Jonathan’s, National Assembly’s Last Battle

Arguably, President Goodluck Jonathan is a gentleman with conscience and passionate about Nigeria. But a school of thought believes that he is not the right person to govern the country going by the rugged political environment of Nigeria as the country is not for the lily liveried fathered for those with the thickness of the skin. This school of thought argues that Jonathan has the prerequisite to become president in the western world, but not in developing countries like Nigeria.

The rush with which the president congratulated his challenger in the just concluded presidential election, now president-elect, Gen. Buhari, of the All Progressives Congress, APC, even when the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, was yet to announce the final results of the election, was a pointer to the fact that Jonathan considered the interest and unity of the country over personal interest unlike his opponent whose supporters had allegedly started stock-pilling arms to unleash terror on innocent citizens in case their principal lost the election whether transparently or otherwise.

One of the institutions that had given massive support to the Jonathan administration is the National Assembly, especially the Senate, which has been accused of being an extension of the executive. Although Jonathan did not have that cordial relationship with the leadership of the House of Representatives, he drew most of his support from the Senate dominated by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, the ruling party at the federal level.

However, it seems that the robust relationship between the president and the Senate has gone sour with Jonathan’s refusal to append his assent to the Constitution amendment. But then, looking at the action of the president from the objective standpoint, it shows the real character in Jonathan.

After all, he is not going to lose anything by the alleged usurpation of the executive powers by the legislature as he will be leaving office in the next few weeks, but Jonathan appears not to consider the person occupying the seat of president, but the import of the amendment.

Unfortunately, his action is pitching him against the lawmakers who believe that Jonathan had the whole time, even during the public hearing that attracted all relevant stakeholders to make their input but he did not utilise the opportunity only to refuse to sign the amendment to the constitution at the last minute after passing through the whole rigorous process and even going to the 36 state assemblies.

The president’s refusal to sign the Constitution amendment was communicated to the Senate through a letter where he gave reasons he was not disposed to put his signature on it.In the letter, he alleged that the two chambers of the National Assembly failed to meet the requirement the alteration of 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 constitutional amendment,”Jonathan said.

“However, this alteration can only be valid if the proposal was supported by votes of not less than four-fifth majority of all the members of each House of the National Assembly and approved by a resolution of the House 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.”

Besides, the president alleged that there were a number of provisions in the Act that altogether constitute flagrant violations of the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and unjustifiably whittling down the executive powers of the federation vested in the president by virture 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. According to him, 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. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the failure to signify assent by the president within the prescribed period of 30 days should rather be treated as dissent, which would require two-third majority to override,” the president stated.

Jonathan also faulted the National Assembly over its alteration seeking to limit the period when expenditure can be authorized in default of appropriation from the six months provided in the Constitution to three months, saying:
“I am of the view that this provision has the potential of occasioning financial hardships and unintended shutdown of government business particularly where for unforeseen reason reasons and other exigencies in the polity, the National Assembly is unable to pass the Appropriation Act timeously.

“Our recent experiences with the process of passing the Appropriation Act do not justify the reduction of six-month time limit in the constitution.” The president faulted Section 84A that created the new Office of Accountant General of the Federation distinct from the Accountant General of the Federal Government, saying it did not address the funding requirements for the establishment of the office.

“It is necessary to clarify for instance, who staffs and funds the office of the Accountant General of the Federation and from whose budget he will be paid since he serves the three tiers of government, “he stressed.
He also said it was important to state who will exercise oversight powers over the office, noting that the National Economic Council, which was mainly an advisory body, was now charged with the responsibility of recommending those to be appointed to the office of the Accountant General.

Jonathan picked holes in the National Assembly’s position separating the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General from the Commissioner for Justice in the states and also the provision for independence of the Office of Attorney General by guaranteeing tenure and funding.

He said as desirable as the alteration was, there were some provisions that violate the doctrine of separation of powers and also negate what he called “the age-long independence and absolute discretion that the office has enjoyed for centuries since its creation in the middle ages”. He said the first setback was that the alteration was silent on who was the Chief Law Officer of the Federation. “This is a serious lacuna, which may create implementation challenges, “he reasoned.

The Senate President, David Mark, had turned down attempts made by some senators, especially Senator Sadiq Yar’Adua, from Katsina State, through a Point of Order, to debate Mr. President’s letter. Instead, he announced that the Joint Constitution Amendment Review Committee, headed by the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, would be meeting to study the president’s letter and then the Senate to take a position on it.

But some members of the red chamber are of the view that Jonathan’s refusal to put down his assent on the Constitution amendment was a slight on them and should be ignored. Specifically, Yar’Adua, who raised the Point of Order for the Senate to debate the letter, said that the National Assembly, will go ahead to override the president’s assent.

He said Jonathan had the time to raise the objections before the amendment bill was passed by the National Assembly and even the state Houses of Assembly but he refused to make any input, adding that it was after the legislature had taken pains to ensure that the exercise was a success that the president was raising points.Also a principal officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there were two options before the National Assembly on the matter.

The principal officer said the National Assembly either accepts the position of the president or go ahead to override it.Also contributing, Senator Ita Enang, from Akwa Ibom State, said the president should have raised the issues during the public hearings held by the National Assembly and not wait until after it was approved by the parliament.

However, the Senate Leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, SAN, when contacted for comments on the matter, said both houses were meeting to study the letter and that it was after that decision could be taken. But during the sitting on Thursday, the Senate mandated its president, Mark, to immediately write Jonathan, asking for the return of the original copy of the amended bill to the National Assembly.

Ekweremadu said Jonathan failed to accompany his letter vetoeing the bill with the original copy of the bill sent to him for assent by the National Assembly. He also informed the Senate that the two-day retreat which the Joint Constitution Amendment Review Committee, headed by him, had convened to discuss the president’s letter could not make much progress due to the absence of the original copy of the bill.

He said the committee temporarily suspended the retreat until it was in possession of the original copy of the amended bill,adding that the work of the committee would be guided by the contents of the bill. The Deputy Senate President said, “In the letter from Mr President,he raised a number of objections with respect to the fourth alteration of our Constitution. That letter was appropriately referred to the Senate Committee on Constitutional Review.

“We slated to have two-day retreat to consider the letter and advise the Senate appropriately. In the course of our sitting yesterday, we noticed that second to the last paragraph of that letter, the President said he was returning the bill with the letter. “Unfortunately, the bill was not returned with the letter and we could not proceed because we would like to see the returned bill.

“The committee has asked me to raise this point, to request the President of the Senate, to ask the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to send back the original copy of the bill as sent to him especially the signature page to enable us to proceed with our work. “Especially since he had indicated in his own letter that the letter was accompanied by the bill, so we would like to have the bill in its original form, especially the signature page.”

Responding, the Senate President said: “There is a bit of urgency of this, so in writing, we should indicate that we should have it at the earliest possible time. We cannot put a time frame like within two days or three days, that would not be correct. The motion, as it is, it’s a correct motion without the time frame.”

But there are indications that contrary to the view expressed by some senators that the National Assembly would override the president’s veto,there is little or nothing the legislators can do to make the bill become law.
This is because there is no legal framework for the legislature to solely carry out an amendment to the Constitution without the president’s assent.

The 1999 Constitution, which empowers only the president to assent or veto any bill passed and sent to him by the National Assembly, does not give the legislature the power to override the president’s veto on the amendment of the Constitution. The National Assembly would only have derived such power to override the president if the amended bill had received Jonathan’s assent.(Vanguard)