Four cardinal issues for review in 1999 Constitution
KAYODE KETEFE A constitution of any nation is the single most important document of the land. It is a hallowed creed, a sacred canon that contains not only provisions defining the organisation of governmental powers; it also harbours some fundamental objectives and directive principles which the state holds dear. A considerable size of stakeholders in the Nigerian project has agreed that our extant canon, the 1999 Constitution, is replete with a lot of defects even thought it has its brilliant spots. The said constitution was grudgingly reviewed last year when minimal amendments incorporating political reforms and recognition of National Industrial Court were implemented.But that was nothing in the light of much more fundamental questions that beg for urgent attention. This writer firmly believes if Nigeria must work, a lot still needs to be done to our constitution by way of amendment.Accordingly, he considers it most appropriate, especially at this time when agitations for the review of the said Constitution have been resurrected, to offer just four vital areas that lawmakers should devote priorities. Of course, there are so many sections that stridently call for reformatory or even revolutionary legislative intervention, this writer is deliberately limiting himself to four areas, not on account of pedestrian justification of avoiding rocking the boat with too much reforms at a time, but because the combined effect of the said four areas would usher in a democratic regime that is auspicious for further growth and development. The first area I would recommend for amendment is our pragmatically inapt devolution of powers among the different tiers of government as enshrined in Part One of the Schedule Two of Constitution. Although the dichotomy of governmental powers into exclusive and concurrent legislative lists is a necessary ingredients of a federalism, however the number of subject matters entrusted exclusively to the legislative competence of the Federal Government vis-à-vis the state governments are too enormous with a resultant lopsided, if not ludicrous federative paradigm. By that list, the Federal government has exclusive control over a whopping 68 items including strategic ones like the Police, Armed Force, Customs, prisons, Railways, professional occupations, trade and commerce between Nigeria and other countries etc. This over concentration of responsibilities at the centre is what gives the Nigerian system the appearance of unitary system in spite of our appellation of "Federal Republic of Nigeria". This writer, therefore, recommends a reform through liberalisation or maybe one should say "deregulation" of this constitutional exclusivity of many of the areas hitherto reserved for the central government. Specifically states should be allowed to have their own police service as this would foster more effective and purposeful policing system. Other areas that may be transported to the concurrent states' legislative competence include census, commercial and industrial monopolies, drugs and poison, fingerprint identification and criminal record, mines and minerals (with due remission to the federation accounts) railways, and borrowing of money within or outside Nigeria. Secondly, there should be a review of the controversial section 308 the Constitution which confers immunity on public officers like the President and the Vice-President, as well as state governors and their deputies from being sued in any court of law, arrested or even served with court processes. The rationale for insertion of immunity clause in the constitution may be persuasive in that it would shield these paramount executives from potential deluge of cases that would constitute serious distractions, nonetheless this writer would want that shield to be limited to civil suits only. No immunity should be bestowed in respect of criminal liability. The third area of reform is on the issue of Chapter Two of the 1999 Constitution which dwells on "Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy". The chapter features a lot of wonderful provisions on socio-economic rights that would make the country a happy place to live in, but these provisions are not made "justiciable" that is to say nobody can sue the government on account of neglecting to implement them. This "non-justiciability" is what successive government has capitalised on to neglect the provisions of the chapter to the detriment of the citizenry. While this writer may not recommend that the provisions of the chapter should be made justiciable on the grounds of sheer pragmatism, he would say, rather, that there should be a clause making "fundamental neglect" of the provisions an impeachable offence for any president or governor as the case may be. The fourth area for amendment is the imperative to plug the gender holes and "criminal" omissions of gender issues in the constitution. This can be done via incorporation of gender-specific provisions to make Nigeria a truly egalitarian and androgynous society. An example of such specific provisions is contained under section 3 (1) of the Ugandan constitution which provides "Women shall be accorded full and equal dignity of the person with men, while subsection 4 provides "Women shall have the right to equal treatment with men and that right shall include equal opportunities in political economic and social activities" Similarly, under section 187 of the South African constitution, a Commission for Gender Equality is established. |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment