By Ochereome Nnanna
President Goodluck Jonathan’s rumoured constitutional reform ideas hit me hot and cold at the same time. I don’t know if the Presidential Advisory Committee headed by General TY Danjuma, with Professor Ben Nwabueze, SAN, is still functioning for him and he is still giving them a listening ear. I don’t think so. Otherwise, we would not be having these bits and pieces of sometimes half-chewed, sometimes ill-timed “rumours” about his intended constitutional reforms.

First, it was the speculation that he intended to introduce a new clause limiting the tenure of the President and governors to six-year single term. Already, it has been demonised in some quarters as “tenure elongation”, even though presidential sources have hinted GEJ would not “benefit” from it when it comes into force in 2015. And since “tenure elongation” is like a red flag in front of a bull among Nigeria’s politerati, it seems already doomed to death on arrival. The greatest enemy of this proposal is the timing, and the fact that it was the first matter for constitutional amendment being put forward. When a politician is so eager and reckless to rush a matter in the manner that GEJ appears to be doing, selfish motive is usually never far away. Because of the suspicion it has raised, its chances of being given a fair hearing have been boxed into a corner.

Indigene/settler dichotomy

Here comes another idea, also from the president’s kite-fliers. Part of the reform agenda, we are told, is an idea to lay the indigene/settler dichotomy to rest. The proposal, if passed, will make it possible for Nigerians to qualify for the status of “indigene” within six months of settling in any part of the country. In that wise, he/she will have the right to qualify to vote and be voted for, the highest political right of any individual in a society.

Before I tackle this second issue, let me observe that the GEJ kite-flying strategy has made up for the lack of depth and consummate packaging his rumoured constitutional agenda is coming with. At least, the public is being made aware of how the President’s mind is working and being given a chance to react before they become official constitution amendment topics before the National Assembly. It is commendable to feel the pulse of the people on such matters. After all, no law or constitutional provision can work in a democratic society unless they are acceptable to the people.

Chapters III and IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) are devoted entirely to the citizenship and the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens. No other topic is given such copious space and effusive enactments. I doubt if any other constitution in the world went to such elaborate efforts. It is one of the lies and ironies of the Nigerian situation that despite all these voluptuous provisions, Nigerian citizenship is often not worth the piece of paper that word is written on. He pays taxes, but he has no right to public electric power supply, water supply, security, education, health and the basic benefits of citizenship. Any of these things he does not provide for himself he would have to do without.

More tellingly, the Nigerian citizen becomes a total stranger in his own country the moment he “strays” from his community of origin. No society can make progress without people migrating from their places of birth to other places in search of opportunity. And no community can grow without people from other parts coming to settle in search of opportunities, coming with their wealth of economic goods and specialisation.

In most parts of the world, xenophobia is often aimed at foreigners (or persons of perceived foreign roots). But in Nigeria, the fear and hatred of settler-elements is more intensely aimed at fellow Nigerians than foreigners! A Lebanese is far more valued in Kano and most far-Northern cities of Nigeria than an Igbo, Yoruba and even other Northerners who are not of the privileged class. Northerners with Arab blood in their veins (mongrel breeds) feel more privileged than Northerners with total indigenous roots (thoroughbreeds). It should be the other way round!

In the same vein, when a typical Southerner sees a White man, he tends to check himself to be sure he is well dressed.

What I am saying is that despite all these constitutional provisions, the Nigerian citizen is essentially a ‘Beast of No Nation’ (as legendary Fela would put it) once outside his community and state of origin. Only “indigenes” (people who come originally from a community in any of the 774 local governments of the 36 states of the federation and the FCT) have the rights to vote, be voted for and to seek employment in the government of those settings.

In some environments, “settlers” are not even allowed to own land, let alone houses.

In April this year, I wrote a story about a farming community in Bende town in Abia State populated by “itinerant” farmers who were not allowed to build permanent homes even though they had settled for over 50 years. They have fed the community with their farming skills and enlisted in the Biafra Army during the war to defend the community. Yet they could only be allowed to live in temporary, log houses. And they are Igbos, just like their hosts! This is an example of the kind of people the amendment will benefit. Or so it seems.

