Crisis Hit National Confab Cmmittee As Asemota Wants To Submit Minority Report

        

 

 

FRESH details have emerged on why a member of the presidential committee on national conference, Chief Solomon Asemota, wrote a minority report to President Goodluck Jonathan, ahead the presentation of a final report by the leadership of the committee.

 

Some documents indicated that Asemota predicated his action on three major grounds in separate letters to President Jonathan and Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator Pius Anyim between December 4 and 6.

 

The reasons, according to him, included the need to uphold noble ideals that majority of Nigerians identified as germane for the country to rediscover itself; avoid the conference from being hijacked by those he called agents of godfathers and to afford the president a veritable alternative viewpoint.

 

This came as the chairman of the committee, Dr Femi Okurounmu, said the report will be submitted to the presidency next week Wednesday.

 

Okurounmu, in a telephone conversation, said the report would have been presented on Tuesday, but for the non-availability of the president.

 

In the minority report, dated December 6, 2013, Asemota, who replaced another legal luminary, Professor Ben Nwabueze, in the committee, alleged that the leadership of the committee failed to entertain some of his viewpoints during its assignment.

 

Nwabueze is the chairman of The Patriots, a group that comprises eminent persons, cutting across professional backgrounds from different parts of the country, while Asemota leads the Ethnic Nationalities Movement (ENM), apart from being a member of The Patriots.

 

He also sent separate letters to the secretary of the confab committee, Dr Akilu Sani-Indabawa and Nwabueze, detailing some political intrigues that reportedly characterised the activities of the committee during its assignment.

 

It was discovered that another key reason advanced by Asemota for writing the minority report was because of his conviction that the president was “entitled to the best advice, which the committee individually and collectively can offer.”

 

Part of Asemota’s letter to Jonathan, dated December 6 read: “I forward herewith my minority report, which was rejected by the committee and, therefore, is not intended to be included in the report to be submitted to you.

 

“I am not in any doubt that the committee’s jurisdiction does not extend to the rejection of a minority report and the issue would not have arisen if the chairman was willing to take the opinion of a senior lawyer in the committee into consideration.”

 

In a separate letter to the leader of The Patriots, Asemota said he could not compromise on the ideals of millions of Nigerians, members of The Patriots and ENM behind the more than two decades of struggle for a better Nigeria.

 

He claimed that the committee leadership dropped the draft bill he raised during the work.

 

According to the legal luminary, when the list of experts was being compiled, his nominee, Professor Onigu Otite, a professor of Sociology at the University of Ibadan, was left out until he (Asemota) volunteered to bear the cost, but Otite was still frustrated by the committee.

 

He added that “I had to take this decision for a number of reasons, including the following: Experts were invited from outside, including two SANs and my entire attempt to ask members of the committee to listen to my viewpoints failed. The impression I got was that the opinion of members are irrelevant if they are different from those of the experts.

 

“All attempts to get members to look at my draft bill failed and the chairman never raised it. I was informed that because I handed the draft bill as my personal contribution, the committee refused to table it for discussion.

 

“On Thursday, November 28, 2013 a member, Professor Funke Adeboye, informed the committee that she had changed her position with respect to representation at the conference. She wanted to support the view that delegates should be elected from the senatorial districts but was shouted down by some members and disallowed from doing so.

 

“In my case, I also informed the committee that I have changed my position from representation on zonal basis in support of representation from the senatorial districts but was ignored.

 

“As a result of these developments, I came to the conclusion that some of us were invited to promote viewpoints that are contrary to my conscience and learning. For these reasons, I have written a minority report, notwithstanding the plea of the chairman that I should not do so.”

 

In the minority report, Asemota agreed with the recommendations of the expected majority report of the committee on some terms of reference of the Dr Okurounmu-led committee, including to consult with all relevant stakeholders, with a view to drawing up a feasible agenda for the conference.

