By Awa Kalu

No reasonable Nigerian can at this time pretend to be in any doubt about the fact that arrangements are in top gear to amend or to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

In that connection, a document aptly titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and for other matters connected thereto, 2010” has been harmonized in the hallowed chambers of the two Houses of the National Assembly.

The Bill has in fact been presented to the Speakers of the respective Houses of Assembly of each State for their necessary action at that level. There are a few remarks that are warranted by the process presently activated by the National Assembly for the alteration of the Constitution.

It is important to observe that the National Assembly has paid obeisance to the words used by section 9 of the Constitution which provides that that august assembly of legislators “…may, subject to the provisions of this section, alter any of the provisions of this Constitution”.

It is also significant that the Constitution appears to contemplate an alteration and not an amendment of its provisions. In their previous but failed effort, what the National Assembly proposed was a “Bill for an Act to Amend the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999”. What, you may ask, is the difference between ‘alteration’ and ‘amendment’?

This question, with the greatest respect, is not merely for academic interest only especially if we have due regard to the guidance provided by eminent Dictionaries. The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the English Language (P. 28) defines ‘amendment’ as “the act or result of amending, a revision or change made in a law, bill etc (in a public meeting or committee) a proposed modification (of a resolution) put forward, a correction…”.

The same Dictionary in the context of ‘alter’, says it is “to make different, modify, change, to resew (a garment or parts of it) for a new fit or style)”. As a verb transitive, it is “to become different”. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines amendment as a “formal revision or addition proposed or made to a statute, constitution, pleading order, or other instrument; specifically, “a change made by addition, deletion, or correction; esp., an alteration in wording”.

To amend in the same Dictionary is “to make right; to correct or rectify; to change the wording of; specif., to formally alter (a statute, constitution, motion, etc.) by striking out, inserting, or substituting words…”. Significantly, in the stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of words and phrases (4th edn. By Johns James, vol. 1) it is said of the word ‘alter’ that “The power to “alter, modify or extend” a plaintiff’s claim by his statement of claim does not authorize a totally different case from that set up by the writ (Ker Vs Williams. 30 S.J. 328; Cave Vs Crew 62 L.J. Ch. 530) or the joining of a cause of action not mentioned in the writ (United Telephone Co Vs Tasker 59 L.J. 852).

The same Dictionary credits Cozan-Hardy J., with the dictum that ‘to “alter” the memorandum of association of a company…does not mean to improve its language “by re-writing it in modern form” (see Re Cassel Iron Co. [1901] 1 ch. 237).

In the light of the foregoing, it may be reasonable to conclude that an amendment is a more ambitious effort than an alteration of a document. This is clearly borne out by past efforts which clearly were directed at a major surgery on the Constitution.

The Constitution was thought to be an obstacle in several directions and had to be dealt with in all those directions. For example, in the attempt in 2006 to amend the Constitution, a total of about a hundred and sixteen (116) changes were proposed, which in certain quarters, left a lot to be  desired. Little wonder that the effort was blown up in smoke.

Presently, most of the alterations sought in the proposed Bill are related to the much anticipated reform of the electoral process and this explains the paucity of the areas on which the proverbial surgery is being attempted. The harmonized Bill, which I have had the privilege of perusing relates in the main, to the qualifications and disqualifications for certain elective offices and to other alterations which have a major bearing on our political experience in the past couple of years.

Attention will only be drawn to the proposals which appear markedly significant. Under the Constitution as it is, a person is qualified to be elected to any public office in the land if he is the holder of what the Constitution calls a ‘school certificate or its equivalent’.

By virtue of section 318 of the Constitution, a school certificate or its equivalent could mean so many things and the definition is watered down to include “Primary six school leaving certificate or its equivalent and (i) service in the public or private sector in the federation in any capacity acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission for a minimum of ten years; and (ii) attendance at courses and training in such Institutions as may be acceptable to the Independent National Electoral Commission for periods totalling up to a minimum of one year; and (iii) the ability to read, write, understand and communicate in the English language to the satisfaction of the Independent National Electoral Commission”.

The definition of ‘school certificate or its equivalent’ is so elastic as to include ‘any other qualification acceptable by the Independent National Electoral Commission’. A friend of mine at some point, in the course of an election petition proceedings, examined this provision and whispered that he regretted the death of his grandmother who obviously would have been eminently qualified to contest for any office she desired. She had a primary six school leaving certificate and apart from being a farmer, also made the best ‘akara’ in their neighbourhood. She was, in fact, dominant in those areas for many years. That is on the lighter side.

Having operated the present Constitution for a little over a decade and having seen some scantily educated persons occupy sensitive positions the National Assembly must be congratulated for noting the inefficiency that may have been generated for the system by inarticulate ill-educated persons. Certainly, education does not guarantee effective and visionary leadership but its capacity for stimulating and diversifying imagination cannot be doubted.

