Constitution Review: Senate Gives Life To Local Governments – By Emmanuel Aziken

The Supreme Court decision on December 16, 2016 voiding the sack, on October 29, 2010, of the 16 local government councils in Ekiti State was unarguably the best breather for democracy at the grassroots. The decision with its implication that governors and State Houses of Assembly cannot sack local governments has been largely applauded by democracy enthusiasts, who welcomed it in the face of the unrelenting assault on that tier by governors and state legislators.
Just as former Governor Kayode Fayemi did in dismissing the 16 elected councils, many governors, sometimes in cahoots with Houses of Assembly, have endangered democracy at the third tier with their cavalier dismissal of elected councils at that level. The actions of the governors and the state legislators is despite constitutional provisions as stipulated in Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution spelling that democracy should be firmly exercised at the local government level.
The provision states thus: The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.
However, the ambiguity in that stipulation as to the tenure of the local governments had been exploited by the governors and state legislative houses to mock the practise of democracy at the third tier. It was thus welcoming that even before the Supreme Court decision, that the Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution had initiated moves to address the issue.
The Senator Ike Ekweremadu led committee had in its status report tabled just before the legislators proceeded on the yuletide break unfolded measures to address the issue through proposals to amend the constitution. Constitutional guarantee The move by the Senate aims to amend the constitution to give constitutional guarantee to the practise of democracy at the third tier.
The move by the Senate Committee follows the mandate given it to consider aspects of the Fourth Alteration Bill that had received popular approval from stakeholders. The Ekweremadu Committee in reprocessing Section 7, had strengthened it with the following proposal; A uniform three-year tenure for elected local government council officials; That Local Governments without a democratically elected council shall not be entitled to any revenue from the Federation Account. “These amendments amongst others we believe will ensure effective service delivery and insulate local governments from undue and counter-productive interferences from state governments,” the committee chairman had deposed.
It is remarkable that besides Senator Ekweremadu, Speaker Yakubu Dogara has also been passionate on the fragility of democracy at the local government level and was among those to have welcomed last December’s Supreme Court decision on the Ekiti local government councils.
Whether the House Ad-Hoc Committee on Constitution Review would follow the lead of the Ekweremadu Committee with the passion shown by Speaker Dogara is yet to be ascertained. Meanwhile, other key constitutional alterations being proposed by the committee include a proposal to alter Section 162 to provide for a Distributable Pool Account that would, among others, “provide for national savings of 50 percent of oil revenues above the bench mark for a particular year and 10 per cent of any non-oil revenue paid into the Federation Account.
Also towards strengthening the hand of the local governments, the committee proposed to “abrogate the State Joint Local Government Account and paying monies due to Local Government Councils directly into their respective accounts.” Financial autonomy Perhaps to curtail the late presentations of budget to the legislature, the committee also proposed to alter Sections 82 and 122 of the Constitution to reduce the period within which the President or a Governor may authorize the withdrawal of monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the absence of an Appropriation Act from six months to three months.
The committee also proposed the amendment of Section 121 of the constitution to give financial autonomy to the State Houses of Assembly. The proposal which was presented in the Third Alteration Bill was rejected by some state Houses of Assembly leading to the failure to form the two-third majority needed to push the amendment through. The committee proposed to push through the creation of a mayor for the Federal Capital Territory to replace the minister as presently appointed by the president.
Another fundamental proposal is to amend Sections 147 and 192 to ensure that the President and Governors designate and assign portfolios to persons nominated as ministers or commissioners respectively prior to confirmation by the Senate or State House of Assembly.
Also, the amendment would compel the president and governors to forward their cabinet picks within 60 days of inauguration and ensure that 35% of the nominees are women. It is also being proposed that the president be constitutionally compelled to deliver a State of the Nation Address annually to a joint sitting of the National Assembly.
The proposals also address one of the most controversial clauses of the constitution as seen in Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution which gives the president the right to make laws as contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the same constitution which stipulates that the lawmaking powers shall be solely exercised by the National Assembly. The proposal by the Senate Committee is to completely remove that provision from the constitution.

Immunity clause is no go area in constitution review – Reps

The House of Representatives’ Special Ad-hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution has said it would not recommend the removal of the immunity clause that shield the president and state governors from prosecution while in office.

The Chairman of the committee, Yusuff Lasun, at a press conference Saturday night in Abeokuta said his committee considered the provision “a no go area”.

?Mr. Lasun, who is also the Deputy Speaker of the House, was in the Ogun State capital for a three-day retreat of the committee, entitled “The Imperatives of Constitution Review/Amendment in Nation Building.”

He said there was nothing wrong with the immunity clause as it does not shield the beneficiaries from prosecution after they leave office but only protects them from likely distractions of civil litigation.

Mr. Lasun said to remove the clause as being canvassed by some Nigerians could result in distracting the president and governors from proper administration of the country and states.

“There is nothing wrong in the immunity that is already in the Constitution because it doesn’t say that the person cannot be prosecuted after he has left the office,” he said.

“The maximum (number of) years a governor stays in office is eight years and whatever offence that he might have committed while in office will still be fresh.

“What people must do is to bring out such offences when the governor has left office. So it is about institutions and individuals being lazy, nothing is shielding anybody from being prosecuted after leaving office,” Mr. Lasun said.

He said the committee already looked at the report of the 2014 National Conference and picked recommendations it considered relevant to the current efforts at amending the constitution.

The deputy speaker disclosed that the novel thing about the ongoing amendments, which he referred to as “the fifth alteration,” is that it would not be presented to President Muhammadu Buhari as a single bill for his assent as was the case with the fourth amendment by the 7th National Assembly during the last administration, “where both the bad and good aspects of the amendments were rejected by the then President because all came in one single package”.

Mr. Lasun said presenting amendments as separate single bills would “save time, remove all forms of technicalities and help the President to know what to give assent or not, instead of the previous pattern of throwing away both the baby and the bath water”.

He listed 14 resolutions as basis for the amendment of the constitution, including areas already reviewed by the 7th Assembly.

Some of these included separation of the offices of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice; financial and administrative autonomy for local government councils; and establishment of the office of the Accountant-General of the Federal Government.

Others are authorisation of expenditure, devolution of power/legislative lists, electoral matters, new states and boundary adjustment, among others.

Mr. Lasun lamented that state governors had rendered local governments redundant by starving them of funds meant for development.

“All over the world, the centre of development has been found to be at the grassroots because we are talking about people who form small components of the society, from the family to the compound, to the villages down to the towns.

“We have discovered that over time local governments are no longer existing, it is not even a question of whether elections are conducted or not, but we have considered that states will not be able to access local government money any longer if there are no elected officials at the local governments.

“That is part of the alteration that we are going to do. If you don’t have any elected local government officials, we will make sure that you don’t get the money of such local government.”

Mr. Lasun said he was confident that the amendment bills would be ready for the President’s assent before the end of his second year in office.