By Emman Ovuakporie, Johnbosco Agbakwuru

& Joseph Erunke

AS controversy continues to surround the ongoing constitution amendment process where several billions were spent but with no hope if it will be a reality going by its rejection by the presidency, the questions on the mind of many Nigerians is has it become a wasted resources and efforts.

But the leadership of the National Assembly seems not unperturbed to override the presidency despite the fact that it has become an issue of litigation as the presidency has dragged the National Assembly to the nation’s apex court, the Supreme Court over allegations of Constitutional breaches and usurpation of the executive functions by the legislature.

It was gathered that the leadership of NASS is not leaving any stone unturned in its efforts towards ensuring that it becomes a valid law as it has vowed that nobody would thwart its efforts in as much as what it did was in the overall interest of the country.

The leadership of the National Assembly has said that the successful constitution amendment that started November 2012 with public hearings all and which allegedly gulped about N3 billion was a legacy it wanted to leave behind.

Jonathan

This the presidency seems not to reason along with the legislators as it refused to assent to the constitution amendment bill which was passed by the two chambers of the National Assembly and forwarded to him for his signature claiming that there were constitutional breaches and attempts to whittle down the duties of the executive which it alleged were now hijacked by the legislature in the amended bill.

Besides, to ensure that the executive was not ridiculed by allowing the National Assembly to override the amendment, the presidency proceeded to the Supreme Court to challenge the entire process

Vanguard reliably gathered that in recent meetings by the two chambers, there was unanimous agreement that the efforts put in place for about three years for the constitution amendment will not go in vain, hence, it was agreed that the National Assembly will definitely override the president assent. Though, the Principal Officers of the two Chambers were not open with the next action to be taken, but informed sources told Vanguard that it had been concluded that the constitution amendment will become a law before the end of the seventh senate.

The Senate Leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, SAN, had told Vanguard that the National Assembly was still meeting to review the whole process in a bid to determining any error if any during its passage.

He said, “We are still reviewing the situation but I gaze that by next week, a clear position will emerge.There is no reason to entertain the fears that the efforts of the National Assembly will be a wasted efforts, I believe that whatever decisions we take regarding our next step in respect of the Constitutional amendment will be in the best interest of the Nigerian people.”

He further said that the Conference Committee for the Constitution Amendment was still meeting and he declined to say what would be the consequence if the president refuses to sign it into law.

He also said that the Supreme Court had just served the National Assembly with Court processes regarding the issue and that they were studying it so as to know the next step of action. “We are meeting, we are reviewing the situation, we keep getting served with the court processes, we are reviewing it. We are still reviewing every aspect of the constitution, by next week, you will have a very clear picture.”

But on whether it will be ready before the expiration of the tenure of the seventh senate, he said, “certainly, definitely, I can tell you that the issue of constitutional amendment will be resolved one way or the other before the end of the 7th senate.

“We are being served on daily basis with different court processes and that is still under review. We have just been served but definitely we will brief lawyers to represent the National Assembly.”

However, reacting to the Supreme Court ruling yesterday for the status quo to be maintained on the matter, he said he was not aware of any court ruling.

According to him, “I am not aware. Court processes are not broadcast on networks, we have to be served with the processes so that we know the exact order or orders made and to the best of my knowledge, the National Assembly has not been served with any order.”

Also on what will be the consequence of the Supreme Court ruling he further declined to comment saying, “Until we are served, I can’t speculate what it will portend if towards the end the Supreme Court stops the process.

“It will be academic to begin to speculate, supposing we are not served at all, supposing the information is wrong, supposing it is right and we don’t know the terms of the order, we have to see it and be served with the order so that we look at the terms before we make any pronouncement on it.”

In his own reaction to the Supreme Court ruling, Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Business, Senator Ita Enang also said that he was not aware of such ruling.

He said, “As at now I am speaking, I have not seen the court order to know the parties and to know the prayers before the court and the details of the order and to whom it was directed. “So, I will reserve all comments until we are served with the court order and we know the contents of the order, and the result of it on legislative process, therefore, we will not be able to be categorical on this matter.

“It is about the action of the court which we are bound but we have to know, if it is about the action of the court, let us know whether we are the parties and whether it is in relation to the matter that is being handled by us. “Unless and until we are served to know the terms of the order, we will not be able to be precise on what to do.”

The Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu who is Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee had recently said that no amount of propaganda from any quarter would deter the National Assembly from going ahead with the constitution amendment even as he then said that NASS, had not been served with any court process stopping the amendment.

Senate Ekweremadu was then reacting to the return of the constitution amendment bill passed by the National Assembly by the presidency alleging constitutional breached and usurpation of executive powers by the legislature.

The presidency also proceeded to the Supreme Court to seeking for an orde to stop the National Assembly from going ahead with the constitution amendment or overriding him by vetoing the bill.

While speaking at the induction certificate course on legislative studies for new legislators, Senator Ekweremadu said the the National Assembly read on the papers the suit filed by the presidency stopping the constitution amendment, stressing that there was no court process served to it.

He said, “ As I speak to you, there is no court process that has been served on National Assembly. So, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing in court.

“We also read in the papers that Bayo Ojo wrote a letter on behalf of the government, asking us not to deliberate on the matter pending the matter in court. I want to also say that no letter was received from Bayo Ojo or anybody whatsoever. It’s just share media propaganda. But I want to assure Nigerians that we will resist it.”

Even as the controversy rages, some Senators have said that it was a welcome development that the presidency went to court and that the National Assembly was ready to meet the presidency in Court.

The Senators also had said that when the National Assembly was served with the court processes from by the nation’s apex court, it (NASS) will apply for an accelerated hearing so that the matter will be dispensed with before the end of the 7th senate.

Besides, the Senators said that as they were awaiting to be served the court processes, the presidency should return the original copy of the bill sent to it.

One of the Senators that commended the presidency for following the legal option over the matter was Senator Ita Enang, who said that the decision of the presidency to challenge the constitution amendment in court instead of lampooning the National Assembly on the pages of newspapers was a good development.

He also said that the action of President Goodluck Jonathan was an indication that he (Jonathan) was a patriotic Nigeria interested in the good of the country and not personal interest.

He, however, faulted the time it took the presidency to raise objection to certain aspect of the amendment, stressing that it will be the duty of the court to determine whether the National Assembly followed the required legal procedure in the amendment process.

Senator Enang who said that whatever he said was his personal opinion as a lawyer of about 30 years standing said that the National Assembly when served the court process would apply for accelerated hearing in order to ensure that the case is dispensed of before the end of the 7th senate.

He said, “I am not at all quarrelling, in fact, we should appreciate it; all I should be asking for now is that the plaintiff, Mr. President and the Respondent when they serve on us, we should apply for accelerated hearing so that this matter can be decided by the full Bench of the Supreme Court within the lifetime of this parliarment.

“So that it will not be taken as a step which the President or the Attorney General has taken to frustrate the actions that we have done so that he passes on a liability to the 8th National Assembly and a liability to the incoming president.

“I do not at all quarrel when anybody goes to court, I quarrel when you start calling press conferences and abusing the other party.

“Again, lets also ask as a counter matter; was the President not party or aware of when these matters were available for public hearing? Did they come for the public hearing to make any of the points they are making in court.

“I willI refuse to see the action of the presidency as a slight because this is what we passed, the Supreme Court Additional Jurisdiction Act, it is only that it is coming too late in the day, but we should apply for accelerated hearing; it is not a slight, I don’t see it that way even though some of my colleagues may see it that way.

“I see it as an act which the President ought to have raised most of the issues he is now going to raise in court during the public hearing. At every stage during the hearing of the matter, the Attorney General, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Special Adviser to Mr President on National Assembly Affairs, all of them were there at the various hearing.”

Continuing he said, “But at the same time, if the President feels that the provisions in the constitution amendment is going to whittle down the powers of the executive and that he is not going to leave a weak or embattled executive powered constitution and he is challenging it, I think it is a show of faith in the country that he does not want to leave a burden on the incoming government.

“He is still acting as a statesman up to the end in his believe that the legislature does not have this power or cannot whittle down the power of the Executive; that is one aspect that I will credit him for standing strong.”

Senator Enang said he believe that in the relationship between the executive and the legislature, either the executive or the legislature whenever there is dispute, should be willing to approach the courts for interpretation as to who is right.

