Reps fault Jonathan on constitution amendment

The House of Representatives, yesterday, insisted that President Goodluck Jonathan was being economical with the truth when he maintained that members flouted constitutional requirement in the process of amending the constitution.

This was happening as senators urged the court to speedily dispense with the Federal Government’s litigation before the lifetime of the 7th Senate ends, so that the issues on the constitutional amendment could be resolved.

The position of the House of Representatives was, however, made known by Minority Whip of the House, Samson Osagie (APC, Edo) yesterday while explaining some aspects of the constitution review contested by the president.

President Jonathan had rejected the amendment of the constitution via a letter to parliament read on the floor of the House on April 13, 2015, and further went ahead to sue the House to court.

On Clause 4 (alteration of Section 9), Osagie said: “the National Assembly met the requirement of the said Section 9 (3) for four-fifths votes of members of each House.

“A reference to the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives for Wednesday 24, July 2013, No. 15 at page 117 shows that the alteration of Section 9, attendance of members as registered was 338. Ayes votes were 317, Nays votes were 6; those that abstained were 15, totalling 338. The Senate also voted accordingly.”

Clause 4 seeks to alter Section 9 of the constitution regarding the assent of the president in the process of constitution amendment.

Further on the mandate given to the president to assent to bills sent to him within 30 days, the lower chamber said it is not strange. “The only new thing is that the National Assembly introduced an amendment to the effect that if the President fails to assent to the bill or indicate his withholding of assent, the bill shall become law after the 30 days interval.

Another clause which the president contested is Clause 12, where new sections 45A and 45B were inserted seeking to guarantee right to free education.

On this portion, the House explained that it was silent on some salient points because the constitution is self explanatory on “institutions and organs against whom, constitutionally guaranteed rights are usually sought to be obtained from are known by the citizenry.”

“Besides, in the event of a dispute on this, the interpretative role of the courts comes into play,” the lawmaker noted.

On the amendment seeking to reduce the period when expenditure can be authorised in default of appropriation from 6 months to 3 months, Osagie, who also co-chairman of the ad-hoc committee on the constitution review, said: “The constitution envisages that the president shall communicate his withholding of assent before the National Assembly could invoke the powers to override the veto, or sustain it.”

“But where this is not communicated, the National Assembly becomes hamstrung. Thirty days is certainly long enough for the President to do his solemn constitutional duty,” the House observed.

Turning to the reservation of the President on the seperation of the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice, the lower chamber argued that the seperation “is to guarantee the impartiality of the Attorney-General over public prosecutions while the minister of justice serves as Chief Legal Adviser to government.

The senators, while reacting to the suit filed against the National Assembly at the Supreme Court on Wednesday by the Federal Government over the lawmakers’ alleged breach of due process and constitutionality on some provisions of the 1999 Constitution, said it was the beauty of democracy, urging that the case should be dispensed with speedily by the judiciary.

The senators, who spoke to newsmen in Abuja after yesterday’s plenary, expressed the hope that the case will be given accelerated hearing before the end of the Seventh National Assembly.
The tenure of the Seventh Assembly will end on the first week of June, just as induction courses for members of the Eighth National Assembly is expected to commence next week.

According to the lawmakers, it is within the constitutional right of any individual, group or government to approach the court for legal redress.

Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Business, Ita Enang (APC, Akwa Ibom North East), said it was a welcome development in Presidential democracy but just the timing that is somewhat worrisome.

He, however, said if the verdict of the apex court is taken before the lifetime of the current Seventh Assembly, the National Assembly can right the wrong where the need arises.

He said: “It is only the timing and the possibility of it being adjudicated and judgment delivered before the exit of present assembly; because if the judgment is taken and delivered after the dissolution of this assembly, everything will be started afresh.

“If they take decision and deliver within the life of this assembly, if there is anything we can do, we can do it in accordance with that judgment because whatever the Supreme Court decides, we are bound. If they decide against us, we are bound, if they decide in our favour, the President is bound and it is something that we should make sure decision is taken now.”

Also, Umar Dahiru (PDP, Sokoto South) submitted that there is nothing wrong for the Federal Government to approach the court for legal interpretation.

He explained that this is one of the ingredients of the beauty of democracy.

The senator said whatever verdict given by the apex court will be complied with and correction effected where the need arises.

According to him, both arms of government are working for the common good of the common man.

“There is nothing wrong with that; the implication is that if the Executive feels that something is wrong, then, they can go to court. The implication is that the constitution is very clear, if you do not agree with anything; either the National Assembly or the Federal Government can take either one to court. And in case the Supreme Court says otherwise, we have to comply.

“It is checks and balances; that is the beauty of this democracy. If you go beyond your limit and if you think you are right, we go for interpretation. If the President feels the procedure is technically wrong, then he can seek interpretation which he wants now.

“If the court says they are right then there is nothing we can do, otherwise we come for amendments. We are ready to take any correction,” he stated.

However, a professor of law at Bayero University Kano, Auwalu Yadudu, faulted the Federal Government’s action, saying it should have allowed the National Assembly to override it before seeking legal redress.

The university don, who was a guest lecturer at a seminar on the Fourth Alteration Act (2015), organised by the National Institute for Legislative Studies, said it was unfortunate that the Federal Government vetoed the bill.

“With this development, this Bill is dead on arrival. So far, public credibility has been undermined and the credibility of the legislative process has been undermined and I think it will be difficult to redeem.

“It is unfortunate that this is going this way, because of the resources spent on the Bill. I am not saying that the National Assembly is not right on all counts.

“The government of the federation has decided to prematurely seek for court interpretation. You cannot challenge it until it becomes a law. If the President disagrees with the National Assembly and he has made his disagreement known, he should allow them to do whatever they feel within their power. If it has been overridden, then, he can go ahead to court,” he explained. [Newswatch]