Former President Goodluck Jonathan could not assent to constitution amendments because
of the collapse of talks between the Federal Government’s team and the National Assembly,
it was learnt yesterday.
The National Assembly could not abide
by the terms of the agreement by both
parties.
The Assembly was also unable to satisfy
the constitutional provisions which could
make the former President to sign the
amendments into law.
But with five working days left for the
7th National Assembly to wind up, the
principal officers of the Senate and the
House of Representatives are in a
dilemma on whether or not to override
Jonathan’s veto and pass the
amendments into law.
Jonathan ought to sign the amendments
into law on May 28, it was learnt.
Although the Federal Government and
the National Assembly presented the
terms of settlement or agreement to the
Supreme Court on Wednesday, the two
parties still disagreed sharply between
Wednesday night and Thursday
morning.
It was gathered that the National
Assembly could not “clean up” the
amendments and fulfill constitutional
requirements for Jonathan to assent to
the amendments.
The National Assembly reportedly
retained some of the contentious
amendments which forced the Federal
Government to go to the Supreme Court.
For Jonathan to sign the amendments
into law, the Federal Government
demanded that:
•the sections removed by the National
Assembly ought to be ratified by the
Committee of the Whole and not a few
members of the Assembly negotiating
with the government;
•there must be substantial compliance
with the threshold specified in Section
9(3) of the 1999 Constitution on
amendments;
•alteration to constitution cannot be
valid with mere voice votes, unless
supported by the votes of not less than
four-fifths majority of all members of
the National Assembly and two-thirds of
all the 36 State Houses of Assembly;
•the involvement of few members in the
clean-up was illegal because the process
was irregular and improper;
•the fresh amendments made available
to the former President should also be
presented to the 36 State Houses of
Assembly for scrutiny and endorsement;
•the review of the amendments through
mere agreement with the Federal
Government is subject to challenge in
court and could be declared illegal; and
•it was too late in the day for the ex-
president to sign the amendments
A highly-placed source, who spoke in
confidence with our correspondent, said:
“The Deputy President of the Senate,
Chief Ike Ekweremadu, tried
unsuccessfully to mobilize the
Constitution Review Committee to clean
up the amendments on Thursday.
“But by the time the ‘clean copy’ was
taken to the Presidential Villa on
Thursday for assent, the National
Assembly leaders were told that Jonathan
had given his handover note to President
Muhammadu Buhari and he could no
longer sign any bill into law.
“The Assembly leaders were also made to
realise that Jonathan did not include the
controversy over the amendments in the
handover note.”
Another source said: “The former
Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr.
Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN), was of
the view that since the report of the
National Conference had been sent to
the National Assembly, the 8th National
Assembly will do a better job to effect
the constitutional amendments.
“The development made National
Assembly leaders to leave the
Presidential Villa dejected and
disappointed.
“In fact, Ekweremadu openly complained
that Adoke deceived the National
Assembly into out-of-court settlement.”
A member of the legal team involved in
the botched agreement said: “Our deal
collapsed because the National Assembly
did not clean up the amendments on
time.
“The Assembly leaders retained some of
the amendments opposed by the Federal
Government. And time was not just on
the side of the National Assembly to
fulfill the requirements for constitution
amendment.”
National Assembly leaders are said to be
in a dilemma on the next step.
A Senator said: “It will be difficult for
the Senate and the House of
Representatives to now sit and claim
that they are overriding the veto of a
former President.
“There is no way President Muhammadu
Buhari can be liable for the veto
exercised by his predecessor. This is the
challenge at hand.
“The National Assembly can also not
present the amendments to Buhari to
sign into law. With five working days
left, we are really helpless.
“The worst aspect is that we cannot go
back to the Supreme Court because time
is no longer on our side.”
The former President rejected 10 of the
65 amendments to the 1999 Constitution
by the 7th National Assembly.
Some of the errors in the amendments
are:
•non-compliance with the threshold
specified in Section 9(3) of the 1999
Constitution on amendments;
•alteration to constitution cannot be
valid with mere voice votes unless
supported by the votes of not less than
four-fifths majority all members of
National Assembly and two-thirds of all
the 36 State Houses of Assembly;
•right to free basic education and
primary and maternal care services
imposed on private institutions;
•flagrant violation of the doctrine of
separation of powers;
•unjustified whittling down of the
Executive powers of the Federation
vested in the President by virtue of
Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution;
and
•30 days allowed for assent of the
President.
The others are:
•limiting expenditure in default of
appropriation from six months to three
months;
•creation of the Office of Accountant-
General of the Federation distinct from
the Accountant General of the Federal
Government;
•empowering National Economic Council
to appoint the Accountant-General of the
Federation instead of the President;
•allowing the National Judicial Council
(NJC) to appoint the Attorney-General of
the Federation rather than the President;
•unwittingly whittling down the
discretionary powers of the Attorney-
General; and
•Life pension scheme for principal
officers of the National Assembly.
No comments:
Post a Comment