For many years now, there have been call for political and economic restructuring of Nigeria. The rationale for this is to make Nigeria’s federalism to be more effective and efficient. It is also geared towards bridging marginalisation and discrimination gaps.
However, in order to streamline issues around the concept of restructuring, the All Progressives Congress in 2017 inaugurated Malam Nasri El-Rufai Committee on True Federalism. The Committee submitted its report in February 2018.
The All Progressives Congress committee on restructuring on Thursday, February 25, 2018 presented its report to the then National Chairman of the party, John Odigie-Oyegun, with the committee making several recommendations it said were based on opinions of Nigerians. Some of the key recommendations are resource control, making local government an affair of states, constitutional amendment to allow merger of states, state police, state court of appeal and independent candidacy. The committee, headed by former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El- Rufai, was set up in August 2017 to formulate the position of the party on true federalism. The committee initially had 10 members but this was later expanded to 23 members.
According to its mandate, the committee was to distill the true intent and definition of true federalism and to take a studied look on the report of the various national conferences, especially that of 2014; and come up with recommendations. Submitting the report at the party’s secretariat, Mr. El-Rufai said 8,014 people were engaged in the process of their research and that Nigerians indicated interest in 24 issues. Out of these, the committee made recommendation on 13 in its report, which has four volumes. It is very surprising that this incisive report by the ruling party hasn’t received much attention six years after its submission to the party leadership. One would have thought that APC Headquarters will forward the report to the president and National Assembly for necessary action. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
When President Bola Tinubu was inaugurated as the 16 th president last year, I had hoped that he would take the bull by the horn and deal with the issue of restructuring as urgent and important. That wasn’t to be as he continues to foot-drag on the salient issue. This was a man who was making a strident call for restructuring since his National Democratic Coalition better known as NADECO membership days. Perhaps his macroeconomic policies of removing fuel subsidy and floating the naira as well as his tax reform bills currently before the National Assembly is a surreptitious way of birthing economic restructuring. Assuming without conceding that this is the case, what is the president’s take on the germane issue of political restructuring?
The 10th National Assembly set the ball rolling for the sixth round of alteration to the 1999 Nigerian Constitution in February 2024. The House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review issued a Call for Memoranda, enjoining Nigerians to submit memoranda or proposals for further amendments to the Constitution on a variety of thematic areas including the Nigeria Police and Nigerian security architecture, public revenue, fiscal federation and revenue allocation, judicial reforms, electoral reforms, traditional institutions, gender related issues, process of State creation, State access to mining, among others, as well as any other matter that will promote good governance and welfare of all persons in the country on the principles of freedom, equality and justice. Earlier, the President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio on February 14, constituted a 45-member Committee on Constitution Review chaired by the Deputy President of the Senate, Jibrin Barau. In the House of Representatives, the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Tajudeen Abbas, inaugurated the 43-member Committee on Constitution Review at an inaugural ceremony and citizens’ engagement organised by the Committee on February 26, 2024 in Abuja.
It came to me as a surprise that despite the setting up of the Constitutional Review Committee of the two chambers of National Assembly, members of the House of Representatives have been progressing in error by sponsoring Private Member Bills for constitution alterations when they should simply have submitted a memorandum on such issue to the Committee on Constitution Reform. I will cite three instances of such.
First, in February 2024, a bill for the establishment of state police passed the second reading in the House of Representatives. The bill, sponsored by the Deputy Speaker, Ben Kalu, and 14 others, aims to amend the 1999 Constitution by removing Police from the Exclusive Legislative List and adding it to the concurrent list. It seeks to transfer “Police” from the “Exclusive Legislative List” to the “Concurrent Legislative List,” effectively empowering states to have state-controlled policing. It proposes 16 alterations to the constitution and introduces a comprehensive framework to ensure cohesion, accountability, and uniform standards between the federal police and state police.
Second instance also happened in February this year when a group of 60 lawmakers initiated a move to end the current presidential system and revert to the parliamentary system previously used in Nigeria’s First Republic. The group, known as the Parliamentary Group, introduced a constitution alteration bill on the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday February 14, 2024, setting in motion what could be a transition to a parliamentary system by 2031. Three constitution alteration bills were presented by the Minority Leader, Kingsley Chinda (PDP, Rivers).
The third example is a Bill for an Act to alter the provisions of the Constitution to create a single term of six years for the office of president and state governors. The bill sponsored by Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere sought to recognise the division of Nigeria into the six geopolitical zones, provide for the rotation of the office of president, state governor and chairmen of a local government councils among the inherent regions and zones. The bill also sought to make it possible for all elections in the country to be held on a single day. The bill was justifiably voted against last Thursday, November 21, 2024.
I am of the considered view that these three constitution alteration bills should not have been sponsored disparately as a private member bills but should have been submitted as a memoranda to the House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review who should have liaised with the corresponding committee of the Senate led by Deputy President of the Senate to generate one long list of issues to be legislated on which can now be proposed to President Bola Tinubu to sponsor as Executive Bills after he must have made his input to the long list of issues for consideration. Otherwise, if they do not want to involve the president, they can draft the long list of issues into bills and have them sponsored as Private Member Bills. In fact, truth be told, there shouldn’t be two Constitution Review Committees in the National Assembly. It should have been joint committee.
The Constitution Review Committee should also plan to consult with the Conference of Speakers of State Houses of Assembly for their input before the legislative work will start in earnest on the exercise at the National Assembly. This because the rule book says on every of the constitution alteration bills, two-third of both chambers of National Assembly should vote to support the bills after which they will be sent to the 36 State Houses of Assembly for passage. It’s only the bill that get support of two-third of the State Houses of Assembly that will eventually be sent to the president for assent.
There is no gainsaying that the support of the president, the governors and the Speakers of the State Houses of Assembly are needed by the National Assembly for any successful alteration to be made. Personally speaking, I am in support of State Police, having all elections held in one day, and power rotation for purpose of political inclusion even though it may not necessarily deliver good governance. I am however against change of government from presidential to parliamentary system. Parliamentary system may be cost saving in terms of elections and governance; however, it breeds political instability. It does not necessarily stop corruption and is not a panacea for good governance.