This report traces the intrigues and drama that went into the passage of the bill  sacking the amendment of the 1999 Constitution  and wonders whether the amendments are far reaching enough.

By Jide Ajani , Deputy Editor

High Drama; Deception

It came with high drama; but has ended anti-climactically. For a people who love high drama, amending the 1999 Constitution  started like a circus in that same year, 1999.  It was then President  Olusegun Obasanjo who told  the nation  that a sincere amendment was to be engaged.

Reason:  His intention about amending the constitution was less than noble and the spirit of that insincerity, perhaps, seems to have infected the processes and its final outcome.

In 1999,  soon after being sworn-in, Obasanjo  set up a Constitution Review Committee, which included  loud critics of the 1999 Constitution.  But the work of that Committee never saw the light of day,  after traveling to some states of the federation, seeking the views of Nigerians.  But Obasanjo used the personalities on the committee, credible as they were to buy time for himself.  He selected leaders, of the then three political parties, Alliance for Democracy, AD, All Peoples Party, APP, and his own Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.
Particularly, Ayo Adebanjo of Afenifere, which had been in the forefront of amending the 1999 Constitution, was one of those brought into Obasanjo’s Constitution Review Committee.

Speaking to Sunday Vanguard last Friday, it was a frustrated Adebanjo who lamented:  “We have been saying it that these legislators can never amend the constitution in a way that the people of this country would benefit.

“They have refused to hit the nail on the head. The issues of devolution of power and real electoral reforms should have been paramount in what they did but no, they have only succeeded in scratching the surface.  In any case, why should people think that a group of beneficiaries of a system would want it amended massively?”

As for Obasanjo’s multiple but insincere attempts, Adebanjo asked:  “What achievements are we going to trace to Obasanjo?  He has always been a ruler by emergency; he became the acting Head of State without (preparing) for it; he had no dream of anything. He was just lucky to be reaping where he did not sow; same thing happened in 1999.  I don’t know what Obasanjo has done right. I want to be accused of being that wicked, I don’t know. There is no use anybody trying to talk on it”.

Even the window-dressing attempt to create a new constitution via a conference in Abuja in 2005, bore no fruits as its original design was for the possible amendment of the constitution for tenure elongation; and by 2006 when the real intention of Obasanjo became known as the Third Term project, majority of Nigerians, including the political and business elite were up in arms.

It failed and with it failed the attempt by the National Assembly to amend the 1999 Constitution.  Meanwhile, billions of naira had gone into each of the exercises.

The Joke This Time
In truth, some interest groups never wanted any form of amendment of the 1999 Constitution and, therefore, went about it in ways more jocular than serious.

A joint retreat between the 44 member Senate delegation to the National Assembly Joint Committee on Constitution Review and the 44 member House delegation was derailed after the House members walked out from the retreat venue in Minna, Niger State, January 2009.

The House members were protesting the designation of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives as deputy chairman of the committee instead of co-chairman, as the reason for their walk out! Also, among those cited as having worked against the amendment of the constitution were governors who were alleged not to want to lose any of their powers and northern interest groups who believe that the north can only lose and can gain nothing from the review of the 1999 constitution.

But such sectional colouration put a lie to the perceived overwhelming deficiencies in the 1999 constitution on every interest group across the country. Therefore, to suggest that a section of the country did not want the constitution amended would be to stand truth on its head.

The real reason, according to Adebanjo, is the fact that “these people are beneficiaries of a document made by the military and, therefore, would not want to amend it”.

Indeed, another alleged spoiler was the Umaru Yar’Adua presidency. The presidency according to some speculations was simply not desirous of any major constitutional changes, preferring to ride on the wings of the supposed deficiencies for a second term for President Yar‘Adua.

It is as such alleged that all the efforts made by the presidency then were aimed at window dressing.
The issue of state creation almost reduced the amendment exercise to a dialogue among the deaf because much as proponents and opponents tried to explain their positions and challenges, each side continued gesticulating.  Notable among the key obstacles to the creation of new states is the ambiguity laid down in the constitution on the issue.

One popular ambiguity is Section 8 (1) (b) which states that “a proposal for the creation of the State is thereafter approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area where the demand for creation of the State originated;”

In fact, the amendment did not touch that aspect.
But some have even come to question the rationale behind the type of constitution amendment that the National  Assembly has carried out.

They argue that the real core of the constitution which has always made Nigerians ask whether ours is a unitary or federal constitution was never really touched on.
Take, for instance, the issue of state police, or resource control and allocation.