 

But the legal luminary disagreed with the report expected to be submitted next week to the president on those areas he considered critical to the overall success of the conference, as well as the unity, stability and progress of the country.

 

The areas included the legal framework for the conference and legal procedures and options for integrating decisions and outcome of the conference into the constitution and laws of the nation, as well as structure and modalities for the conference and representation of the various interest groups.

 

Specifically, the main issues of disagreement centred on the unity of the country, referendum and how to guarantee fair representation at the conference.

 

Asemota justified his opposition on the recommendations he claimed to be contained in the pending majority report thus: “The use of referendum: It has been suggested to the advisory committee by experts that except for situations as may arise in sections 8(1b) and 8(3b) of the 1999 Constitution, referendum defined ‘as action taken when people in order to make a decision about a particular subject rather than voting for a person,’ cannot be used without further amendment to the constitution.

 

“I find it difficult to accept this viewpoint; rather, it is my view that referendum can be used without amending the constitution as I explain below:

 

“Sovereignty, I submit, belongs to the people under Section 14 (2) of the constitution and it will be wrong to suggest that the people’s decisions cannot be sought in a referendum, except permitted under the constitution. This suggests that sovereignty belongs to the constitution and not the people.

 

“On whether in the draft bill, it should be stated that decisions of the conference shall be subjected to referendum, some members have suggested that the question of referendum should be left for the conference to decide and thus, the law should be silent on it. I find it difficult to align myself with this view, because several meanings could be read as to why this aspect was omitted and this will not be helpful to the conference.

 

“One is opposed to universal adult suffrage proposed by the majority report, notwithstanding the fact that the proposed conference is intended to produce a democratic constitution. The fact remains that the committee did not articulate who should nominate the delegates and with the challenges which INEC currently has, it would be unsafe to saddle that body with a nebulous function of electing members to the national conference.

 

“The question of referendum is easy in that Nigerians, as whole, as registered voters, would be called upon to answer a Yes or No question in order to approve a new constitution.  In any case, if the National Assembly refuses to pass the bill into law, or decides to tinker with the conclusion of the committee, then it behoves the peoples of Nigeria to demand that they must have the final say.

 

“Where there are, for example, more than 15 ethnic nationalities in a state, it is suggested that representatives of the more than 15 ethnic nationalities such as Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Cross River, Kaduna, Kebbi, Nasarawa, Niger, Plateau and Taraba, would meet to select the maximum approved for the senatorial district and those selected will have the additional duty to protect the interest of those who could not make it to the conference.

 

“The president may be asked to consider these nationalities while considering his nominations to the conference specially because while some ethnic nationalities will have as many as 45 members in the conference, some 42 other ethnic nationalities will not be represented in some of the states mentioned in this paragraph.  The more logical thing to do is to reduce the number of the big three to accommodate some of these nationalities.

 

“Ethnicity has defied various negative acts designed to eliminate it, such as Indirect Rule (British bluff), tripod mentality i.e. Nigeria regarded as being built on three nationalities, Hausa/Fulani, lbo and Yoruba and the act of promoting violence among ethnic nationalities such as the case of Ijaws and Itsekiris...

 

“I recommend selection because in most nationalities of Nigeria, selection processes are conducted to choose rulers and representatives and in any case, elections in present day Nigeria are fraught with corruption. Members of the same family know themselves, so too are members of the larger family (ethnic nationalities). Selection by the listed ethnic organisations in the Draft Bill is preferred. As a result the best of ethnic nationalities, representatives are most likely to emerge.

 

“Originally, I had demanded that all ethnic nationalities must be represented. Unfortunately, for reasons of colonialism and neo-colonialism, Indirect Rule principles of assimilation and the effects of the tripod mentality, the inclusion of ethnicity as part of the requirements for enumeration was dropped in the last National Census in 2006.

 

“For the unity of Nigeria and the fact that human beings are more important than geographical locations, in addition to the fact that our constitution provides for indigenes and non indigenes, one has agreed on senatorial districts as the basis for the selection of delegates. 

