LAGOS — President Goodluck Jonathan, yesterday, gave reasons
why he refused to assent the constitution amendment bill forwarded to him by
the National Assembly even as some eminent lawyers backed his decision.
Raising about 13 grounds, President Jonathan in a letter
entitled: “Re: Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Fourth
Alteration Act, 2015,” questioned the power the National Assembly has to
arrogate to itself the power to pass any constitution amended without the
assent of the President.
He also picked holes in whittling down the power of the
President, allowing the National Judicial Council, NJC, to appoint the
Attorney-General of the Federation, separating the office of the
Accountant-General of the Federation from that of the Federal Government, and
limiting the period when expenditure can be authorized in default of
appropriation from six months to three months, among others.
Leading lawyers, who endorsed the president’s action were
Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), Mr Festus Keyamo and Mr
Kayode Ajulo.
Shocked by the President’s letter, the National Assembly
Conference Committee, comprising members of the Constitution Review Committee
in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, yesterday, began a two-day
retreat to look into the bill and the attendant consequence of the president’s
action. It will come out with a definite position on the issue next week.
Mark stops senators from debating President’s letter
The President’s letter was read on the floor of the Senate during
plenary yesterday by the Senate President, David Mark. But he stopped Senators
from debating the President’s refusal to assent to the amended bill, when some
senators, led by Senator Sadiq Yar’Adua, APC, Katsina Central, raised a Point
of Order, seeking permission to that effect.
The President, in the letter also lamented what he termed as
usurpation of powers of the executive by the legislature in the fourth
alteration of the constitution.
Shortly after the Senate President finished reading the
letter, Senator Abubakar Yar’Adua, APC, Katsina Central, raised a Point of
Order, seeking that the Senate be allowed to debate the President’s letter.
He said: “I think it is important for us to discuss that
letter and see whether there is need for us to consider the letter or not. I
think he has raised very serious fundamental issues, especially in terms of our
conscience as lawmakers and his own position as the chief executive officer of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That is why I am raising this point or order.”
But the Senate President refused his request, saying he was earlier
communicated by the Conference Committee on the Review of the 1999
Constitution, that it was holding a two-day retreat between yesterday and
today, to discuss and take position on the president’s letter.
Mark said: “Obviously, this letter is not like any other
normal letter. We can’t discuss the letter unless you have a copy of it. So,
the first reaction is for me to make copies available to everybody. And you go
and study it. And if you notice, there is an announcement also by the
Constitution Review Committee that they are going to meet. So, that will
straight away go to them. I agree with you that weighty issues have been
raised. It’s a peculiar case, so everybody will be involved.”
Where lawmakers erred —Jonathan
In the letter, Jonathan said that the two chambers of the
National Assembly failed to meet requirements for altering Section 9 (3) of the
1999 Constitution.
“Section 4 of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2015 seeks to alter
Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution by the insertion of a new subsection 3A,
which dispenses with the assent of the President in the process of constitution
amendment. However, this alteration can only be valid if the proposal was
supported by votes of not less than four-fifths majority of all the members of
each House of the National Assembly and approved by a resolution of the Houses
of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the states as provided by
Section 9 (3) of the 1999 Constitution.
“This is a fundamental requirement of the constitution and
in the absence of credible evidence that this requirement of the constitution
was met in the votes and proceedings of the National Assembly, it will be
unconstitutional for me to assent to this Bill,” he explained.
Besides, the President said there were a number of
provisions in the Act that altogether constitute flagrant violations of the
doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and
unjustifiably whittle down the executive powers of the federation vested in the
president by virtue of Section 5 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.
Jonathan observed that the power vested in the President to
withhold his assent to bills passed by the National Assembly was part of checks
and balances contained in the constitution.
He said Sub-section 5a of Section 58, which provides that
the bill becomes law after the expiration of 30 days in the event that the
president fails to signify the withholding of his assent, may be inappropriate.
“The provision appears not to have taken cognizance of the
afore-mentioned variables, the vagaries inherent in the legislative process and
the wisdom in requiring two-thirds majority to override the President’s veto.
No comments:
Post a Comment