By John Amoda

ACCORDING to the December 5 NEXT on Sunday, President Goodluck Jonathan approved the sale of the official residences of the presiding officers of the National Assembly.

The Senate President, his deputy, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and his deputy may now buy their official residence. What is more Next on Sunday states that N1.5 billion has been  included in the 2011 Appropriation Bill for the construction of “replacement for the yet to be sold properties”.

This act compels the caption of this piece- “Hypocrisy in this case is better than indifference” In what sense is hypocrisy ever a virtue? What is its relationship to indifference? What is the context of this contrast?

The behaviour of Mr. President in the decision he was credited to have made November 30, 2011 is that of Military president. Military presidents suspend constitutions perhaps because they do not want to have to deal with guilty conscience regarding their behaviour.

So it is better, they reason, to suspend the constitution so they can honestly act arbitrarily without constraints. When Mr. President authorised the sale of the official residence of the four present occupants there was not a fig leaf of hypocrisy in that decision to dignify his decision with a democratic cloak.

His decision was an act that showed total indifference to the logic of representation and of elections. Hypocrisy in this instance would have provided the President a reason of state to give his decision a democratic covering. Where in this decision is respect for Section 14 of the 1999 Constitution which thus proclaims:

“(1)The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and official justice.
(2)It is hereby, accordingly declared that-
a)sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this constitution derives all its powers and authority.

b)the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government; and
c)the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this constitution?”

Are decisions of the nature of the November 30, 2010 Decision informed by the principles of democracy and social justice? Ought such decisions be possible in a Federal Republic of Nigeria based on the principles of democracy and social justice? Subsection (2) of section 14 declares that arising from subsection (1) sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this constitution derives all its powers and authority.

It describes this constitution as the constitution of Nigeria as a state of democracy and social justice. It further proclaims that the people of Nigeria are sovereigns whose acts of power and authority are informed by principles of democracy and social justice; that the government that it had instituted is government through which its values of a democratic and socially just society is instituted; that all power and authority of government are derived from the Sovereign People of Nigeria whose relations to government is mediated by institutions of representations by which any government in Nigeria is rendered politically accountable and responsible to the People.

These are the implications of the Constitution that defines Nigeria as a society of social justice and democracy. By what construction of accountability and responsibility can the People’s Property therefore become the largesse that the Peoples’ Principal Representative could dispense as privilege to officials of a branch of The Peoples Government?

Subsection (c) of subsection 2 of Section 14 states the principle informing the decisions by which The People can enforce proprietary and supervisory control over government- as “the participation by the people in their government, and this “shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”. This subsection specifies two principle of proprietary and supervisory control over government.

The first is a structure of participation in their government- the structure that ensures the government in Nigeria is the government of the people; that ensures that the peoples’ ownership of the government is protected against any usurpation from any persons or groups anywhere on this earth; that the people’s capacity to enforce its ownership of its government is inherent in the institution of Nigeria’s Peoplehood. In other words, there is a peoples political party that ensures the propreiatry participation in acts of government undertaken on the authority and authorisation of the people.

The second principle is that the People bind themselves to participate in the exercise of the powers they “sublet” to the government “in accordance with the provision of this constitution.

How can decisions taken by the People’s Government like that of November 30, 2010 be authorised by The People of Nigeria organised as sovereign? November 30, 2010 Decisions are decisions in the realm of discretional exercise of The Peoples deputised power and authority. As the People of Nigeria have by declaration bound themselves to act in accordance to the provisions of this Constitution, can government deriving all its power and authority from the people act otherwise and if it indeed had to act otherwise would not prudence argue for some form of hypocritical justification that brings such discretional exercise of the people’s power under the ambit of this Constitution?

To be indifferent to the usefulness of hypocrisy in this instance is to ungraciously discount the sacredness of this Constitution and reduce it to comforting platitudes. When those who should respect this Constitution treat it as an irrelevancy in the matters of public service what cover do they have when the military may conjure up some national emergency that they may use as an excuse for their intervention?

This Constitution is the safeguard of the People’s sovereignty and the means for instituting Nigeria as a social justice democratic society. This Government and this President need this Constitution. The November 30 2010 category of Decisions opens the door to all interested in unconstiutional anti-people governments.

The November 30, 2010 Decision can be additionally appreciated from the perspective of this Constitution’s authorisation of multi-party electoral competition for office. Sections 221 and 222 hold out the possibility to all parties the prospect of being the majority party.

Thus, the offices of Senate President and Speaker of the House can be filled in the future by different party in the future. This is the implication of a multi-party electoral system. If there be a change of majority party at future polls should the new majority follow the present policy of November 30, 2010?

Even in the context of multi-party governance, it is possible for the present majority party to retain its present achievement in future elections and for the party to effect the election of the incumbent president. Given the fact that the filling of the offices of Senate President and Speaker of the House are decisions of parties with majority control in both or either houses of the National Assembly, and who zone these offices in order to be inclusive in power sharing and thereby making it likely that zones yet to enjoy this privilege can argue for rotation of the privilege, will the residence yet to be built and for which N1.5billion has been provided in the 2011 Appropriation Bill be inherited by the next Speaker and his or her deputy, the next President of the Senate and his or her deputy?

And one may as well ask the question, why should this November 30 2010 incumbency of official residence not be inaugurated by the present occupant of Aso Rock? Why not? We can provide in the next Appropriation Bill funds for building Aso Rock II for the next occupant of the Aso Rock II. November 30 2010 being a decision of discretion unfettered by the Constitution why not institutionalize it at the three levels of government?