NEWS ANALYSIS
By Emmanuel Aziken, Political Editor
THE last minute constitutional crisis between the 6th National Assembly and President Goodluck Jonathan was wholly not envisaged by the framers of the Nigerian constitution. The Nigerian president and the legislators are walking in the dark in a face-off arising from the presidential veto of the constitution amendments articulated by the National Assembly and the state Houses of Assembly. Whereas past presidents have seen their vetoes on ordinary bills overridden by the National Assembly, there is really no provision in the constitution for overriding a presidential veto of amendments to the constitution as President Goodluck Jonathan has now done.

It is a sad irony for promoters of constitution development in the country especially given the warmth with which the amendments were received by the majority of Nigerians. Among the amendments forwarded to the president for assent were alterations to the constitution removing the president’s assent to future amendments of the constitution, the separation of the office of attorney general of the federation from that of the minister of justice and proposals to make provisions for free basic education and free maternal health care justiceable.

Financial autonomy

Even more remarkable are proposals for Nigerians who live in any place for ten years to automatically be an indigene of such a place, financial autonomy for state legislative houses, independent candidacy in elections among others.

While constitution development enthusiasts and the legislators heartily saw the proposals as positive steps for Nigeria’s development, it was remarkable that a number of constitutional lawyers were averse to many of the proposals.

While canvassers of the position of the National Assembly were quick to point at conspiracy theories on the part of some members of the executive arm of government to sabotage the constitution amendment, they, however, failed to see the failures of the legislature in the whole affair.

The reported failure to attach the votes and proceedings backing the alteration of the mode of changing the constitution could be said to be unforgivable. What has been described as one of the landmarks of the constitution amendment was the proposal to separate the office of the attorney general of the federation from that of the minister of justice.

In rejecting that proposal, the president cited the violation of the principle of separation of powers. It would be foolhardy of the president to allow his attorney general, the key officer in justice administration to be appointed by someone else for him.

President Jonathan’s rejection of the proposal was his own effort to safeguard the powers of the presidency.

President Jonathan could, however, have cheered many hearts by cherry-picking the amendments with positive benefits to all. The president’s decision has inevitably left a sour feeling given the enormous amount spent on the review.

The National Assembly committees on constitution review have proposed a retreat to Marshall out their points on the issue today and tomorrow, but there are fears that little can be done to salvage the resources that may have gone down the drain.

Given that the legislators are walking in a dark swampy terrain the hope and prayer of many is that they may peradventure find some hard ground that will avoid throwing away the baby and the bathwater.