“This will enable the legislature to be guided if they are wrong or the executive to be guided if they are wrong. This is why we passed the Supreme Court Additional Jurisdiction Act in 2002.

“Although I have not seen the processes, I do not know wheather they are coming under the Supreme Court Additional Jurisdiction Act which authorizes that if there is a dispute between the executive and the legislature at the National level, the original jusrisdiction of the supreme court should be invoked.

“Therefore, I am happy that the president having doubts about the powers of the legislature to do what it has done, has not resorted to press attack on the legislature, he has sent a letter to the legislature and at the same time has approached the court to declare whether or not the legislature is right in the procedure adopted and in the subject matter.

“This will also enable the legislature to know that any matter pending before it, does not end with it; you have your standing orders, you have the rules, you have the constitution; there is no short cut to the amendment of the constitution.

“Therefore what ought to be done right ought to be done right and the court will examine all those things; did we have the quorum on the day of the vote, yes or no? Did each person vote on each of the subject? Was there in actual fact a return from the respective Houses of Assembly to make up two-third for there to be an amendment?

“Was there an amendment or proposed amendment by the National Assembly qualified and reasonable enough according to the constitution that was good enough to go to the houses of Assembly to be considered.

“Does each of these persons and does the records of the House of Representatives and the record of the Senate, should it not show where Ita Enang voted; where Victor Ndoma-Egba voted; where Ibrahim voted where Archibong voted in the House of Representatives and show whether it said yes or nay?

“Are there documents or legislative papers of proceedings which ought to be tendered in court which shows that there was a voting not just the votes and proceedings that will say all agreed without dissent?

The Deputy Majority leader of the House of Representatives, Leo Ogor said members of the adhoc committee on constitution review will look at the issues raised in President Goodluck Jonathan’s letter that rejected the amendment process of the 7th Assembly.

Ogor told Vanguard said”the issues raised by the president are germane and cannot be treated with kid gloves”.

“We’ll start the legislative fireworks on all those areas he penciled down to be problematic and get back to him immediately”.

On whether the committee can complete the legislative work before this session ends, he said”yes and remember that the amendment process followed due process to the letter”.

“Remember that the process did not go through a voice vote we all voted for it after three years amendment process that took us to all corners of this country”.

It will be recalled that members of the House of Representatives had declared that President Goodluck Jonathan’s refusal to assent to the constitution amendment bill was wrong.

The minority whip Samson Osagie who spoke on behalf of the House ad-hoc committee on the review said there were ample evidence to show that the lawmakers met the constitutional requirements on the process. Osagie said on the amendment to Section 9, which seeks to veto the president power on assenting an amendment bill, Osagie said based on the House proceedings of Wednesday July 24, 2013, a total number of 338 were in attendance, while 317 voted ‘ayes,’ 6 lawmakers voted ‘nays’ as 15 abstained from voting.

On Jonathan’s argument for a new sub-section in Section 12, which is on free education for all, Osagie said the issue should be interpreted by the courts if there is any dispute.

He said the amendment to Section 58, which seeks to veto presidential powers on signing of bills into law after 30 days, “was made to cure the current practice whereby bills are sent to the president for assent, but he neither assents nor indicates withholding of assent, sometimes months after.”

On a review of Section 82, which is on money bill that seeks to reduce the period when expenditure can be authorized in default of appropriation from 6 months to 3 months, he said the amendment was intended to cure the recent practice of executive arm not presenting appropriations bill on time, which delays its passage.

Jonathan had equally argued that the amendment in Section 84, which seeks to have an Accountant-General of the Federation and that of the Federal Government separate was done in bad taste as there was no provision for funding requirements.

Osagie however said: “This should not be a problem as it is not every details that should be included in the constitution. It should merely lay down the framework, while the details could follow in an Act of the National Assembly.”

On the amendment that seeks to separate office of the Attorney-General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice, which Jonathan said was wrong, Osagie said the separation was to guaranty impartiality of AG’s office over public prosecutions, while justice minister serves as Chief Legal Adviser to government.

The minority whip therefore said Jonathan’s arguments were wrong and that the president did not have any basis to withhold his assent to the alteration bill.