After Spending Over N1b, Jonathan Turns Down Amended Constitution

President Goodluck Jonathan on Wednesday explained why he has refused to append his signature to the amended 1999 Constitution. Jonathan said the amendment did not comply with the fundamental requirement on how to effect the review of the constitution. According to the President: “The amendment did not meet the provision of Section 9 (3) of the constitution which talks about the need for four-fifth of the National Assembly to agree with the amendment.” Section 9 (3) of the Constitution reads: “An Act of the National Assembly for the purpose of altering the provisions of this section, section 8 or Chapter IV of this Constitution shall not be passed by either House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by the votes of not less than four-fifths majority of all the members of each House, and also approved by resolution of the House of Assembly of not less than two-third of all states.” The Senate President, Senator David Mark, however set up Senate Committee on Constitution Review to embark on two-day retreat on issues raised in the letter by the President in order rescue the country from wastage of the N1 billion spent on the exercise. Displeased by the letter read on the floor, Senator Sadiq Yar’Adua moved a motion through a Point of Order for the Senate to debate the letter. But Makr rejected his suggestion on the grounds that senators were not yet in possession of copies of the letter. He said: “Yes, the letter contains far reaching constitutional issues that must be debated by the Senate as regards their plausibility to the President’s decision, but since the senators have no copies now and since the Senate Committee on Constitution Review had already swung into action with their two-day retreat on the subject matter for the needed way out, there is no need for any general debate now.” President Jonathan in the six-page letter titled: “Re: Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Act, 2015,” picked holes in 12 out of the 23 amendment provisions. One of this was Section 4 of the Fourth Alteration Act seeking to alter Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution by insertion of a new sub section 3A, dispensing assent of the President to any constitution amendment act. 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-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 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. “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.” Jonathan also 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.