Restructuring possible only through constitution review ― Dogara

Yakubu Dogara

Speaker, House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, on Wednesday disclosed that the agitations for restructuring Nigeria are only realisable through alterations of the Constitution.

Dogara made this declaration through Deputy Speaker, Lasun Yussuff at a public Hearing organised by the House Special Ad-Hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution.

According to the Speaker, the public hearing is specifically on three different bills pending before the Ad-hoc Committee on Constitution Review. They include: Bill for an act to alter the constitution to reflect the proposals initiated by the judiciary.

The Bill which was presented to the House by Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen on January, 26 2017 is said to be a consolidation of all the recommendations requiring constitution alterations by heads of courts and judicial bodies. The primary purpose is to alter the provisions of the constitution to effect some judicial reforms.

He advised the committee to scrutinise the bill thoroughly to ensure that certain checks and balances inherent in a presidential system of government is not jettisoned without deep reflection.

Dogara said members noted that the age limits for various offices currently contained in the constitution is the minimum and not the maximum.

To this end, he said there was wisdom of raising the minimum age to ensure that brilliant and exceptional persons are not shut on grounds of age.

Secondly, up for review is a Bill for an Act to alter Section 291 to provide for uniform mandatory retirement age of 70 years for all judicial officers.

The third bill sponsored just like the second by House Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, Rep. Aminu Shehu Shagari, sought to alter the constitution to allow appeals from the decisions of National Industrial Court (NIC) to the Appeal Court.

He noted that the amendments sought with respect to NIC, is critical as the third alteration Act created ambiguities in the law that has tasked the ingenuity of lawyers and the courts over the years that it was introduced.

“Though opinions are diverse and divided as what should be prioritized in any Constitution alteration or reform exercise, it is settled that to alter or reform the Constitution, the procedure and processes prescribed by the Constitution itself must be complied with otherwise, the outcome and the procedure shall be unconstitutional and a nulity,” he stated.