*the confab continues By Bisi Lawrence Among the recommendations of the recent National Conference of 492 delegates are some proposals that need to be seriously reviewed. One of them is the removal of the immunity clause from the Constitution. As a layman, I understand that the provision is to protect the people in positions of high responsibility from being molested by frivolous court cases which may distract them from responding adequately to the demands of their duty. Such distractions may take on the scarlet hue of blackmail, or scandal, or even the total destruction of a good reputation. They could lead to severe disruption in the course of a good administration and might seriously affect other lives than those who are directly targeted because of the connections of several people to high places. It was acceptable at the inception of the Constitution as a provision of merit because many people recognised the fact that it was a common aspect of the Constitutions of other nations. The highly-placed officials concerned are usually the Heads of State or Government and their deputies. And the period of their immunity lapses the moment they are out of office. In Nigeria, this refers to the President and Vice-President, or State Governor and his Deputy. Our political history has not disproved the effort to protect these high official personages behind this provision. Rather, it has provided an environment of confidence and pre-eminence within which they have been able to thrive. The outcry against the protection has been the supposition that it equally affords the officials a solid wall behind which they are free to involve themselves in various inappropriate actions, particularly, the looting of the treasury—leave alone nepotism and other shades of unfair maneuvering and dishonest deals. But out recent past disproves this. State Governors have been called to question for their perceived or evident malfeasance when their official terms of office are over. Although none has been convicted so far, it has not been due to the viability of the law, but rather to its due enforcement. The few who were arraigned escaped the full length of the lash through manipulations that did not remove from the power of deterrence that was implicit against any attempt to inflict any burden of embarrassment of incapacity on the officials while they were in office. And still relying on the benefit of recent history, one would feel relieved that the provision of immunity had been in place with the defection of the State Governors who routinely dumped their former parties with impunity, though one or two of them still got caught in the web of impeachment, just imagine the extent of the disruption, if there had been room for further reprisal reaction by way of direct litigation! What is desired, therefore, is not the removal of a protective organ for smooth administration, but the machinery for making our system of justice more equitable. The present situation would have been a case of chaotic development if governors, who could obtain injunctions against being prosecuted or arraigned for obvious misadventures, had been confronted with litigation while they were in office and in power. They would have naturally reacted by launching their defence which could involve scurrilous witch-hunting. What is desirable is a judiciary system that is structured to function effectively in the delivery of justice, over and above open or subtle abuse of influence and manipulation. The removal of the immunity clause should not be entertained any further. It offers little advantage to the keeping of seating high office-holders in line, and even less protection for the cause of sanity in executive administration. On the other hand, the return of the “independent candidate”, as also recommended by the Conference, adds more power to the sinew of free choice. It blocks out any suggestion of a straightjacket membership of any political party, because it would have no meaning if it was saddled with any imposition of a continued tenure in any political organisation. One could come and go, or stay put as one pleases. And so the near-cultic nature of membership in a party would be displaced by such freedom. It would not be new except to the youthful cadre of citizenship within the country. There were many cases of politicians who ventured into the elective process under their own steam, entirely innocent of the membership of a political party. And won their election! There were two cases in Ondo, one not the Federal legislature and the other into a Regional House. Honourable Babalola won the election into the House of Representatives, purely on his own merit, but then declared for the National Council of Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC). Honourable Oduola Oshuntokun won a seat in the Western House of Assembly unattached to any party, but thereafter joined the Action Group. And both of them were subsequently appointed as Minister to boot. The case of Nwakpa, of Port Harcourt fame, was even more expressive. He had been a member of the NCNC Port and was an official of the party. But come election time, he was denied the party’s nomination which went to another. He thereupon resigned from the party and sought election as an Independent Candidate — and won, defeating the party’s nominee. He then later rejoined the NCNC which had to form a coalition with another party in a parliamentary system of government. And he was appointed a minister. The list of candidates was replete with the independent seekers of office outside the aegis of a political party in the First Republic, when there was so much freedom in the air. Politicians were more respected by the party officials and a political party chairman would never have dared to elevate himself to the position of a tin-god as someone recently attempted to do, asking State Governors to kowtow to him, or else undergo some stringent discipline. Ironically, there was little carpet-crossing. And there would really be less eagerness to change from one party to another with the introduction anew of independent candidature as it is today, if politicians were free to contest for election without the constraint of belonging to a party. Nuhu Ribadu would have no need for all his criss-crossing efforts if he knew he could contest for the Adamawa gubernatorial prize by simply presenting himself. Tom Ikimi would need not look over the wall to the other side, as he is probably doing now, since he is a seasoned political warrior and a credit to himself. Neither would several others whose unwilling confinement to a particular party, or stressful severance to another from their former one, gives rise now to so much rancour within the political scene. The National Confab scored a high mark in this area. However, the tally of 54 states appears a bit on the high side. Those who are set to enjoy the glamour of belonging to a new state are, of course, more than the section of the populace who are disposed to be realistic about the issue of State creation. They will argue that it is in favour of the over-all development of the nation, although it is clear that mini-states that simply do not possess the potential for maintaining a single, separate administrative unit are adversaries to the progress of a federation. It will all lead to the lengthening of the cue for the monthly allocation in Abuja, which is already the blight to the hopes of a bright future for the industrialisation that can only come with the exploitation of our native resources spread, as they are, across ethnic boundaries. And the number of 54 roughly bespeaks those areas. It is much too much. There are those who believe that the Confab has achieved enough to “shame its critics”. All it has achieved so far is to run a fair course to the end. While one would agree that, given all the obstacles perceived at the beginning, to bring it to an end without as much as a broken head is a commendable feat, it might not all the same be stretched to the tone of an outstanding success. The submissions will still have to endure some scrutiny, after which comes the matter of implementation. We shall surely have more to contribute to that and other aspects. The Conference has ended, but its issues continue. Time out.
Posted on: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 04:58:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015