Third Term and the National Assembly by Reuben Abati

The present National Assembly and all the Houses of Assembly in the states face a strong moral burden following the conclusion of the so-called public hearings on constitutional amendments in the country's six geo-political zones. It is left to them to process the various recommendations and amend the constitution accordingly. They are in a position to either defend the interest of the people or betray the entire nation. The politics of constitutional amendment has thus been reduced to the issue of the integrity of our lawmakers. It is possible to take a cynical view and conclude that this National Assembly which has been accused of indolence, and an acute obsession with privileges and opportunities for self-enrichment would behave true to pattern. Or that the lawmakers in the states will simply read the lips of their Governors. That is, they will willy-nilly turn the constitution amendment process into an assault against the people, trade with the issues and damn the consequences. But that is precisely the reason why all concerned Nigerians should begin to speak up and confront the lawmakers with the moral weight of the choices that they are about to make.

There can be no doubt that a Constitution amendment is inevitable. It is critical to the future of our country. The 1999 Constitution is defective in many respects; its amendment should address those defects and raise general confidence in the polity. The 1999 Constitution was foisted on the people by a military establishment which had a post-natal interest in power. Between 1999 and 2003, attempts were made to amend the constitution with the expectation that this would help produce a truly people's constitution. But instead of an open debate of the issues, the idea was handed over to political parties and politicians; it was soon aborted. Last year, a National Conference was held to provide Nigerians an opportunity to reflect on the national question and build a consensus around the centrifugal issues that have turned our country into something less than a nation. But to date, that National Conference has been set aside. Its resolutions have been ignored. The key issue of fiscal federalism that brought that conference to a sudden halt has not been dealt with. We are already paying the price for this omission in form of the episodic revolt in the Niger Delta that is masterminded by a tribe of angry young men.

The just concluded public hearings do not in any way improve on these past failures. If the constitution had been amended before now, Nigerians would have had an opportunity to submit it to the litmus test of performance. This would have been one of the major legacies of the Obasanjo administration. But now, the Constitution is being amended as it were at the eleventh hour, an attempt that is marred by a too obvious display of bad faith and chicanery. What is on display in part is a certain lack of faith in the rule of law. The same politicians who rigged elections are just about to rig the Constitution to serve their own ends. What is more embarrassing is the kind of mind games that are being played.

For example, a group called Rainbow PUSH Coalition Nigeria in a statement signed by its Secretary, Tony Agbonifo has already announced that "Nigerians have endorsed the proposed Constitutional Amendments.." (ThisDay, March 2, p. 8). What has been endorsed is not spelled out but the fellow says the "national assembly must not betray the nation". When you read further, where Mr Agbonifo stands becomes clear: he sounds like one of those standing on the "third term agenda." There are in fact too many extremely influential Obasanjo-must-stay fanatics in the country today. Sadly, this includes some representatives of the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) who showed up at the hearings not to talk about federalism, derivation, or the Land Use Act, but to insist that they want many more years for the Obasanjo Presidency!" .
In contradistinction to their affirmation, however, the truth is that the constitution amendment hearings were indeed a failure. They were contrived and pre-determined. The hearings were not held in major cities where a high level of attendance could be guaranteed, rather they were taken to places like Osogbo (who is in Osogbo please?) , Abakaliki (why Abakaliki?), Katsina, Lafia (of all places!), Maiduguri and Port Harcourt. The hearings were also held under tight security. What quality of sincerity can anyone get at a forum where guns are held to the people's heads? Senator Oserheimen Osunobr has provided a typically ironic explanation: he says the heavy security was necessary in order to prevent people from disrupting the proceedings. In one or two of the centres, concerned groups in civil society decided to stage protests, they were promptly arrested and detained. As at this moment, there are still close to 100 persons in police detention. Their offence? They dared to exercise their right to free speech, a basic right, which is guaranteed by the same Constitution that is being reviewed!

 There have been submissions on the proposed amendment by various interest groups and geo-political zones, but instructively, the public hearings were reduced to only one issue: what is now generally known as "third term." The public has not received any form of enlightenment on the main issues that are to be amended. What the people know is simply that the Constitution Amendment is about President Obasanjo's personal ambition. He wants to remain in office beyond 2007, we are told, and the Constitution has to be changed to serve precisely that purpose. This case is not helped by the fact that during the National Conference, versions of a proposed new Constitution were in circulation and the source was traced to persons who have been peddling the falsehood that there is no alternative to President Olusegun Obasanjo.

