayo Teriba was titled, “Confronting Inter-regional Disparities in Nigeria”. Ayo Teriba is a one-time Chief Economist and member of the Editorial Board of Thisday who is now the Chief Executive of Economic Associates. In his article, Teriba used statistical data on the natural endowments of the six geo-political zones of the country, their revenue generating capacity, their consumption patterns, their federally allocated funds and their populations to prove the grave error in our developmental plans. My reading of his writing is that he is saying Nigeria would be better governed and developed along regional lines. 

The third article I will refer to is written by a blogger, Adeola Aderounmu. In 2011 he posted, “Nigeria right from the onset is a political error and an occurrence facilitated by the selfish (and probably stupid) thinking of the colonial masters. How can people and ethnic groups that have nothing in common be formed into one country? Intelligence was deducted when such economic and political decisions were formulated. The stupidity of the creation of Nigeria would have been neutralized by a purposeful leadership. But what Nigeria got since 1960 has been a series of governments dominated by tribalism, nepotism and massive corruption... Nigeria remains one country just to serve the corrupt cabal... We should support a return to regional governments similar to what we had in those days.... It is time for each region to determine how it wants to run itself using its own economic, human and natural resources. It is time to take the power away from the centre. Let us return it to the regions where it will be possible to manage and even uproot corruption. It is absolutely useless to remain like this.” I couldn't have put it more aptly.

My fourth and last reference will be to Dr. Yusufu Turaki, Professor of Theology and Social Ethics, Jos ECWA Theological Seminary. In a paper titled, “Historical Roots of Crises and Conflicts in Nigeria with Reference to Northern Nigeria and Kaduna State”, he opines that ethnic nationalities and militants are not driven by national, political and economic principles, but by their own core values, which are usually at variance with national values. He contends that we have relied too much on social scientists to proffer solutions to political, economics, educational and religious problems to no avail. The evidence is that Nigeria is getting worse and deeper into the quagmire. He surmises that great nations of this world made it by making deliberate effort to define and transform their ethnography, geography, religion and culture to make it viable and conducive for development and transformation. Therefore, for us to develop and be transformed, we must address and transform our primary and primordial social factors, harness their potentials, tame their excesses and develop harmony, balance and unity in and out of them.

The arguments for the restoration of regional governments are strong, numerous and overwhelming. Regional governments are the best platform for the avoidance of disintegration and the promotion of rapid economic and social development. To go on the way we are now would be foolhardiness. Certainly, the rapid development envisaged will not be equal in all the Regions. But we shall share across regional boundaries as each Region specializes in areas they have comparative advantage. Our legislators will oppose such an arrangement not because they have better ideas but simply because they will be its first major casualties.

Regionalism and a unicameral system didn't fail us. We failed in its implementation. It is cost-effective and easy to operate, making it most appropriate for our present state of development. The Presidential system we adopted from the USA, with its huge Presidency and a bi-cameral parliament is a very wasteful over-duplication of administrative structures. Given our 36 States and 774 Local Governments, the canker-worms of ethnicity and religious bigotry can only be ferociously fed into maturity and implosion.

Whenever I hear the cliché, ‘Unity in diversity’ being used, I wonder if the speaker has thought of the meaning of these words and if he has seen any evidence of this in Nigeria. Let us stop saying things just to be politically right. Brazil, Malaysia Indonesia and others are supposed to be our peers in terms of developmental and social achievements, but we are lagging far behind them. Now is the time to act decisively.

James Pam, 26 August, 2013
jamespam2004@yahoo.com