By Tunde Oisamoje

Each of a special provision written in a plain language and for the purpose of the removal or vacation of the office of President or Vice President each is excluded from any other general provision of the Constitution.”

Applying this decision to Section 9 which is written in plain language, Constitutional amendment cannot be governed by Section 58 which is a general provision governing law making powers and procedures by National Assembly.

On clear and unambiguous words in a statute, the Supreme Court, in Attorney-General, Federal vs. Abubakar (supra) per ONNOGHEN, JSC at 597-598, held: “To me the words used in the section are very clear and unambiguous and very simple and straight forward and cannot call for any interpretation or construction other than application of the literal and plain interpretation or construction.

It is settled law that the plain and literal construction of Constitution or statute will only be rejected if such interpretation or construction will lead to some absurdity or defeat the obvious intention of the makers of the Constitution or make nonsense of other provisions of the Constitution. It should always be borne in mind that in constructing the provision of the Constitution the Court is not allowed to read into any provision or section thereof anything not expressly contained therein or to fashion out another Constitution or provision for the people other than to bring out the true intention of the makers of the Constitution.”

The holding by the Supreme Court above applies with equal force to the contents of Section 9. The words used are clear and unambiguous, and there is therefore no need to resort to any of the aids of interpretation to find out the true intention of the legislature.

Section 9 of the Constitution is the only section that governs the mode of altering the 1999 Constitution. It follows therefore that the assent to the amendments by Mr. President is not a legal requirement for the amendments to become Law.

Section 59 of the Constitution deals with the “mode of exercising legislative power: money bill’” subsection (4) of the section clearly provides for what will happen in the event of Mr. President withholding his assent. For the avoidance of doubt here is what the subsection says:

“Where the President, within thirty days after the presentation of the bill to him fails to signify his assent or where he withholds the assent, then the bill shall again be presented to the National Assembly sitting at a joint meeting, and if passed by two-thirds majority of members of both Houses as such joint meeting, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required”.

If the framers of the 1999 Constitution had envisaged a Presidential assent to any amendment of the said Constitution, the equivalent of Section 58 (4), and Section 59 (4) would have been added to section 9. The provision of Section 58 (5) is quite different from that of Section 59 (4), where the framers anticipated a withholding of Presidential assent, and thus provided for what the National Assembly should do. On the authority of Buhari vs. INEC (Supra), Courts of Law and/or individuals cannot read into the constitution what the Legislators did not provide for, and by necessary implication, read out of the Constitution what the Legislators have provided for. The provision of Section 59 (4), puts us on a firm ground in our reliance earlier on the maxim, “Expressis unit est exclusion alterius,” that assent my Mr. President is not a requirement in the procedure for altering the Constitution. The Constitution is on the side of those who are of the opinion that Presidential assent is not required before amendments to any provision of the Constitution can become law.

B.S. Oisamoje, Principal Partner, Tunde S. Oisamoje & Co Benin City.