If I were a delegate at conference
KAYODE KETEFE
One of the cardinal principles of democracy is its representative nature. Under it, a microcosm of the population is charged with the responsibilities of projecting the wishes and aspirations of the larger population they represent. It follows that not all Nigerians with good ideas and recommendations will be at the ongoing national conference; we would simply have to rely on our delegates, hopefully, for adequate representation.
The followings represent ideas, suggestions and recommendations I would have put forward had I been among the delegates now working, ideally, to chart new constitutional developmental map for the country's survival and growth.
First of all, I would suggest a return to regionalism. The present system where we are delimitated into numerous states, many of which are not viable, does not augur well for progress and development. The first Africa's Television was established in the Western Region Government, ditto for the first African Conglomerate which still exist till today as Oodua Group of Companies. Now how many states in Nigeria today, (except perhaps the sole exception of Lagos) has the economic wherewithal to establish, without external aid, any project that can be adjudged "highly innovative, progressive and first in Africa?" Are we not running mostly civil service states? Surely, th present system makes us to look more like a unitary system with states as mere component parts of a unified structure.
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 now 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"Under the envisaged system, the Federal Government should only wield limited powers and responsibilities in common areas like defence, emissary, national currency etc while more comprehensive powers are devolved to the state, nay regions. Accordingly, I would suggest that the states (that is regions) should have legislative competence on diverse areas, including health, education, agriculture, commerce and industry, transportation, prisons and police, housing and property development, land administration and management, including the mining of the minerals.
Secondly, we need address the question of fiscal federalism as a corollary to the above. Fiscal federalism involves the questions of how the revenues available to the federation account are allocated among the components of the federal system, that is the federal, states and local governments.
It also involves how the resources that belong to the states and local governments are distributed among the 36 states and the 774 local governments in the country in consonance with some agreed formula.
I don't need to waste much talk on this overflogged issue. Let the regions of derivation take the larger percentage and remit an agreed faction to the centre. This will not only foster justice, it will also promote efficiency, as every region will strive for economic survival and prosperity. This will be in sharp contrast to the present where many are lazy and inefficient, having been assured unfailing monthly allocation from the federal treasury. I would suggest that region of derivation be allowed to keep 51 per cent, while remitting the rest to the federal government for collective weal.
Thirdly, 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.
Another area I would suggest for reform is the 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.
KAYODE KETEFE
One of the cardinal principles of democracy is its representative nature. Under it, a microcosm of the population is charged with the responsibilities of projecting the wishes and aspirations of the larger population they represent. It follows that not all Nigerians with good ideas and recommendations will be at the ongoing national conference; we would simply have to rely on our delegates, hopefully, for adequate representation.
The followings represent ideas, suggestions and recommendations I would have put forward had I been among the delegates now working, ideally, to chart new constitutional developmental map for the country's survival and growth.
First of all, I would suggest a return to regionalism. The present system where we are delimitated into numerous states, many of which are not viable, does not augur well for progress and development. The first Africa's Television was established in the Western Region Government, ditto for the first African Conglomerate which still exist till today as Oodua Group of Companies. Now how many states in Nigeria today, (except perhaps the sole exception of Lagos) has the economic wherewithal to establish, without external aid, any project that can be adjudged "highly innovative, progressive and first in Africa?" Are we not running mostly civil service states? Surely, th present system makes us to look more like a unitary system with states as mere component parts of a unified structure.
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 now 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"Under the envisaged system, the Federal Government should only wield limited powers and responsibilities in common areas like defence, emissary, national currency etc while more comprehensive powers are devolved to the state, nay regions. Accordingly, I would suggest that the states (that is regions) should have legislative competence on diverse areas, including health, education, agriculture, commerce and industry, transportation, prisons and police, housing and property development, land administration and management, including the mining of the minerals.
Secondly, we need address the question of fiscal federalism as a corollary to the above. Fiscal federalism involves the questions of how the revenues available to the federation account are allocated among the components of the federal system, that is the federal, states and local governments.
It also involves how the resources that belong to the states and local governments are distributed among the 36 states and the 774 local governments in the country in consonance with some agreed formula.
I don't need to waste much talk on this overflogged issue. Let the regions of derivation take the larger percentage and remit an agreed faction to the centre. This will not only foster justice, it will also promote efficiency, as every region will strive for economic survival and prosperity. This will be in sharp contrast to the present where many are lazy and inefficient, having been assured unfailing monthly allocation from the federal treasury. I would suggest that region of derivation be allowed to keep 51 per cent, while remitting the rest to the federal government for collective weal.
Thirdly, 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.
Another area I would suggest for reform is the 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment