Senate Majority Leader, Senator Ahmed Lawan, is one of the few longest serving parliamentarians in the National Assembly, having been elected as a member of the House of Representatives in 1999. The three-time senator vied for the seat of Senate President in 2015 but lost to incumbent Dr Bukola Saraki. He spoke on the defeat of key components of the constitution amendment in the Senate and the House of Representatives in this interview with Group Politics Editor, TAIWO ADISA. Excerpts:
PEOPLE have said that what the National Assembly achieved through the constitution amendment voting is just a token compared to all issues that deserve attention in the constitution. Is it possible for this constitution amendment to be done once in a comprehensive manner instead of choosing some key components save us time and cost?
It’s like suggesting that we should make all the laws that we need to have in Nigeria at once. You know that is not possible. The idea of legislation is to transform society for the best. When you notice that society faces some challenges, then you try to legislate to ensure that those challenges are addressed properly, that they don’t continue to constitute stumbling blocks to development or the wellbeing of citizens. So, it’s not possible that you will review or amend the constitution at once, because challenges appear from time to time. You may amend a section today, thinking you have addressed the problem. But that will be maybe addressing the problem of that day. After some years, perhaps the challenges may be different and, therefore, you may still go back to amend that section that you have amended. Some sections may never require amendment, because maybe as a people we have reached not only consensus but we are stable on that, we are happy with what we are doing or what the government is doing. So, I think the answer to your question is it’s possible; but to me it’s not practicable because if you want to achieve the desired result, then the amendment of the constitution should be based on the necessity of the time, on the challenges of the time, on the needs and imperatives of people and the time.
Some years ago, some people were not talking about independent candidate. All of a sudden, it became an issue and in the Assembly, we’ve tried to address it. Some years ago, people were never talking about age qualification. Now, it has become a topical issue and a necessity to address the age frame within which someone will have to achieve before he runs. So, these things are only addressed when they come up as issue or challenges to our development. I don’t think there is any parliament in the world that will just sit and say we must amend the constitution or the whole of the constitution. How do you do that? That means you are writing a new constitution. So, I think any right-thinking parliament will always be looking at those issues that the society or the country or citizens face and have become hurdles and impediments to the wellbeing of country, of the people and, of course, the wellbeing and overall development of the country. I believe that the Nigerian parliament, whether at the state level or National Assembly, will be doing these legislations to ensure that we achieve socio-economic and political stability of our country to ensure that we grow as a country and provide everybody the opportunity to actualise his or her dreams.
Talking of independent candidacy, was it meant to protect the legislators against the antics of godfatherism and how does this strengthening the quest for free and credible election in 2019 if implemented?
We didn’t do that in 1999 – 2003; we didn’t do that in 2003 – 2007. Certainly, the idea is to open up the political space for people who feel they don’t have to belong to any political party to go to citizens to run for whatever office they choose to run. I’m sure this is going to give the political parties a run for their money because now, individuals who do not want to belong to any political party can run. Political parties are supposed to be based on ideologies or philosophical backgrounds. It’s some kind of good reason for something to happen. Maybe someone wants to see everywhere green; he doesn’t want to see any blue card and, therefore, he belongs to the green party. Some would like to see affirmative action in the society and therefore would just be campaigning for equality of sexes and so forth. There are some individuals that, maybe, don’t believe in all these things that the political parties and therefore, they have their own beliefs of what they want their country to look like or to be. Therefore, they rather stand as independent candidates.
So, when you don’t provide the platform, it’s like they are being denied. For me, I think by 2019, this segment of our democratic evolution would have been 20 years between 1999 and 2019 and I believe that political parties would have had sufficient time to be on ground to preach whatever they believe in and campaign for people to belong to their fold. Now, if you still have people who don’t think they have any choice between all the political parties and therefore they would rather stand as independent candidates, so be it. You open up the space.
The only thing I fear is that INEC may face some initial challenges. In some cases, you may find very many independent candidates and I don’t know how the ballot papers will look like. The same thing with the INEC when it comes to local government elections for the offices of the chairman and councillors. You may end up having a very long list of independent candidates and then you have to think on how to manage the process, especially the ballot papers and so on and so forth. But if our electoral commissions are able to overcome those challenges, if they ever emerge, and I think they may emerge eventually, once we have the bill of independent candidacy passed by the legislators. Otherwise, once they pass and the INEC and the SIECs are able to handle those logistic challenges, I think Nigerians will be better for it that you have so much choices because there is going to be so many choice for you with all the political parties that are participating and then you have a very long gallery of independent candidates. So, you choose from whatever you want. Nobody will complain that his choices are limited. The choices will be so much that definitely, you will find whatever you are looking for.