This is the biggest shortcoming of the so-called public hearings. If the intention was to create an effect of openness, that has not happened. If we were expected to believe that the people had taken certain decisions, that was also not the case. Tony Agbonifo and his Abuja-based Coalition Nigeria say: "the vocal minority have sustained their opposition to the proposed amendments. Their battle is fired by their loss of political influence. ...They have shifted their battle to the pages of national dailies seeking to push falsehood down the throat of the people as if the massive support received by the proposed amendments during the recent public hearings is unknown." Blackmail. This is sheer blackmail. Agbonifo and his colleagues need be reminded that what the public is opposed to is the immoral reduction of a constitution amendment process to an exercise in cult-worship. What Nigerians want is a people's constitution; they don't want a Mantu Constitution. If we end up with a Constitution that is at best a special purpose vehicle, the people would have been betrayed.

The National Assembly must not allow itself to be used to achieve that purpose. This is the time when all constituents must subject all lawmakers to close scrutiny. We must watch what those who are representing us say and do not say. We are in that situation once again such as we had between 1993 and 1999 when Nigerians were required by circumstances to make a choice between June 12 and military rule, between progress and a return to the woods. Every group must search its conscience if it has any. Should Nigeria become another Uganda? Should it become another Ivory Coast? It is remarkable that the National Assembly is already divided down the middle between those who want a true constitution and contractors who are prepared to change the Constitution for selfish reasons. One indication is the emergence of a number of partisan groups which have no ambition other than the protection of the public space against the "Third Termers" : the Committee for Good Governance, the National Unity Forum; the 2007 Movement and the Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD). On the other side are those lawmakers who will shout down anyone who opposes the third term agenda. One lawmaker, Dr Haruna Yerima went to the House of Representatives the other day, wearing an NTTA badge (NTTA here is an acronym, it means "No To Third Term Agenda"), he was denied entry. There can be no greater assault on the freedom of expression.

For the avoidance of doubt, the key to national stability, the solution to the present political unease in the land lies first in the hands of our lawmakers. They must refuse to be used. Lawmakers in the state Houses of Assembly must not dance to the tune of governors who have been saying "it is Obasanjo or nothing". When the constitution comes up for review, let them act in good conscience. Before they take the final count in accordance with Section 9 of the Constitution, they must publish a full copy of the amended Constitution and encourage a proper debate of the document.

I insist that President Obasanjo does not need a third term in office. All the arguments being put up by the third term proponents are simply unreasonable to say the least. They insist that there is no alternative to President Obasanjo. They are wrong. There are alternatives. There are more than enough persons who can run this country. The only problem is that Nigerian politics has been reduced to a matter of loyalty to President Obasanjo and to be seen to be loyal to him is to praise him to high heavens as the messiah of the Nigerian nation. For this reason alone, there is so much fear in political circles. Third term proponents argue that the President needs to spend a few more years in office to enable him consolidate the achievements of his administration. Again, their logic is wrong. Even if President Obasanjo spends thirty more years in office, there will still be programmes and policies that he will need to sustain and consolidate. Governance is a process. The life of a nation is long; it cannot be tied to the life of an individual.

They also insist that Baba is effectively in charge of the country, and so it is not true that a Third term will lead to chaos. They point to Uganda and the example of Museveni who has since been congratulated by America and other Western countries for winning an election that he stage-managed through a Constitutional amendment as first step. So is Museveni now being recommended as a role model for President Obasanjo? What sort of parody is that? I get the impression that those who are begging Obasanjo to stay in office once a Constitution allows that are more interested in themselves, not the man. These are selfish men and women who do not mean well for Obasanjo and Nigeria. But they are quick to argue that they prefer Obasanjo because the man loves Nigeria. He loves Nigeria so much he is ready to die for it. This is like saying nothing. President Obasanjo is a soldier. He signed a pact to die for Nigeria. If he is moved by the soldier-instinct in him to have visions of martyrdom, I have no problems with that. But let him not pull other Nigerians down with his choice. That is the issue.

Source: The Guardian 2nd March, 2006