A Grubby, Illegitimate Constitutional Amendment By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

Nigeria’s legislators have chosen to trifle with the
serious business of constitutional change. Driven solely by
opportunistic instincts fed by an absentee President and a
disorganized ruling party and with no pretence to high principle,
they have produced a package of constitutional amendments justified
almost exclusively by narrow self-interest. Nigerians must tell
them in unmistakable terms that such grubbiness dis-serves the
serious enterprise of determining the rules by which we
coexist.

In the last week of July 2017, both chambers of Nigeria’s
National Assembly voted on a slate of 33 amendments to the 1999
Constitution. The proposals under consideration were extensive but
way short of the 116 amendments proposed in a similar but
unsuccessful exercise in 2006.

To gain traction, a proposed amendment had to muster the support
of two-thirds of each chamber. A proposal is considered rejected if
it failed to reach this arithmetic in either chamber.

In the event, 24 of 33 proposed amendments were adopted and nine
failed. There are many features that make this package quite
strange.

First, the legislators defeated amendments that should have
passed. One such amendment would have reserved 35% of cabinet
positions for women. Men would still have had 65% all by
themselves. Another offered Nigerian women a right to choose or
change their state of origin after marriage. Both failed on
mean-spirited and antediluvian, masculine votes.

In 2015, the same legislature had passed a constitutional
amendment proposal to separate the office of Attorney-General from
that of Justice Minister. Goodluck Jonathan, who was President
then, declined assent. This idea was first put forward by the All
Nigerian Judges Conference in 1981. This time, the National
Assembly voted it down. They also voted down a devolution of powers
amendment that sought to minimally to adjust allocation of roles
between the federal and state governments. It would have enabled
states, for instance, to pursue power generation by themselves.

Second, the legislators approved amendments that should not even
have been tabled. Among these, they voted to make all former
Speakers of the House of Representatives and Presidents of Senate
members of the Council of State. This is vain at best. There’s also
an amendment to enable members of the National Assembly serve as
members of boards of other public institutions and parastatals. It
takes a parliament that doesn’t understand its role to even
consider this idea. Parliament, after all, oversights public
agencies. How can Parliament oversight an agency on whose board it
also sits?

Then they voted to grant themselves immunity from law. Ashamed
of what they did, the legislators sought to portray this as merely
granting immunity for what they do on the floor. That is a load of
tripe! Parliamentary privilege has been in Nigerian common law
since well before the Amalgamation. It’s beyond sinister to even
consider making immunity for legislators part of the constitution.
That’s madness.

Third, having chosen only to serve themselves through this
process, the legislators decided to protect their self-interest
with a bodyguard of populisms. One decade ago, in 2006, 116
proposed amendments to the same constitution failed because then
President, Olusegun Obasanjo, infected that effort with the poison
of making himself a life president. This time, the legislators
cynically approved the #NotTooYoungToRun amendment and also voted
through independent candidacy. Quite clearly, they hope that
citizens inebriated with these popular proposals will not care
about their attempt to desecrate our common weal. They are
wrong.

Fourth, these amendments are so poisonous because the
legislators in the National Assembly have behaved as if Nigeria’s
constitution is their private play thing to treat as they like. It
is not. They played around with amendments as they pleased, with
not even a pretence to involving Nigerians, our communities and
institutions. The entire process was set up to exclude Nigerians
from having any say or role in it. Their arrogance beggars belief.
They intend to socialize the costs of their vanities and afflict us
with liability for their excesses. That’s a crime against the
people.

Fifth, because of all these reasons, this process of
constitutional amendment as embarked on by the National Assembly
lacks legitimacy. They knew it. With a President exiled by
infirmity, an acting President rightly sensitive to optics, a
ruling party out to lunch, main opposition still disembodied, and
families burdened with livelihood concerns at the end of the school
session, the National Assembly chose precisely the moment when the
country was most likely to be tuned out at the end July to indulge
in this grubby enterprise.

A constitution afflicted with severe legitimacy deficits for
being authored by the military doesn’t improve its legitimacy by
being captured by a mutual admiration club of 469 legislators
pursuing narrow subsistence in its orifices.

As citizens, Nigerians must decide in this case not to settle
for convenient options. There may well be a few sensible amendments
in this package but if we cannot sequester them from the mostly
self-serving lot, then, we should resolve to reject the entire
package. That is the only way to tell the National Assembly that
our constitution is not theirs to mess around with.

Odinkalu Chairs the Governing
Council of the Section on Public Interest and Development Law
(SPIDEL) at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)

Nigeria’s legislators have chosen to trifle with the
serious business of constitutional change. Driven solely by
opportunistic instincts fed by an absentee President and a
disorganized ruling party and with no pretence to high principle,
they have produced a package of constitutional amendments justified
almost exclusively by narrow self-interest. Nigerians must tell
them in unmistakable terms that such grubbiness dis-serves the
serious enterprise of determining the rules by which we
coexist.

In the last week of July 2017, both chambers of Nigeria’s
National Assembly voted on a slate of 33 amendments to the 1999
Constitution. The proposals under consideration were extensive but
way short of the 116 amendments proposed in a similar but
unsuccessful exercise in 2006.

To gain traction, a proposed amendment had to muster the support
of two-thirds of each chamber. A proposal is considered rejected if
it failed to reach this arithmetic in either chamber.

In the event, 24 of 33 proposed amendments were adopted and nine
failed. There are many features that make this package quite
strange.

First, the legislators defeated amendments that should have
passed. One such amendment would have reserved 35% of cabinet
positions for women. Men would still have had 65% all by
themselves. Another offered Nigerian women a right to choose or
change their state of origin after marriage. Both failed on
mean-spirited and antediluvian, masculine votes.

In 2015, the same legislature had passed a constitutional
amendment proposal to separate the office of Attorney-General from
that of Justice Minister. Goodluck Jonathan, who was President
then, declined assent. This idea was first put forward by the All
Nigerian Judges Conference in 1981. This time, the National
Assembly voted it down. They also voted down a devolution of powers
amendment that sought to minimally to adjust allocation of roles
between the federal and state governments. It would have enabled
states, for instance, to pursue power generation by themselves.

Second, the legislators approved amendments that should not even
have been tabled. Among these, they voted to make all former
Speakers of the House of Representatives and Presidents of Senate
members of the Council of State. This is vain at best. There’s also
an amendment to enable members of the National Assembly serve as
members of boards of other public institutions and parastatals. It
takes a parliament that doesn’t understand its role to even
consider this idea. Parliament, after all, oversights public
agencies. How can Parliament oversight an agency on whose board it
also sits?

Then they voted to grant themselves immunity from law. Ashamed
of what they did, the legislators sought to portray this as merely
granting immunity for what they do on the floor. That is a load of
tripe! Parliamentary privilege has been in Nigerian common law
since well before the Amalgamation. It’s beyond sinister to even
consider making immunity for legislators part of the constitution.
That’s madness.

Third, having chosen only to serve themselves through this
process, the legislators decided to protect their self-interest
with a bodyguard of populisms. One decade ago, in 2006, 116
proposed amendments to the same constitution failed because then
President, Olusegun Obasanjo, infected that effort with the poison
of making himself a life president. This time, the legislators
cynically approved the #NotTooYoungToRun amendment and also voted
through independent candidacy. Quite clearly, they hope that
citizens inebriated with these popular proposals will not care
about their attempt to desecrate our common weal. They are
wrong.

Fourth, these amendments are so poisonous because the
legislators in the National Assembly have behaved as if Nigeria’s
constitution is their private play thing to treat as they like. It
is not. They played around with amendments as they pleased, with
not even a pretence to involving Nigerians, our communities and
institutions. The entire process was set up to exclude Nigerians
from having any say or role in it. Their arrogance beggars belief.
They intend to socialize the costs of their vanities and afflict us
with liability for their excesses. That’s a crime against the
people.

Fifth, because of all these reasons, this process of
constitutional amendment as embarked on by the National Assembly
lacks legitimacy. They knew it. With a President exiled by
infirmity, an acting President rightly sensitive to optics, a
ruling party out to lunch, main opposition still disembodied, and
families burdened with livelihood concerns at the end of the school
session, the National Assembly chose precisely the moment when the
country was most likely to be tuned out at the end July to indulge
in this grubby enterprise.

A constitution afflicted with severe legitimacy deficits for
being authored by the military doesn’t improve its legitimacy by
being captured by a mutual admiration club of 469 legislators
pursuing narrow subsistence in its orifices.

As citizens, Nigerians must decide in this case not to settle
for convenient options. There may well be a few sensible amendments
in this package but if we cannot sequester them from the mostly
self-serving lot, then, we should resolve to reject the entire
package. That is the only way to tell the National Assembly that
our constitution is not theirs to mess around with.

Odinkalu Chairs the Governing
Council of the Section on Public Interest and Development Law
(SPIDEL) at the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)