For a wholesome amendment to be carried out, Nigerians – or a section of it – would like to see these issues addressed.

However, there are those who say a constitution can never be wholly amended once.  Therefore, a gradual approach would make it more meaningful, especially with primordial and sectional sentiments wearing thin with the passage of time.

How You Can Amend Me, By 1999 Constitution
“Section 9(2) An Act of the National Assembly for the alteration of this Constitution, not being an Act to which section 8 of this Constitution applies, shall not be passed in either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds majority of all the members of that House and approved by resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the States.”

The next step in the process of amending the constitution is at the state level where the state houses of assembly would perform their own roles.

In ensuring that this does not constitute a bottleneck, the leadership of the National Assembly is talking to the speakers of the houses of assembly and their respective state governors, all with a view to making the process smooth.

Reasons For The Amendments
In coming to the conclusion that certain aspects of the constitution should be amended, there was a history.
Take, for instance, the issue of Section 145 which talks about a President transmitting a letter to the leadership of the National Assembly whenever he or she would not be available to perform the functions of that office.  Yar’Adua  left for  Saudi Arabia  on  November 23, 2009 only to return in March, 2010.

While he was away, the political temperature in the country reached fever pitch.  Worse, there was palpable instability in the system so much that then Vice President Goodluck Jonathan was a lame duck.  In the new amendment, the President would, as a matter of necessity, transmit that letter.

In the event that he plays footsy, after 21 days the national assembly can, by a simple majority, pronounce that his deputy would assume his powers. Same goes for the state governors. Another amendment which seems to make sense is the allocation of funds to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and the Judiciary.

They are now to get their allocations directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.  Currently they  are allocated their funds from the federal government budget, a situation which some say has made the independence of INEC suspect.

There is the issue of minimum qualification for political office holders which has now been pegged at the level of Ordinary Diploma.  Until now, it was just school certificate.

Then there is also the issue of election petition.  As at the time of writing this report, there  were still some litigations  regarding the elections of 2007.  The amendment regarding this has now placed a time limit on how soon a petition can be filed and for how long the case must be heard.

Independent candidates have also been allowed to come onto the scene.
The age limit for the chairmen of INEC has  been placed at not less than 40 years.  Before, it was from 50 years and above.

The issue of campaign funding received consideration from the law makers.
Unlike before when there was a cap on campaign financing, the cap has now been lifted in such a way that politicians can now have a field day.

The amended 1999 Constitution retains the powers to appoint the chairman of INEC in the President.  The appointment of the chairman of the election management body should be taken away from the executive and handed to the judiciary – that was the suggestion made by the Justice Muhammed Uwais Committee on Electoral Reforms.

The amended 1999 Constitution retains that power in the President.  But many insist that a situation where the executive appoints the umpire in an election that it would participate leaves room for manipulation.  The legislators think otherwise.

Comparing the 1963, 1979 and 1999 Constitutions
The 1963 Constitution, compact and less verbose has just 166 sections whereas the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions has 279 and 320 sections, respectively.

The reason for this  is  that whereas in 1963, there were only four regions (Northern, Eastern, Western and Mid-Western), there were 19 states by 1979 and 36 states by 1999.

The amendment procedure for the 1963 Constitution (Section 4) talks about at least three of the four regions’ legislative houses passing the amendment, the 1979 and 1999 amendment procedures hinge on Section 9 (in both constitutions) that two third majorities in at least two thirds of the 19 and 36 states, respectively, shall pass any amendment to the constitution.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE AMENDMENT
* Aspirants to political office must possess a minimum of a diploma or its equivalent

* INEC, National Assembly and Judiciary to get allocation directly from Consolidated Revenue Fund

* Powers to appoint the chairman of INEC remains vested in the President

* President must transmit a written communication to the Senate President and Speaker, House of Representatives in the case of vacation or inability to perform the functions of his office

* The National Assembly, by simple majority, can mandate the Vice President to perform functions of the President in case the President is unable to do so within 21 days – the same goes for state governors.

* Election petition must be filed within 21 days after declaration of result

* Election tribunal must deliver judgment within 180 days from the date of the filing of petition

* An appeal from the decision of an election tribunal must be disposed of within 60 days from the date of

delivery of judgment

* INEC Chairman must not be less than 40 years

* Independent Candidate approved

* No more cap of campaign financing

* Parties no longer have to submit financial statements to INEC

* Ban on militia lifted