And so, in spite of all the provisions in the 1999 Constitution, which is essentially a carbon copy of the 1979 Constitution, the clamour for “citizenship rights” has continued to shadow every attempt at constitutional tinkering. The Igbo ethnic group, which is widely acknowledged as the most migratory of all Nigerian groups at home and abroad, has made the issue of “citizenship rights” a primary point of their agitations, especially since 1994 when Nigerians were getting ready for the Constitutional Conference convened by General Sani Abacha. In truth, the Hausa, Fulani, Yoruba, Ibibio and Edo peoples are also very highly migratory. They also suffer the scourge of the indigene/settler dichotomy just like the Igbos. Many southerners are attacked in the north during religious riots on the assumption that they are “Igbo”, who are also assumed to be all “Christians”.

Constitutional amendment

Perhaps, this proposed constitutional amendment will help to blunt the sharp and destructive features of the indigene/settler dichotomy. It might help to prescribe the modalities through which a Nigerian will obtain his full citizenship rights in any part of the country he chooses to settle.

However, we have proved in this write-up that copious lawmaking is one thing. Acceptability is yet another.

What are the conditions under which the indigenisation of Nigerians in parts of the country other than his/her place of birth can succeed? The second part of this write-up will address this, drawing richly from our historical experiences, even here in Nigeria.

Justice Salami’s judicial mobbing

There is only one word for the grave and scandalous happenings at the top reaches of the Nigerian Judiciary: politics. And there is one word for what has happened to one of the two of the principal combatants: mobbing.

When, early in February this year, the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Ayo Salami, leaked a letter to the media in which he rejected his promotion to the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice of Nigerian, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, it became obvious that a showdown of an uncommon, perhaps, even unprecedented sort, was in the offing.

The CJN claimed he was promoting Salami to “strengthen” the Judiciary. But keen watchers of the politics of the Judiciary knew he wanted to bring in a bird of the same feather to stop Salami’s “unhealthy habit” of influencing the flushing out of governors elected on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) at the level of the Court of Appeal, the highest appellate court for state level election-related issues.

Salami wanted to stay on as the PCA because he knew that at the Supreme Court he would be a junior among his juniors and would lose his relevance as the most powerful judicial officer as far as elections at state levels were concerned. In other words, watchers saw the CJN as the captain of the pro-PDP senior justices, while Salami was equally perceived as “the leader of the opposition”. He is seen as someone who made it possible for Mr Peter Obi to remain Governor of Anambra State till today.

According to this line of thought, if not for his quick intervention, Obi’s mandate, which had been effectively “sold” would have remained sold out. Salami is also seen as the brain behind the revalidation of the electoral victories of Comrade Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State, Dr Rahman Mimiko of Ondo State, Dr Kay ode Fayemi of Ekiti State and Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State.

Following Salami’s rejection of this promotion, rather than the two warring parties being prevailed upon to resign and save the Judiciary, the National Judicial Council, NJC,decided to “make peace” between them.

Thereafter, a committee set up by the NJC headed by Justice Umaru Abdullahi to determine who lied on oath over the contentious Sokoto State Appeal Tribunal in which Salami had claimed Katsina Alu tried to influence him to pervert the course of justice, turned in a report that conclusively indicted the CJN for “lying on oath”.

It surprised many when another panel headed by Justice Ibrahim Auta not only overturned the decisions of the earlier panel but also convicted Justrice Salami of lying on oath (perjury) and asked him to apologise to the CJN within seven days. As at the time of writing this report, it did not seem as if Salami was ready to turn in such an apology. He, in fact, seemed set to sue the NJC. Apologising would not be in the character of Justice Salami, more so as it would amount to owning up to lying on oath, an offence that is criminal and carries grave prison terms.

Quite clearly, Justice Salami, outnumbered by the conservative justices, was ganged up against politically.

No matter what happens to him and what he chooses to do, he will surely be remembered as the one man in our Judiciary who stood up against the conservatives – and lost – on the battle field but not in the hearts of those who cherish character and principle in judicial officers.