With the failure of affirmative action for women during the constitution amendment, what will be the fate of women in the 2019 election?
I think that throws up some challenges for everybody, not only women, but particularly, I think the challenges will be more for the women. Women constitute more than 50 per cent of the population of Nigeria, slightly ahead of men. When you have women running for certain offices, I think our women should consider the possibility of queuing behind the candidates. Most of the political parties have tried to be fair by giving free nomination forms to women and I think that is affirmative action in some ways. Some political parties will define clearly and say for this particular constituency or particular office, we need a woman or even appointments. But I think when you are working for a political office or political power, you cannot just rest your hopes on someone who you are supposed to compete with. You are supposed to try your best to compete and maybe you could find some doors open, some people changing their minds. But I believe that it was not going to be easy for the 35 per cent to easily pass.
I for one want to be recorded as someone who feels that we all have different ways of looking at issues. The majority of members of the National Assembly looked at that issue in a negative way and what that means is we need to talk and dialogue and interact more and more on that. That is to say, the majority of members of the National Assembly have not been convinced that you need to just say we allocate minimum of 30 per cent of elective or appointive offices to women. But no one single member of the National Assembly will tell you that he is against women. So, what that means is something is missing; we haven’t really talked so much between ourselves, whether this is the starting point, whether we should start from 35 per cent or a minimum of 35 per cent and upwards, whether we should look at another percentage and then build it up. In some cases, some people may even like to have more than 35 per cent. It’s like we need to converge somewhere and we have not been able to converge at that point yet. But I’m sure that everyone in this National Assembly supports Affirmative Action. Everybody supports that; but we have not been able to reach an understanding on exactly 35 per cent upwards.
Many believe that the Land Use Act amendment failed because it could put some sections of the country, particularly from the South at advantage. What is your take?
Who showed you how we voted? How did you draw this conclusion?
The undertone on why it failed tends towards the fact that it will benefit people from the South and that was why it failed alongside devolution of power. What really killed that section?
You see, if you want something to pass in the Senate and you require two-thirds, that means you require 73 Senators to vote for that, while like section nine, if you have to amend Section 9 of the Constitution, you require four-fifth that is about 88 Senators. So, the task is always herculean for anyone that wants something to pass. Someone who doesn’t want something to pass in the Senate, the requirement is 45, 46 and he is home and dry. Once you are able to get to that level, you stop someone from getting what he wants.
The Land Use Act is like any other controversial bill. We didn’t achieve any consensus. Those who wanted it did not reach out to explain sufficiently to those who were sceptical about it and I used the word sceptical in its entire ramification. If you are not sure of the outcome of something, then you are better off maintaining the status quo until you get better and more information and education and enlightenment on that thing, when you would have been sufficiently informed that this thing has no harm or this thing benefits this man this way, it benefits you this way, it benefits another person this way. Everybody is going to be a winner. I believe that those who wanted it to be passed should have talked to those who were sceptical, because it’s not like anybody who voted against something didn’t like it. You may like it, but you are not sure about it. So, you are sceptical. Therefore you needed someone who was sure about the benefits for himself and for you to tell you how it is beneficial to him. If he doesn’t tell you how beneficial it is to you but he thinks it is beneficial to him, then you start to doubt a lot whether this thing is only beneficial to him. Otherwise, I cannot see any reason why it should be limited to South East alone. It’s not an issue of South East or the rest of Nigeria. I think an issue can start with one individual liking it, but that individual is able to talk to as many millions of Nigerians through all the means available, the social media and whatever trying to explain the benefits and maybe also trying to be as truthful as possible to come out with disadvantages. But if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, I think people can buy into it. But I think they haven’t done enough work.
What of devolution of power?
Well, again because we go back to my position that people who wanted devolution took for granted that everybody would just go for it like that. Meanwhile, whoever you are talking to about devolution will give you his or her own side of what devolution is. Therefore, nobody was able to capture the imagination of most members of the National Assembly. If someone simply because he has privileges to appear on television and talk threateningly, and say if you don’t pass this, the world will end, Nigeria will finish. That is not the way to convince anyone. You talk to people with specific target and aim of enlightening them, educating them, making them see the issues through your eyes, not threatening. Most of those that were said to be clamouring were threatening.
Members of the National Assembly are not Abuja people. Only Phillip Aduda in the Senate is representing Abuja. The rest of us come from different parts of the country and we belong to those communities that sent us to Abuja. So, if where I come from, people think I shouldn’t vote for devolution, there is nothing you can say on your television that will make me vote for devolution, because, ultimately, I will go back to my people and, in fact, I’m supposed to be the eyes, the ears and everything of my people here. So, people who want devolution or indeed constitutional amendment to be presented later, my advice is you need to take people out of suspicion; you need to convince people on the necessity, on the advantages of whatever it is that you are preaching and do little or no more of threatening, because when you threaten that Nigeria will break, it’s like blackmailing and it doesn’t work. It has never worked anywhere else and it will never work here. Try to make people understand. If you want to give me the best in the world and the way you are putting it is like scaring me, I won’t allow you to come close to me.
So, we need to talk more. There is nothing that is impossible, including devolution. But we need to do the right things first. If devolution failed in the Senate and House, that is not the end of devolution. You could present devolution, but what you need to do is to campaign more to talk to people more in the language that they understand. If you think you know too much, your understanding is so high and mine is so low because maybe you need to educate me, you don’t speak from that your level. Come down to my level and talk to me so that I can understand it. If you think you have already reached the crescendo of whatever it is, I am not there yet. Talk to me from a level that no matter how low it is, I can easily understand, assimilate and maybe say okay I will calm down a bit, let’s meet at the middle and when we meet, you don’t get exactly what you want. I would let go some of the things I think are very important to me and that spirit of give and take, that trade-off to me is what is essential.
Looking at the way the voting on the amendment went, do you think that members of the National Assembly actually studied the documents before voting? Some people who came on air have also said that lawmakers are to study the documents and go back to their constituents during the annual legislative recess.
Let me tell you that most of the issues maybe up to 29 or 30 of the issues, out of the 33, are issues that we had considered in the previous Assembly for constitution amendment. Consensus had already been built. We conducted several levels of public hearing, at the zonal level, at the state level. You recall that in the seventh National Assembly, we had zonal public hearings. Our own was held in Gombe. Then House of Reps members had their own at the state level as well and we had one big one in Abuja and we educated the people. So, we had the responses of people. No member of the National Assembly will tell you that he needed more time to go and tell people that this is what we have voted for. Majority of us, I won’t say everybody, but a majority of us were at home with the issues; we had conducted public hearing but not as profound as we did in the Seventh Senate and we also were mindful of the fact that we needed to pass this thing on time so that it doesn’t come close to 2019 when people will start to interpret the provisions as self-serving or were targeted at some people. So, we passed this thing. We definitely reflected the views of our people. Those 29 bills that passed showed across the country, there was consensus. Those four issues that failed showed that Nigerians are yet to form consensus on them and what that requires is let’s tarry a while, but let’s continue to engage each other. Let’s continue to talk with each other maybe if we could achieve consensus on those, we could achieve consensus on this as well. But it requires that everybody talks to his neighbour; if you don’t want it this way, how do you want it to be like? I want it to be like this; we can allow some percentages go; we can introduce this; let’s accommodate everybody. Then we do it. How did we manage to pass the petroleum industry bill? You have been with us for a long time. In the sixth Senate, that was when I came to the Senate in 2007, the Senate considered only the first clause of the bill. Senator Lee Maeba was then the Chairman of Petroleum Upstream; he was the one who introduced it. By the time we came to the second clause, the entire thing collapsed and that was the end of it. In the seventh Senate, it was almost like a full-blown war.
In the eight Senate, having suffered all these and having learnt so much from what happened in the previous two Senates, the Senate this time round decided to split that single bill into about three or four bills and we passed all of them, because we were able to build consensus. Those who didn’t want the host community development fund, how does everybody go home as a winner because we represent different people. I will not support something that when I go home, I will tell my people we have lost this much to this side of the country. They will say you are bad at representing; come back home. But when I say we have allowed this to go, but we have also gotten this, this is how it’s supposed to be and we have passed all the four bills.
The 2017 budget is possibly going to last only six months, how do you intend to measure its performance within such a short time?
Let me congratulate the Federal Government and President Muhammadu Buhari on budget performance. In the 2016 appropriation year, we spent almost fourfold what the PDP appropriation of President Goodluck Jonathan spent in the 2015 appropriation year. We cash backed our budget with about N950 billion, almost N1 trillion. This 2017 budget of course took off from May of this year and by design, ‘we hope’ that it will end in December. Why that is because we want to bring back our budget period of 12 months beginning from January to December. So, both arms of government are talking and we have reached a serious understanding and position that the executive should present the 2018 appropriation bill sometimes in September or early October latest and of course we work on it and make sure that we finish processing the bill for presidential assent. Before the end of December, the president signs it so that by January 2018, the budget for 2018 will start at the right time and that will bring to regularity the timing that we should have for implementing our budget. So, if we implement the budget up till December, we still have the rolling over of this budget to 2018 budget. It’s not like it will stop and nothing will happen or the budget will be abandoned. The budget that will be ongoing in 2017 appropriation year will be funded in 2018. So, it’s going to continue. But the advantage there clearly is that we will now bring back our budgetary period to begin in January and end 31st December.