 

“Ethnic nationalities at the senatorial district levels should take into consideration, ethnic diversity, professions, gender, youth and the physical challenged spread across the zones or region by way of consultations. One believes that this is one of the processes of inclusion in the politics of the nation, as opposed to assimilation and exclusion. It is important that in the next census, ethnicity and religion should be included.

 

“The suggestion that national conference is simply part of the process of consultations to aid the presidency and the National Assembly in the discharge of their functions, with respect to the amendment of the constitution, is untenable. The proposed national conference has a specific purpose, namely: to discuss and agree on the terms and conditions to be embodied in a new constitution as the basis on which the diverse ethnic nationalities and peoples in Nigeria can live together in peace, security, progress, and unity as one country under a common central government.

 

“This is the primal purpose of the proposed national conference, the crux or pivot of its agenda, and to which everything else is ancillary.

 

“The long title of the proposed Bill provides a clear enough description of the character of the conference as proposed.

 

“This is reaffirmed by a declaration in a preamble that the proposed conference is that of the nationalities and ethnic groups comprised in this nation so as to give them the opportunity to exercise their inherent right to determine democratically for themselves, the constitution by which they wish to be governed in one united Nigeria The preamble further declares that the need for the conference arises from the fact that the constitution under which the country is governed came into existence as a result of a decree enacted by the Federal Military Government.

 

“The bill spells out the machinery and process for the selection or election of delegates, quorum at the conference, conduct of proceedings, method of taking decisions, oath by delegates, appointment of conference secretary and other support staff, laying before the National Assembly the draft constitution passed by the conference, publication and presentation of the draft to the public, and the process for holding a referendum for the approval of the constitution by the entire mass of the people, which is to bestow legally binding force upon it.

 

“A referendum of the people to approve the constitution is the most fundamental aspect of the whole process. It is no doubt a novel process in the country but that is what is legitimately due to the Nigerian people - an opportunity, for the first time since the creation of the Nigerian state in 1914, to adopt, through referendum, a constitution by and for themselves, in exercise of the constituent power inherent in them as a sovereign people, not just to make an input in the amendment of an imposed constitution.

 

“Given an existing legal order, constituted by a constitution, the principle of the Rule of Law, by a Legislative Assembly, a presidency, a judiciary and other instrumentalities of government, such as we have in Nigeria, a national conference to adopt a peoples constitution, and a referendum to approve the constitution so adopted, must be authorised by a law enacted by the National Assembly and assented to by the president, in the terms set out in the attached Bill.

 

“There is no way a referendum can be held in the country under the existing legal order without an enabling law prescribing how it is to be conducted, its outcome and the force of the result in law. People cannot just troop out to vote in a referendum. Anything else outside the legal framework set out in my draft Bill can only take place by way of a revolution, such as happened in the eight African countries where the conference took place outside the pre-existing legal order.

 

“The committee’s decision to the effect that a constitution adopted at the national conference shall not be subject to any change or amendment by the National Assembly or the Presidency (Section 21(1)), and that the constitution, so adopted, shall become law and be binding on all persons and authorities immediately it is approved at a referendum (Section 22(8)), do not make the conference a sovereign body, in the strict sense of the term, inasmuch as the finality of its decisions and legally binding force of the approval of its decisions by the referendum derive from a law enacted by the sovereign legislative authorities under the country’s existing legal order.

 

“But refusal by the National Assembly or the Presidency to enact into law, the provisions in Sections 21(1) and 22(8) of the bill, or to abide by them after their enactment into law, will provide an opportunity to test the ability of the Nigerian people, in spite of the impediments, to assert and demonstrate their power and supremacy as the repository of the country’s sovereignty and the source of the sovereign power exercised by the legislative and executive organs of government.

 

“Nigerian unity is not only negotiable, but must, indeed, be re-negotiated for it to stand the test of time... Many Nigerians love their country, but if forced, they would choose their liberty/freedom.”