As the Senate yesterday received President Goodluck Jonathan’s letter vetoing the National Assembly’s amendment of the1999 Constitution for encroaching on the President’s powers, the body language of the lawmakers was very clear: That they will override his action.
Attempts by some Senators to ensure immediate deliberation on the President’s letter was foiled by Senate President David Mark, who referred it to the Committee on Amendment of the Constitution headed by Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu.
The committee was mandated to commence a retreat to look into the President’s letter and take a decision on it.
As soon as Mark was done with the reading of the letter, Senator Saddiq Yar’Adua raised a point of Order 49 calling on the Senate to discuss the content of the letter because of its seriousness.
Mark, who admitted that it was a serious issue, however, directed that photocopies of the document be made available to all Senators to study before discussing on it.
President Jonathan had in the letter said he would not assent to the amendments because they did not satisfy the requirements of Section 9(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
He queried the decision of the National Assembly to whittle down some Executive powers of the President.
Jonathan also faulted some amendments which give Executive powers and duties to the Legislature and the Judiciary.
He listed 12 errors in the amendments which will not allow him assent it. According to him, there was 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 of 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;
• 30 days allowed for assent of the President; and
• Limiting expenditure in default of appropriation from six months to three months.
The others are: 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 now appoint the Attorney-General of the Federation rather than the President;
• Unwittingly whittling down the discretionary powers of the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The President said he has no choice than to veto the amendments to the constitution as forwarded to him by the National Assembly.
He said: “In view of the foregoing and absence of credible evidence that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act 2015 satisfied the strict requirements of Section 9(3) of the 1999 Constitution, it will be unconstitutional for me to assent to it.
“I therefore withhold my assent and accordingly remit Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act 2015 to the Senate /House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The letter reads: “May I draw Your Excellency’s esteemed attention to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act, 2015 that has been passed by the National Assembly and transmitted to me for assent.
“I have accordingly examined the substance of the provisions and the procedure adopted by the National Assembly to pass the Act and wish to observe as follows:
“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.
“However, this alteration can only be valid if the proposal was supported by the votes of not less than four-fifths 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 was met in the Votes of Proceedings of the National Assembly, it will be unconstitutional for me to assent to this Bill.
“In light of the above, I am of the respectful view that I should withhold assent until it can be shown that the National Assembly has complied with the threshold specified in Section 9 (3) of the 1999 Constitution.
“However, assuming without conceding that the necessary thresholds were met by the National Assembly, there are a number of provisions in the Act that altogether constitute flagrant violation of the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and an unjustified whittling down of the executive powers of the federation vested in the President by virtue of Section 5(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
The said Section 45A of the Fourth Alteration Act 2015, which guarantees the right to free basic education is too open ended and should have been restricted to government schools.
He continued: “This is because, a right unless qualified or restricted must be observed by all. It follows therefore that the right to free basic education under this provision if taken to its logical conclusion, will invariably apply to private schools, which could not have been the intendment of the legislature.
“This same argument applies to Section 45B, which guarantees unqualified right to free primary and maternal care services. The implication of this is that private institutions will be obliged under Constitution to offer free medical services since it is a right and this is not only impracticable, but also could not have been the intention of the law giver.
“There is therefore the need for these provisions to be redrafted to restrict the enjoyment of these rights and place the obligation to provide the conditions necessary for the enjoyment of the rights on the government.”
Jonathan also queried the limitation of the power of the President to withhold assent to bills to 30 days.
He said 30 days might not be sufficient for a President to go through such bills.
He said: “The power vested in the President to withhold his assent to Bills passed by the National Assembly is part of the checks and balances contained in the Constitution.
“Withholding of assent therefore constitutes a check on the exercise of legislative powers in a constitutional democracy, especially as the Executive Branch has the responsibility of enforcing laws passed by the National Assembly. However, some of the Acts of the National Assembly emanate from Private Members’ Bills, which in many cases, the Executive may not have had sufficient input.
“It is also instructive to note that in some cases, more than one Bill is transmitted to the President for assent and that the President requires the advice of relevant agencies of government before he can assent to the Bill.
“Against this background, the 30 days allowed for assent of the President may not be adequate in some cases for the President to make a decision as to whether or not to assent.”
The President further disagreed with the lawmakers for restricting the President’s right to spend funds in default of appropriation to three months instead of six months.
He said the amendment by the lawmakers does not take into cognizance unforeseen circumstances the nation might go through any time.
He added: “This alteration seeks to limit the period when expenditure can be authorised in default of appropriation from the six months provided in the Constitution to three months.
“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 reasons and exigencies in the polity, the National Assembly is unable to pass the Appropriation Act do not justify the reduction of the six-month time limit in the Constitution. I am of the respectful view that the current position should have been maintained.”
He blamed the National Assembly for recommending that the National Economic Council, NEC, should henceforth appoint the Accountant-General of the Federation.
Jonathan said: “The provision of section 84A that creates the new Office of Account-General of the Federation distinct from Accountant- General of the Federal Government has not addressed the funding requirement for the establishment of the office.
“It is necessary to clarify for instance, who staffs and funds the office of Accountant-General of the Federation and from whose budget he will be paid since he serves the three tiers of government.
“It is also important to state who will exercise oversight powers over the office. Furthermore, the National Economic Council, which is mainly an advisory body, is now charged with the responsibility of recommending those to be appointed to the Office of Accountant-General of the Federation.”
Jonathan described the amendment on the separation the Office of Attorney-General of the Federation from the Minister of Justice as ambiguous.
He said: “These alterations encapsulate wide-ranging provisions that seek to separate the Office of Attorney-General of the Federation from the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General from the Commissioner for Justice in the respective states of the federation. They also provide for the independence of the Office of Attorney-General by guaranteeing tenure and funding.
“However, as desirable as the separation is, there are some provisions that validate the doctrine of separation of powers and also negate the age-long independence and absolute discretion that the office has enjoyed for centuries since its creation in the Middles Ages. The potential challenging provisions are discussed below:
“The first noticeable set back is that the Fourth Alteration Act 2015 is silent on who is the Chief Law Officer of the Federation/State. This is serious lacuna, which may create implementation challenges.
“It will be recalled that the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, and Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General and Commissioners for Justice in the respective states of the federation are under sections 150 and 195 of the 1999 Constitution, the chief law officers, respectively.


Ad:See How you can turn $500 into $10,000 Click HERE For Details.
SHARE