By Dele Sobowale
“Though this be madness, yet there is method in it”.William Shakespeare, 1564-1616.
Last week, in the first part of this series, I had assumed that the judgment of the Tribunal with regard to Akwa Ibom State governor’s election was an aberration.

Hence the title. Since then, similar judgments have been delivered in cases involving Ngige versus Akunyili (Senate) and Dakingari versus Abubakar Mallam (Governorship) elections, based on the constitution of the nation as hastily amended to pave way for the 2011 elections.

I feel relieved because the parties involved now run across the political spectrum – ACN, APGA, CPC and PDP. So no partisanship can be alleged. They were all caught in the net of 120 days and 60 days as enshrined thoughtlessly in our amended constitution by the ruling party, ably assisted by all the other parties.

Now we are seeing the consequences – electoral fraud has been legalized and voters’ interests in the election now count for nothing. Read on.

Constitutional amendments are serious matters, even in homogeneous nations like Japan, Norway and Viet Nam – to name a few. But since we, far from being homogeneous, borrowed our constitution from the United States, without borrowing patriotic politicians at the same time, we should have taken the trouble to find out how their constitution evolved and why it is enduring – especially, how the process of amendment of the constitution is undertaken. The opening preamble to the constitution of the US declared as follows:

“We, the people of the United States, in order  to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.

That was the truth and absolute truth because that document was signed by thirty-eight (38) individuals representing the original twelve (12) states of America. Each had previously been elected by people in his own state to represent them at the constitutional conference leading to the document they later proclaimed into law. By contrast, Nigeria’s military constitutions, in 1979, and 1999, were absolute frauds.

Like the American constitution, our 1999 constitution also started by stating, as if it were true, “We the people”, but as if to expose the lie immediately, it has only General Abdulsalami’s signature on it. Abubakar must be the first person in history to constitute a multitude of one.

The last time I looked, the retired General comes from Niger State and from one ethnic group among about ten tribes in that state alone. Even, if the document he signed was for Niger alone, it would be hard to imagine how one person can become “We the people”. That was the beginning of our constitutional fraud. But, from it other legal swindles are now being perpetrated.—especially the amendments to section 285 (7) and (8) of the constitution.

That amendment which had the endorsement of the President, the Senate President, the Speaker (Bankole) and all the State governors and their legislators, was a constitutional coup against the electorate. It has rendered voting, hitherto a waste of time, a lunatic exercise.

Anyone going to the polling booth to vote in any election in Nigeria, henceforth, and as long as that section remains on our books, should go to a mental hospital first to have the head examined. But, before going into the substance of the matter, let me take us back to the US constitution – whose substance we copied without taking the spirit along; given our usual lack of principles.

Like our own constitution, the US constitution had been amended several times; three quarters of the states and three quarters of the representatives in each state’s legislature are supposed to vote in favour of the proposed amendment.

The legislators, in turn are supposed to conduct public hearings in their constituencies to educate those who elected them about the proposed amendment and to seek their views – either for or against. Just as if to demonstrate that not only soldiers are anti-democracy, all our elected politicians colluded and got the 1999 constitution amended, virtually, without our input.

Granted there were perfunctory hearings in some states, but, the majority of our state legislators did not even read the document. They were ordered by the governors to sign.

instead of our own rushed amendment, on account of short-term political expediency, the first amendments to the US constitution took two years ( there were then only 14 states compared to our own 36). Those amendments were proposed by a resolution of the United States Congress (National Assembly) on September 25, 1789; Virginia (one of the original 12 states) completed the required three fourths by December 15, 1791, and its action was conveyed to the Federal legislators on December 30, 1791.

Interestingly, the states of Massachusetts, Georgia, and Connecticut only ratified the amendments in March 2, 1939, March 24, 1939 and April 19, 1939 respectively. That means there was no herd mentality involved; each state and its people were not under pressure to ratify an amendment until they are comfortable with it.

That way any amendment which might disenfranchise majority of the people would be difficult to get ratified. By contrast, what we now have is the dictatorship of the politicians supported by the courts.

The most atrocious section of the amendment, which they, including SANs and Professors, collectively signed, was section 285 and its two subsections (7 and 8) stipulating that cases should be determined within 120 and 60 days respectively. Even a dolt can see that this is the greatest invitation to all sorts of electoral fraud and judicial corruption since elections started in the Hellenic Age – making voting henceforth insane.

For a start, there are at least three different valid ways of calculating 60 or 120 days….

MINISTERIAL GAS

“In me the urge to talk is a primary impulse, and I can’t help saying right off what comes to my tongue”. Miguel de Cervantes, 1547-1616, in Don Quixote.

(VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS p 240).

Those who attended good schools in the 1950s and early 1960s will not forget that absolutely hilarious comedy by Cervantes about Don Quixote, the man of La Mancha, the comic figure, who went about fighting windmills, he mistook for giants; or flock of cattle mistaken for soldiers. And, all the time he talked to his companion – Sancho Panza – who tried unsuccessfully to restrain him. Well, we now have a Don Quixote in government!!!

Professor Bart Nnaji, Minister of Power, promised to supply us 5000 MW by December 2011; he failed. His excuse was gas supply. Immediately after failing that test; he again promised 6300MW by December. We are not there yet. But, when power supply plummeted to under 3,000MW in February, the Professor was again talking. This time, it was about 10,000MW – if only there is gas.

Well, there is gas and there is gas. Talking also produces gas – if one does not stop talking.