The dynamics of government in the present world make education at a certain level imperative. For these reasons, the least qualification for eligibility to elective public office, as proposed in the alterations to the Constitution, is ‘diploma level or its equivalent’.

The candidate must also have ‘obtained the relevant certificates’. This is in contrast to the present situation in which a school certificate or its equivalent is defined to include an attempt i.e. being educated up to school certificate level without success.

As an improvement, education up to diploma level or its equivalent includes certificates which are enumerated in the new definition section to mean (a) Ordinary National Diploma or its equivalent; or (b) Nigerian Certificate in Education or its equivalent; or (c) Higher School Certificate or its equivalent; or (d) Advanced Diploma or its equivalent; or (e) Higher National Diploma or its equivalent. With the elevated requirement for eligibility to elective public office, it is hoped that all the pre-election disputes concerning a would-be contestant’s qualification or certificates would be eliminated or at least, minimized.

In the new Constitution, it is likely that political harlotry will be reduced on account of the recognition given to Independent Candidates. An Independent Candidate is said to be ‘a person seeking elective office and who is not sponsored by any political party and satisfies the requirements of the Constitution, Electoral Act, and any other law made by the National Assembly’. In other countries, an Independent Candidate is a rarity having regard to the fact that the political parties are better suited as vehicles for the conveyance of political office seekers into the offices they desire.

Our argument here is that not being a member of a political party is a handicap of some sort. To seek to limit the capacity of persons wishing to contest elections as Independent Candidates by requiring their nomination by a number of persons spread in several wards in their respective constituencies, is to make the electoral process a little more burdensome. An Independent Candidate is like an orphan and so, we have a responsibility to make the orphanage a little more convenient.

The World Cup: Its implication for human rights (2)
Even the boom in the sale of alcoholic beverages and other items for entertainment are redeeming attributes that enhance the quality of life and improve the quality of life of several partakers in this monumental endeavour. Who says the right to life enshrined in the constitution is only about being free to stay alive without being killed except in circumstances permitted by law? The right to life is also about a clean environment, a right to qualitative and gainful employment.

It is about the provision of all useful amenities of life including the essentials- food, clothing and shelter. It is about dignity and the ability to protect our culture. For sure, participating in, or winning the world cup can enhance the quality of life of many in more ways than any other elixir known to man.

South Africa is already upbeat and this world cup can erase the residual pains of the most celebrated human rights disaster of all time in Africa – Apartheid. Hosting the world cup in Africa has triggered a cultural extravaganza, which has boosted tourism to the continent as a whole. From soaring touring potentials, a few countries may achieve a boost in their GDPs. Will an enhanced influx of persons, goods and services into Africa not improve the perception of Africa by our visitors?

Indeed, I see a connection between a soccer festival of such proportions as the world cup and the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy set down in the second chapter of our constitution. A few examples will suffice. Section 15 of the constitution deals with our political objectives and by its subsection 4, it is directed that “the state shall foster a feeling of belonging and of involvement among the various peoples of the Federation, to the end that loyalty to the nation shall override sectional loyalties”.

There is no doubt that football is the most potent weapon for forging a sense of unity and belonging amongst Nigerians. Were it possible for the Super Eagles to play a match every day of the year, the gains would be incalculable. For a start, for fear of facing the umbrage of fans across the nation, PHCN must provide a steady supply of power. While each match lasts, every Nigerian will eschew the spirit of parochialism. Again, section 23 of the constitution is on National Ethics and it enjoins that the National Ethics shall be Discipline, Integrity, Dignity of Labour, Social Justice, Religious Tolerance, Self-Reliance and Patriotism. It can be taken for granted that Nigerians can watch football anywhere without checking the make-up of the crowd and their patriotism during such events can be assumed as given.  By virtue of section 24 of the said constitution, Nigerians as citizens, are duty bound to help to enhance the power, prestige and good name of Nigeria, defend Nigeria and render such national service as will be required.

It is acknowledged that our footballers and other sportsmen who ply their trade in distant places abroad, do all these and more. Hakeem Olajunwon (celebrated Houston Rockets Basketball Hero), Daniel Amokachi, Austin J.J. Okocha, Nwankwo Kanu, Rasheed Yekini, Garba Lawal, John Fashanu, Osaze Odemwingie, John Mikel Obi, etc, are all living examples of ambassadors of goodwill for our nation. Even section 24(c) which directs us to respect the dignity of other citiz

ens and the rights and legitimate interests of others and to live in unity and harmony and in the spirit of common brotherhood, is best realized during football and other sporting competitions.  Football is a valid study in diplomacy, group or individual character, organization, resilience, culture and human capacity in several areas. Significantly, while the world cup is going on in South Africa our legislators are fashioning out amendments to the current Constitution in order to make way for profound electoral and other reforms. It is our human right.