In the USA, the constitution was meant to capture the essence and guiding principles of the people it governs. In Britain it is the Monarch to some extent. Then (along the life on the entity) there have been laws which are derived from or are interpretations of situations based on how the original writers (founding members) of the constitution would have wanted it, if they they were faced with similar situations at current times.
The constitution of the United States took more than one year to craft and each word, phrase and sentence was deliberated on and some intentionally left open ended. In the next 200 years and more hopefully, interpretation of new ideas/problems will still be based on the original intent and also how other similar ideas had been interpreted (along their way) since the original constitution.
Regarding the certificate, I believe that INEC is right ( if the courts are independent), sue and have the courts interpret what that is in the constitution.
Mr Buhari has been president for about four years now and has been running for president for the past about 13 years, which is enough time for our law maker (among the best paid in the world) to straighten out the issues.
1) The issue of WAEC/GCE as a prerequisite is either in the constitution or not. If they find out that it is, but no longer necessary then remove it., if it is then apply the law. If it is equivocal then make it clear.
Every other argument is mainly superfluous and based on emotions.
We should not have to have this same debate every four years about whether or not to obey a law of it is explicit.
2) The issue of affidavit: if I swear an affidavit that I am 36 (when in reality I am 30), and running for president, is the 'system' just allowed to ignore it, just because somehow I have the talent/training to do the job?
When it is explicit in the law that one should be 35?
Does an affidavit replace a certificate or give you some time to locate your certificate from the appropriate quarters or prove by whatever means that you have it?
Constitutions have nothing to do with trust but rather human nature (more like distrust and at the very least circumspection especially with political power).
Should we really encourage disobedience of written down laws?
Ogedi
TOO MUCH ADO ABOUT CERTIFICATE--Voluminous constitutions are symptomatic of the distrust a people have about themselves. It is assumed that a people cannot be reasonable and patriotic,every rule governing their behaviour must be spelt out in black and white.This would seem to be the case in Nigeria,with its cumbersome constitution, where every rule of democratic governance is assembled, albeit in confusing and contradictory wordings.One knows of a nation that is governed without a written constitution. There is not a document that is called the British Constitution, democratic governance derives its legitimacy from customs and tradition. Yet, Britain is one of the most orderly geographical entities in the world-a nation that once superintended governance in many overseas colonies.Even in the United States of America, the nation with the first written constitution , not everything is packed into the constitution. The American constitution is a very slim document, readable and easy to comprehend even by those with minimal education. There is no reference to political party in their constitution, and neither is their a requirement that the President must acquire a certain level of education. It is enough that a candidate for that position has attained the age of 35,and he or she is a natural born citizen of America, or a resident within the USA for a minimum of 14 years.Much as the letters of any constitution must be respected, one honestly thinks that the requirement of education for President should no longer be generating controversy in a modern society. It should by now be taken for granted that whoever shall be President of Nigeria would be educated, otherwise the collective intelligence of the citizenry is insulted.Such a requirement should not be in the constitution..Even then, it is the democratic right of the people to decide who their leader is. Paper qualification may not necessarily mean that one is politically-intelligent. Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents of the USA, is said to have had only about a year of formal schooling of any kind. His successor, Andrew Johnson, is said to have had no formal schooling of any kind.Lest one gets me wrong, one is not saying that education is not important and neither is one holding brief for any politician. What one is trying to assert is that there are things we must now take for granted in the 21st century. Even in our local communities, contemporary traditional rulers are well-educated and sophisticated individuals. Gone is the era when the traditional ruler was that kola-chewing individual, very eloquent at reciting incantations.Anthony Akinola,Oxford, UK.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment