THE ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN NIGERIAN DEMOCRACY
Autor: Damian Chidiebere Dike | Publicado: 2015-07-17T06:25:00-07:00

If you have been in the system, you will see that there are a lot of loopholes and the tendency to get corrupt in any level of government is always there. President Buhari was once the governor of North Eastern state in those days, later he became petroleum minister under Obasanjo’s administration and from there, he became military head of state. The former military head of State, General Abacha appointed him as chairman of Petroleum Trust Fund. Do you think some other person in his place will hold such positions and will not have houses all over Nigeria? It is believed that he has a bungalow in Daura, Kastina State, another one in Kaduna and a rented accommodation in Abuja and he is a former head of state.

President Buhari’s qualities in his previous government as Military Head of State is one of the most vital element of his characteristics that distinguishes him from the other leaders, but the most interesting thing about him is that he listens to advice from all those who have made various contributions to his victory in the poll, but he makes the final decision. And most at times, he makes his decisions to favour the majority of his citizenry. According to Hans Kelson (1881-1973), an Austrian jurist, professor of law, justice of Supreme Court of Austria and author, his pure theory of law, tells us that “A law is valid, because it derives its validity from higher norm, and that in legal system there is a hierarchy of norms, whereby inferior norms derive their validity from a higher norm, until we get to a grundnorm, which is the final authority in a given legal system, and the source of all laws and authority, beyond which we cannot look because it is the support base, supreme law, grand law, root, ultimate premise and source of all norms, and which is in itself not supported by anything. The Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 confirmed this stand in section 1(1), where it states that “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. Section 1(3) says that “If any other law is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. These are parts of the supremacy sections of the constitution. In UK, Parliament is supreme and so laws made by the parliamentarians cannot be reviewed like it is done here in Nigeria by the judiciary through judicial review. The Acts passed by the Parliament in UK is not subject to be reviewed; they are valid and supreme. 

The Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 has directed that there is only one President for the Federation, he and not his associates can appoint people for position in the Executive and Judiciary. In section 147(3) it states that any appointment under subsection (2) of this section by the president shall be in conformity with the provisions of section 14(3) of this Constitution. Subsection (2) of this section says that “Any appointment to the office of the Ministers of the Government of the Federation Shall, if the nomination of a person to such office is confirmed by the senate, be made by president. And what did section 14(3) CFRN 1999 say? It States that 14(1) “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a state based on the principles of democracy and social justice”, 14(3) “The composition of the Government of The Federation or any f its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote National unity, and also to command National, thereby ensuring that there shall b no predominance of persons from a few state or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies”. How far have the provision of section 14(3) been abided to by the administrators of this present government.? The entire sections of Chapter ll, which are sections 13-24 already have been made non-justiciable by section 6(6)(c) CFRN 1999, which states that “The judicial powers vested in accordance with the forgoing provisions of this section” “shall not, otherwise provided by this constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy set out in Chapter ll of this Constitution” only section 14(3) CFRN 1999 and section 15(5) CFRN 1999, has been made justiciable by the justiciable provision in section 147(3) CFRN 1999 and by the provision of Item 60 of the Exclusive Legislative List under Part 1 of the Second Schedule CFRN, 1999, respectively. In the case of Attorney-General Ondo State V. Attorney-General Federation, the Supreme Court held that court cannot enforce any of the provisions of Chapter ll of the constitution until the National Assembly has enacted specific Act as it has done in respect to section 15(5) CFRN 1999, which state that “The State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power. And so going back to the issue of our stake holders, we can hold to the argument that the stakeholders in the present government should have asked for a contract term before sinking their money in the project of electing a new president from an opposition party. They should have made it clear to the incumbent president before his election that they were investing in him for a reason, and they should have kindly told him that when they get to the villa, they would want to produce such and such positions in his administration. At least they can now sue on the contract or he can as well fulfill his promise as a gentleman. Barr. O.V.C. Okene stated that a contract is an agreement which the law will enforce or recognize as affecting their legal rights and duties. This means that there must be mutuality of purpose, which is the meeting of the mind or intention of both parties to be bound by the terms of the contract. 

There is a call for Senate president to sack his vice to retain his seat; does he have the constitutional backing to do so? Don’t you think that a strong opposition to the ruling government in the senate is not what is needed now to fortify the present administration against corruption? Take for instance confirmation by various people all over the federation that electric power supply has been on its peak even when much can’t have been achieved on it in just thirty days of the present administration. It means that enough electric power to be supplied was there in the past administration but that some people were making profit from the non supply of electric power to the masses. One reason is that some small group will have to procure diesel at exorbitant price to power important sectors, there will be importation of refined petroleum at exorbitant prices coupled with illicit subsidy, and there will still be the importation of substandard power generating sets into the country. No wonder we hear every day of people climbing high tension poles to cut electric cables, not to mention the vandalism of transformers, and most of these vandals have been found electrocuted in the act. In another case instance, where the Federal Government presumes it needs six hundred billion for whatever purpose that may or may not be justifiable at the end, if it controls the majority of the Assembly members and also can boast of the President, Speaker, and their vice in both houses of Assembly as their party members just like in the past government, if such matter is put to vote, the result will always be “The yeah has it”. The country will remain in the same position which is the same reason why the past government was voted out of office. This time around in the Parliament, the Yeah or Ney cannot have it easily, the presenter of the proposal will have to do more work to convince every member of the House and then seek for vote from his party and opposition members. This is possible because it is not parliamentary system of government where the principle is collective effort of the parliamentarians or ministers, nobody is going to be sacked for not working as a group; the issue here is to vote “Yeah on Ney” for good or bad policies respectively.

Initially, the executive and the legislative positions in the country have been zoned to the three major zones which are the North, West and South. The President comes from one of the zone, the Vice-president comes one of the two remaining zone and the senate President comes from the remaining zone. In this government, the south only managed to get elected to the position of Vice-Senate President and some politicians are clamouring for his removal. I need somebody to clarify me on how this can be done under the law. I know this is all about party supremacy, where the party will want to control every position but this is not parliamentary system of government where the leader of the party that has the majority in the parliament becomes the prime-minister, and he forms his cabinet from the Parliamentarians from his party that are elected in the House. As such, there is fusion of power of the parliament because the Prime-minister is a member of the judiciary, the executive and the legislative, unlike in the doctrine of separation of power and principle of check and balances by different arms of government enshrined in a democratic system of government.
As a constitutional and contract law student, I advocate for the supremacy of the constitution and the principles of a contract. As a lawyer, if you bring up a case like he one above for my advice, I will not say that either of the parties is treated fairly or unfairly because he should have been compensated for this commitments but I will uphold the view of the law which is governed by Judicial Precedents, and it is following past judgments to resolve present cases with similar material fact. 

I Damian Chidiebere Dike is saying, there is nothing wrong with Nigeria; the problem is Corruption and President Buhari has started on a good note by giving the Economic and Finance Crime Commission (EFCC) the freedom to act according to the law and drag past and immediate government officials to court. And before they say “I no follow”, they have coughed out the sum of two hundred and fifty million each as bail but this should not be extended to hunt non party members. These bail fees represent a significant figure in the account of the government account but from where did the past government officials get such huge sum of money. This EFCC probe will put some fear into a lot of the politicians because once they have a case like that, they won’t be able to contest for any other election until there is judgment in the case, or that they are discharged and acquitted. Politics in Nigeria is a game where you aspire to amass as much wealth as possible for you and your family but President Buhari have come to show that it can be the other way round, that is the game of giving-up some wealth that is supposed to be accrued to you under the law to save some fund for the government and move the country forward. President Buhari and his Vice have reduced their annual salary by fifty percent, and the financial implication of this is that all past democratically elected presidents of Nigeria and their Vice will receive fifty percent reduction in their annual pension, see section 84(5) CFRN 1999. It states in section 84 that “There shall be paid to the holders of the offices mentioned in this section such remuneration, salaries and allowances as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, but not exceeding the amount as shall have been determined by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission”. And subsection (5) states that, “Any person who has held office as ampresident or Vice President shall be entitled to pension for life at a rate equivalent to the annual salary of the incumbent President or Vice-President”. Let see who will be next to reduce their salaries.