Guardian ‘How Nigerians insisted on removal of immunity, others’ MONDAY, 08 JULY 2013 00:00 FROM LEMMY UGHEGBE, ADAMU ABUH AND TERHEMBA DAKA, ABUJA NEWS - NATIONAL FAR from being a decision of the House of Representatives, it is Nigerians’ insistence that has led to the proposal of the lawmakers that the immunity clause be removed from the constitution. The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Emeka Ihedioha, who disclosed this on Monday, noted that the House had evolved a genuine process at producing a people’s constitution for the country. He described the process adopted by the 53-member committee that made the proposal and others as “open, fair, all-inclusive and people-driven.” At a Civil Society Organisation (CSO) Review of Proposed Amendment to the Constitution organised by Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), Ihedioha said the personal opinion of the members of the committee did not count at all when it came to what the Nigerian people wanted. He said to allow for a transparent process and forge a conducive atmosphere for the majority view of Nigerians to prevail, all members of the House declined to chair any of the public sessions and in some cases, they even allowed members of the opposition parties to preside over the process. “I am in PDP. But in my own constituency, I called on an eminent lawyer, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN), to chair the session. He asked me, ‘Emeka, are you sure you want me to do that? Okay, what are the no-go areas?’ And I told him, there are no no-go areas, he can touch everything. And you know I am in PDP and Mike is in CPC and now APC. That is how free and open the process was and I have not got any report to say any member of the House chaired any session”, Ihedioha stated. He also said although he was averse to any aspect of the immunity clause which protects the president, vice president, governor and deputy governor being tampered with, his personal opinion which he never canvassed at the public sessions was over-ruled by the majority of Nigerians who said criminal immunity for these chief executives should be removed completely. Explaining the process adopted by his committee in arriving at its report, the deputy speaker stressed that it was all-inclusive, thorough and painstaking: “As has been clarified on many occasions, the work of the committee was designed in such a manner that it relied on the input of Nigerians to arrive at its decisions. And the civil society organisations have continued to play major roles in all the stages of the process so far. “The House Ad-Hoc Committee on Constitution Review conducted a painstaking consultative process with major stakeholders as joint-organisers. These stakeholders include the NLC, TUC, NUJ, NUT, CSOs, NULGE, NCWS, youths and students’ organisations, NBA and so on. The results (of the peoples’ public sessions) were collated publicly with all the stakeholders present. The results have been presented and published for people to dispute and correct. In the absence of any convincing reason to the contrary, we stand by these results. “Standing by the results as collated means that the committee reflected the decisions of Nigerians during those sessions. The recommendations of the committee are not the personal views of members of the committee or the leadership of the House. They are the collective views of Nigerians.” On the abolition of the state/local council joint account proposed by the committee, the deputy speaker said 295 federal constituencies voted in favour, 62 federal constituencies for its retention and three constituencies absented. According to the deputy speaker, although many “celebrated pundits and constitutional lawyers have repeatedly canvassed that local council should squarely be a state responsibility,” further questions put forward to determine the views of the public on this issue proved the outspoken elite wrong. On the second question, “should the constitution be amended so that the process to create local council areas now rest exclusively with the states, such that states assume responsibility for the funding of local councils,” the people voted overwhelmingly to reject this proposal by 276 federal constituencies to 78 with six abstentions. On the question, “Should the local councils be accorded the status of a third-tier of government properly so called with its own legislative list?” 291 federal constituencies answered ‘Yes’ in support and 66 federal constituencies returned a “No” answer with three abstentions. And for another question on local council autonomy, “Should the constitution be amended to deny revenue allocation to unelected local councils,” 277 federal constituencies agreed, while 70 federal constituencies disagreed with 13 abstentions. On the issue of tenure, the question, “Should there be a defined tenure for local council chairmen/councillors in the constitution?” received an almost unanimous answer in agreement as 331 federal constituencies voted ‘Yes’, while 26 constituencies only voted ‘No’ with three abstentions. -- Ihedioha said: “Nigerians in their numbers supported the abolition of SIECs as 261 federal constituencies supported the abrogation of SIECs while only 95 federal constituencies rejected it with four abstentions.” The deputy speaker said his