IT is almost 22 years of democratic rule in Nigeria. There is no better time than now to assess the suitability of the 1999 constitution. It is even more compelling in the light of recent happenings in the country, especially the wanton killings by the Boko Haram, kidnapping of innocent people by the bandits, and insecurity of lives and property that has becomes norms and part of the people, indeed, Nigerians are now living in fears, many Nigerians are now scampering for safety instead of searching for the means of livelihood, which a lot of people expected to cement democracy proved clearly that we are not yet in civility. Unexpectedly, the 2021 budget is more on recurrent expenditure than capital projects. The recurrent expenditure is to maintain political office holders and their numerous aides. In fact, since the advent into civil rule the cost of running government has been on the high side. These amongst others shows that there is a need to implement the 2014 conference report and do away with the 1999 constitution which is the guardian angel of this republic, or better still, we should go back to the parliamentary system of government.
Indeed, the 1999 Constitution was full of abnormalities and biases, which caused major havoc to the living conditions of common man in this country. The model of government under the 1999 constitution is called the presidential system of government. The presidential system of government is a system of government where the President has strong powers to function as head of government independent of the legislature. Here, the President has executive powers which he can exercise directly or indirectly through his ministers. Section 5 of the 1999 constitution provides as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the executive powers of the Federation shall be vested in the President and may subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Minister of the Government of the Federation; and (b) shall extend to execution and maintenance of this constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws.”
The sweeping powers of the president is limited by section 5(4)(a)&(b).The president, by the aforesaid sections, cannot declare a state of war between the federation and another country except by the sanction of a resolution of both houses of the National assembly or deploy any member of the Armed Forces of the federation for combat duty outside Nigeria without the sanction of the National Assembly in the form of a resolution. The President is also the Commander-in –Chief of the armed forces of the federation .By section 218 of the 1999 constitution ,he is to determine the operational use of the armed forces of the federation .These are sweeping powers indeed! Although section 218 (4) provides that the national assembly shall have power to make laws for the regulation of the powers exercisable by the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federation.
This is not enough to limit the enormous powers conferred on the president by the said section. Acts or laws can not envisage every human scenario that might crop up so effective regulation of that power is really out of it. In principle, though, the 1999 Constitution has checks and balances. This can be gleamed from some of the sections cited above. An active National Assembly can check the enormous powers of the president but there is a limit to what the National Assembly can do in the face of these enormous powers. Our experience has brought this question to the front-burner: can we afford to give enormous powers to one man? The framers of the 1979 Constitution which introduced the presidential system of government for the first time in our political history which later changed to the 1999 Constitution did not anticipate a president that could transform into a civilian dictator.
We have since been woken up from that ignorance! The proponents of strong powers for the president, a main feature of the presidential system of government, believe that such powers are needed for strong and united leadership, especially in times of crisis and because of the diverse ethnic composition of the country .These are good reasons to give strong powers for the president but it is the reverse that we have seen as a people . We are living witnesses to what transpired in the last administration. We had a president that was surreptitiously removing governors, senate presidents through the instrumentality of state; a president that was disobeying court orders and a president that rigged a lot of his party-men into office. Obviously, these are the dangers inherent in a presidential system of government or better still points to the fact that the presidential system of government might not be compatible with our clime as a people.
Every constitution, however good it might be, is premised on one fact: that the operators would be gentlemen, men of honour. Our experience has shown that we might not always have men of honour in office and we should not wait till another autocratic leader springs up before we realise our mistake. We need to switch gears. A country where political patronage is the major source of livelihood and a President that controls the disbursement of funds and all governmental structures, extremes that should not exist side by side, there is no way everybody will not be at the beck and call of the President. We need to go back to the parliamentary system of government that we operated in the first republic under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions. The parliamentary system of government that we practiced then offers some bright lessons for a time such as this. In this write-up, I will enumerate the good side of the 1960 and 1963 constitutions and the provisions that need not be adopted again as it relates to the model of government. The parliamentary system of government under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions was characterized by four main features. (1) The separation of the Head of State and Head of Government. (2) The plurality of the executive.(3) Parliamentary character of the executive. (4) The responsibility of the ministers to the legislature. The plurality of the executive: The executive is plural in the sense that the Prime Minister is the Head of the Council of Ministers. It is plural in the sense that the Prime Minister has more than one vote in council meetings deliberations.
In the cabinet, all other members stand on equal footing – one man, one vote. It is the Prime Minister that is primus interpares. The council of Ministers derives its authority from the Prime Minister because they leave office when his tenure ceases. He chooses his Ministers from among his colleagues in the parliament. The separation of Head of State from Head of Government: The head of state was the Governor-General which later turned into the President (under the 1963 constitution) while the head of government was the Prime Minister.
- Òrúnbon, an opinion writer, poet, journalist and public affairs analyst, writes in from Abeokuta, Ogun State.
YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
The British Parliament at the Westminster Hall held a debate on ‘e-petition 554150, relating to Nigeria and the sanctions regime’ on Monday. The government of the United Kingdom has however responded…Why Nigeria should go Why Nigeria should go
The surprise visit made on Friday night by the leaders of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to former President Goodluck Jonathan at his residence in Abuja triggered a stir in the major political camps, resulting in at least four possible theories…Why Nigeria should go Why Nigeria should go