MORE
than two years of legislative work, expectations of millions of
Nigerians and the new directions of democratic growth that the proposed
constitutional amendment would have produced are about to be wasted.
President Goodluck Jonathan would not sign the document. It would be
difficult to know if his action is based on patriotism or just
indecision. Either way, it would hurt the polity for some time.
His arguments for not signing the document, which has been with him for months, include some unclear provisions and the constitutional gaps that some of the proposed amendments could cause. He even claimed there was no proof that two-third of the State Houses of Assembly approved the amendments, as the law requires.
State Houses of Assembly really approved the amendments. They approved autonomy for themselves and the National Assembly, but rejected autonomy for local government administration. Their decision was unexplainable.
State Assemblies also affirmed:
*Indigeneship rights of a State to a Nigerian citizen who has resided in a particular community of a State for a continuous period of not less than 10 years. The proposed amendment runs against the more generous provisions of the Constitution for Nigerians to be shielded from discrimination and enjoy the same rights everywhere they decide
to live. Would some Nigerians not be denied rights classified as “indigeneship rights”? Would citizens have fewer rights than indigenes?
*Rights to free, basic education and right to free primary and maternal health care services, in Chapter 2 of the Constitution were changed, and moved to Fundamental Human Rights to make them justiciable.
*Independent candidacy in elections, which could create more platforms for political expression. The National Assembly would legislate on procedures, guidelines and qualifications for independent candidates.
*The three-month limit for the Federation or a State to operate without an Appropriation Act in a new financial year would generate more accountability than the current six-month provision.
It is unfair to growth of democracy that the difference independent candidacy, for example, would have made, to be wasted. Also thrown away are expectations that rights to basic education and health, which were to be made justiciable. They were expected to make governments more accountable.
Did the National Assembly, in 16 years, bother about Section 16(2d) of the Constitution? It states, “The State (country) shall direct its policy towards ensuring: that suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age care and pensions, and unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of the
disabled are provided for all citizens”. It did not.
Whenever we get back to amending the Constitution, the dynamics would be entirely different and some of these issues may no longer count.
His arguments for not signing the document, which has been with him for months, include some unclear provisions and the constitutional gaps that some of the proposed amendments could cause. He even claimed there was no proof that two-third of the State Houses of Assembly approved the amendments, as the law requires.
State Houses of Assembly really approved the amendments. They approved autonomy for themselves and the National Assembly, but rejected autonomy for local government administration. Their decision was unexplainable.
State Assemblies also affirmed:
*Indigeneship rights of a State to a Nigerian citizen who has resided in a particular community of a State for a continuous period of not less than 10 years. The proposed amendment runs against the more generous provisions of the Constitution for Nigerians to be shielded from discrimination and enjoy the same rights everywhere they decide
to live. Would some Nigerians not be denied rights classified as “indigeneship rights”? Would citizens have fewer rights than indigenes?
*Rights to free, basic education and right to free primary and maternal health care services, in Chapter 2 of the Constitution were changed, and moved to Fundamental Human Rights to make them justiciable.
*Independent candidacy in elections, which could create more platforms for political expression. The National Assembly would legislate on procedures, guidelines and qualifications for independent candidates.
*The three-month limit for the Federation or a State to operate without an Appropriation Act in a new financial year would generate more accountability than the current six-month provision.
It is unfair to growth of democracy that the difference independent candidacy, for example, would have made, to be wasted. Also thrown away are expectations that rights to basic education and health, which were to be made justiciable. They were expected to make governments more accountable.
Did the National Assembly, in 16 years, bother about Section 16(2d) of the Constitution? It states, “The State (country) shall direct its policy towards ensuring: that suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age care and pensions, and unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of the
disabled are provided for all citizens”. It did not.
Whenever we get back to amending the Constitution, the dynamics would be entirely different and some of these issues may no longer count.
- See more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/04/mr-president-wont-sign/#sthash.TALl1Jx7.dpuf