committee could not have tampered with such resounding views of the people: “We have no choice but to reflect the manifest wishes and mandate of Nigerians on these issues. No doubt, beneficiaries of the current system may think otherwise. As a matter of fact, local council autonomy may be decidedly against federalist principles. But Nigerians have chosen the type of federalism they want, guided by their experiences. It is for Nigerians to defend their choice and make sure their voices count. We have done our duty.” On the issue of removal of immunity, Ihedioha said the committee was strictly guided by the results of the public sessions as 225 federal constituencies voted to remove criminal immunity but retain only civil immunity for governors, deputy governors, president and vice president. A total of 132 federal constituencies rejected this position with three abstentions. “Once again, we did our duty. If the Senate or the House of Representatives or State Houses of Assembly rejects this clear decision of the people, so be it. It is again for Nigerians to hold those they elected accountable,” he said. On state police, “the Nigerian people were almost unanimous in rejecting the establishment of state police in Nigeria,” he said, as “307 federal constituencies voted ‘No’ to the question, “Should Section 214 (1) be amended to enable the establishment of a state police?” Only 53 federal constituencies supported this. To a further question, “Should Nigeria have one police organisation which shall be constituted in such a manner as to give state governors control over the commissioner of police in their respective states?” the answer was a resounding ‘No’ by 237 federal constituencies, while 53 said ‘Yes’, with 70 abstentions. He said that Nigerians voted overwhelmingly to retain the existing police structure and system as in the constitution by 292 to 62 federal constituencies with six abstentions. “As a result of this vote, the committee did not recommend the establishment of state police”, he said. On tenure of office, Ihedioha said 245 federal constituencies rejected the question of a single tenure for chief executives while 110 federal constituencies supported the same with five abstentions while a further question, “Should the (four years) two terms tenure provision for the office of the president or office of governor be retained in the constitution?” elicited a positive response from 263 federal constituencies and only 95 federal constituencies voted ‘No’ with two abstentions. “With this level of unanimity, it was not difficult for the committee to adopt the current four-year renewable tenure and to reject the single term proposal of either five, six or seven years. This is the clear position of Nigerians on this issue,” he stressed. On other issues that some commentators have considered controversial, the deputy speaker said: “The result of the people’s public sessions showed that Nigeria preferred the presidential system rather than parliamentary system by 326 to 29 with five abstentions. Nigerians also rejected ‘resource control” by 236 to 123 votes with five abstentions. And rejected increase of derivation component of Revenue Allocation Formula to 20 per cent by 224 votes to 125 votes and 11 abstentions. That is why the committee did not recommend these issues.” Nigerians also rejected the rotation of the office of the president between the North and South and among six geo-political zones by an overwhelming majority. They preferred the use of merit. Also, Nigerians did not support the removal of certain items from the exclusive list to the concurrent list. They also rejected the inclusion of the six geo-political zones in the constitution and to make them tiers of government by an overwhelming 330 to 27 votes with three abstentions. “Nigerians supported the creation of a role for traditional rulers in the Council of State and a role for them at the state level. And so the committee made recommendations to accommodate them.” Justifying the position of its report further, Ihedioha said: “As a representative institution, the House of Representatives made an effort to give pride of place to the views, wishes and aspirations of its constituents - the Nigerian people in this constitution review exercise. We don’t represent ourselves and so even though we may not like a particular issue, it would be an assault on democratic principles if we deliberately disregard the clear expressed wishes of the people signified in what could be referred to as a quasi-referendum. “It is very convenient for people to sit in the comfort of their offices or to stay in townships like Abuja or Lagos and pontificate on what Nigerians want on a particular issue. I will recommend the results of the people’s public sessions to all the pundits, commentators and indeed all the federalists in our midst. The result is a sound and almost unanimous rejection of some of the ideas marketed in the media as a given on many issues. It shows that Nigerians have their own ideas on how they should be governed. It reflected the interpretation of people’s experiences at the local level. The people did not agree with the very loud views of their political leaders on many issues.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 07:58:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015