SPEECH BY SENATOR MUHAMMAD ADAMU ALIERO AT THE LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ONGOING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

SPEECH BY

SENATOR MUHAMMAD ADAMU ALIERO

AT THE LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ONGOING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HOLDING AT SOKOTO ON THE 26 MAY 2021

 

PROTOCOLS

 

1. I’d like to start by expressing my delight at the fact that this legislative public hearing on the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is taking place today in this historic city of Sokoto – a city that is connected to all of Nigeria’s history and historicization. Sokoto has been at the heart of the politics of the structure of Nigeria since the amalgamation of the country in 1914. The city has always played a significant part in uniting and unifying the country. I am, therefore, hopeful that this public hearing will, at the end of the day, produce a document that will further strengthen the unity of our beloved country.
2. May I also state that the purpose of this legislative public hearing goes beyond obtaining public input on the ongoing constitutional amendment. It creates an avenue for a collaborative partnership between the legislator and the people, who are indeed the principals and owners of the sovereignty of the State. Through the people’s direct involvement and participation, the legislator is given a clear and unambiguous indication of the people’s positions on the range of issues that are slated for amendment. With better information and unequivocal assurances from the people, the legislator is strengthened and equipped to make better judgments about the structure and content of our country’s Constitution.
3. This exercise is of immense importance, because it is coming at a time when governance is pushed to the extreme by all manner of sociopolitical challenges. As has always been the case with us as a country, the Constitution has always been the first to be blamed for our political, economic, social and even environmental challenges. The Constitution is always to be blamed for the failure of governance at all levels, for the failure of leadership even at the level of the family, for excessive religious intolerance, for the unhealthy ethnic rivalries and suspicions,  for the economic and social conflicts and even for the incompetence or selfishness of our political actors. This is why Nigeria has had a series of Constitutions. Between 1914, when the North and South were amalgamated, and 1960 when the country gained its independence, Nigeria experimented with five different Constitutions, namely:

(1) the 1914 Constitution;

(2) the Clifford Constitution of 1922;

(3) the Richardson Constitution of 1946;

(4) the Macpherson Constitution of 1951; and

(5) the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954.

4. The present 1999 Constitution is the fifth Constitution since independence in 1960. What that means is that Nigeria is on its 10th Constitution between 1914 and today, an average of a new Constitution for every 10 years. When compared to our contemporaries or other older democracies, our tolerance level for our Constitutions is anything but impressive. If our constitutional record or history is reflective or reminiscent of our socio-political culture, then there is the need for us to ask ourselves some hard questions. Could it be that we do not, as a country, have shared values upon which we can build an enduring federal structure that can guaranty the peace and prosperity of every Nigerian? What is the thing about us that makes attempts to reduce our relationships to an enduring fundamental binding document in the form of a Constitution so tasking? What are those issues or fault lines that keep hitting so hard at the roots of our Constitutions? Why do our Constitutions continue to fail as governance structures or instruments? What is it about their designs that justify their frequent replacements? I would not answer these hard questions. Rather, I would urge all of us to reflect on them. Let us ponder over them. It may help us in developing a more understanding attitude to our Constitutions and constitutional experience.
5. Not many will be concerned if a Constitution that generates conflicts among the constituent units of a country is replaced. Same for a Constitution that is, by design, incapable of securing and promoting freedom, equality and justice for all. A Constitution is also likely to be changed when it does not empower the organs of Government and political actors to implement necessary changes as and when due through amendments or judicial interpretation.
6. The choice between replacing a Constitution and amending it is not an easy one. Constitutional democracy and democratic governance are fashioned by Constitutions but depend on societal and cultural values for their sustenance and evolution. Building constitutional and democratic cultures do not begin and end with Constitutions. What the Constitution does is affect the constitutional and democratic building process and provide standards and signposts for evaluating and perceiving legitimate actions. What builds a country’s constitutional and democratic cultures are the experiences and knowledge derived from the implementation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The traditions of resolving constitutional and political conflicts are the pillars of a country’s constitutional and democratic culture. Changing or replacing Constitutions should, therefore, be the last resort for an emerging democracy like ours.
7. The legitimacy of the existing Constitution is said to be tainted as a result of its origins in the authoritarian military regime, and there have been repeated and loud calls for its replacement. Though such calls should not and cannot be ignored, they are faced with constitutional challenges. Replacing the 1999 Constitution will create a constitutional crisis if it calls for a total break from the 1999 Constitution and without following the procedure laid out in the 1999 Constitution for such a replacement. Going outside the 1999 Constitution to seek a replacement of the 1999 Constitution will entail not just the drafting of a new Constitution, but ratifying and passing such a new Constitution into law. Fashioning procedures and processes for the production of such a document has inherent and intrinsic legitimacy issues. Such a break has to be on a process and procedure that is in itself constitutional and legitimate. Without tracing its root to a procedure laid down by the existing Constitution, its legitimacy may be an issue. Some countries are wise enough to set out clear and unambiguous procedures for the replacement of their Constitutions. Other countries have, through general elections, granted their representatives clear mandates to draft and adopt new Constitutions per their procedures rather than those set out in their Constitutions. But why belabour ourselves with such complexities when the 1999 Constitution does not delimit the extent to which we can amend our Constitution and can technically create a new Constitution through the amendment procedures set out by the 1999 Constitution? I do not believe that there is any change, be it structural or content, that we genuinely desire to make in the present socio-political structure or design of Nigeria that we cannot achieve through the amendment procedure set out in the 1999 Constitution.
8. There are genuine political considerations that are making a case for the replacement of the 1999 Constitution without any recourse to its procedures.
9. There is the fear that the political dynamics in the National Assembly are such that it may not be feasible for some drastic structural changes in the polity to be affected. It is argued that the constitutional requirements for amendments in terms of the numbers required in the National Assembly and concurrence in the states make it unlikely to affect drastic amendments to the Constitution. It is feared that some states or regions might not be open to amendments that may affect vested privileges and interests. If the records matter, the 1999 Constitution upon which this Fourth Republic is erected is not rigid to the extent of impeding necessary amendments that are reflective of the extant socio-political realities. What may be in issue is not the Constitution itself but the political will of the political actors to put out themselves to unify the country. If the political actors are true to the purpose for which they are elected by their people and true to the oaths of their offices, there is nothing that they cannot achieve through the process and procedure set out in the Constitution for its amendment.
10. Constitutional fidelity and continuity will serve us better. What I consider paramount at this time is how to take governance to the grassroots and not the creation of other fictional structures that will benefit only political elites. What we are facing today is the failure of governance and leadership at all levels. The mode and culture of recruiting our political actors and leaders have failed us. The Federal Government indeed has too much power and too many items to deal with in the Exclusive Legislative List. It is also true that the Federal Government has not made a good case for the continued retention of the 51% of the consolidated revenue fund. Judicious use and just distribution of that income over the years would have solved many of the problems threatening the existence of the country. If the record of the Federal Government has been poor and is a justification for the call for the devolution of powers and resources, is the record of the states any better? I do not think so. In truth, the states are worse. This is the reason why I root for the strengthening of the Local Government System. The Local Government Councils must be at the vanguard of development – the poster boy for our democratic governance and our civilisation. We must make it the most important, most funded and most empowered tier of Government. It is impracticable to take governance to every part of the country without an effective Local Government System. Incidentally, it is the gaps in governance that have been seized and filled by bandits, insurgents and terrorists.
11. May we all be better guided.

 

Signed

 

Senator Muhammad Adamu Aliero

26/05/2021