National Confab or Nigerian Legislature

Recent events ongoing in the Nigerian polity culminating in the constitution of a committee by President Goodluck to oversee a possible national dialogue have left me wondering what the future holds for our dear country.

It was in 1999 that we returned to democratic rule and Nigerians expected nothing but a new and better lease of life. Of course democracy with the resuscitation of the legislature was meant to guarantee freedom and equity in the distribution of the wonderful and enormous resources we have. With these pool of resources, there is no doubt that decision making regarding how best to distribute welfare and our interactions with other nations can only be handled by a few who are recognized and determined by the rights and obligation of citizens.

More than 14 years after the return to democracy, we are still lamenting on what ought to comprise Nigeria, what ought to be, and what is right or wrong!!! We have continuously experimented a multi-party system of democracy that would present an array of several alternative candidates for election based on the rights and unanimous decisions of the people. Since 1999, we have at different times, elected people into executive positions and a host of others to represent us (entirely) in the different tiers of the legislature.

 

But we lost faith in our leaders when they started getting it all wrong. I don’t blame us; we inherited this loss of faith from the long reign of military reign in which we were never considered in decision making.

However, times have changed and we need to listen to the different style of music being played in Nigeria… the so called retired generals are also listening attentively and already dancing to the new rhythm. Why then do we continue to form lack of concern or indifference? Perhaps it looks like a dawn of civilian dictators referred to as godfathers manipulating us like powerless pawns on a chess board having taken over from their cohorts during the military reign.

With my little knowledge of democracy and how the legislature works, I feel ultimately that the legislature was designed to deliberate on virtually everything that affects us a Nigerian people. That is why as soon as the generality of Nigerians believed that there were loopholes in the rules that guide us and keep us together as a federation; the legislature began consultations on filling these holes – the constitutional amendment process. The turn of events however showed the enormous ignorance of Nigerians regarding their rights to happy living. I was present in a public hearing on constitutional amendments, the North Central venue where people from that region were meant to gather to present their agitations. The venue incidentally played host to a large number of groups, associations, institutions (both public and private) and individuals. Although, the agitations presented were tilted more towards states and local government creation as well as autonomy of the last tier of government, a variety of other issues including the indigene/citizenship debate topped the agenda. The constitution review process under a democracy therefore presented Nigerians with the ample opportunity to define once again what determines Nigeria; how best do we go about administering our resources; what exactly do we want; what is the hope for generations yet unborn?....

But we lost it again! For instance, legislators consulted their constituents on several issues; obtained their decisions; brought them back to the National Assembly and voted against the people’s desire. Incidentally nobody is saying anything about it. Perhaps nobody even sees anything wrong with it. But a certain group of people were knowledgeable enough to invite their Senator who voted against their wishes! That is what I call democracy in practice. I actually anticipated that line of action would precede an entirely new direction to our democracy – evaluating our representatives.

Today, those are the helm of affairs have begun clamoring for a national conference/dialogue. The same conference the people demanded for when they felt they were not been consulted during the military era. It was only natural that a military regime that displayed little patience with the people will want to listen to their agitations and translate those they wished into decrees. In the contemporary Nigeria state, democracy has taken over military dictatorship and a national dialogue no matter how it seems like an amicable solution to a society that constantly demonstrates divergent views, ways of living and upholds federating units becomes unfamiliar or better still is not recognized by any form of law.

What then did the people who gathered in various sections of the country during public hearings on constitution review converge for? Is it because, sittings allowances were not paid and it was organized by the legislature? Truth be told and reality checked once more. What is the purpose for a national conference? To discuss the way forward apparently. Can’t the legislature at various tiers discuss the way forward given its statutory mandate? - make laws for the peace, order and good government of the people. These and many other questions continue to challenge the legality of a national conference and its eventual decisions. What are we going to do with the decisions from such a dialogue? Publish them as a communiqué in national dailies or ratify them as laws in the legislature. Will the National Assembly keep existing and allowances/salaries paid while a national conference is going on and delegates are been paid and cost of conference catered? Is the national conference usurping the powers of the legislature or contemplating it? Time shall tell!!!

Ironically, Senator David Mark, the Senate President of Nigeria’s distinguished Senate is a core proponent of a national conference. So you ask yourself, what is really the way forward and which do we prefer, National Confab or Nigerian Legislature?

 

My case with the Ballon D'Or

While i was listening to a sports station on a local Radio, something came to my mind concerning the award of the Uefa Ballon D'Or. the presenter had argued that in a game of football no one player is dispensable for the system to work effectively. By this i concur that all sections of the team are very relevant and can be buttressed in a red card situation where the game most times changes in favour of the complete team.

My argument is that without some particular mix of players, a certain Messi, Ronaldo or Robin Van Persie would never excel as much as we hear about their exploits (don't get me wrong they are players with exceptional skills). Every section of the game has its own unique functions; thats why it sounds extraordinary when a defender  scores more goals than a striker. So a goalie would have an excellent season for keeping several clean sheets in a particular season. The effect of that may be what Peter Cech described as thus, "Players win games, but goal keepers win trophies". If a player is given an award cos of the contributions he has given to a team obviously a top level team on the log at the end of the season then we should look beyond awarding the presitigious Ballon DÓr to just strikers as it has been the case in recent times,  Ronaldo, Kaka, Ronadinho, C. Ronaldo, Messi. Where do we dump the likes of world class goal keepers, Central defenders, Midfielders who combine to make, for instance the barca tiki taka ( its obviously not just Messi playing the game all by himself.

MY POSITION: Rather than have a single award for the UEFA Ballon Dör, it should be divided into Best Goal keeper, Defender, Midfielder and Striker to advance a perfect competition amongst direct peers. It would be unfair to have a goal keeper or defender compete for a place with a striker who just but scores goals even when these goals don't even win the team trophies. (Van Persie had scored 37 goals in a season without Arsenal winning a trophy; and you rate him better than Sczecny who avoided conceding several goals in the midst of a failed defensive line. Think about this, Michelle Platini, Sepp Blatter, Isa Hayatu

Oversight Function of the Legislature in Nigeria: Panacea for Development or Compromise for Under-Development

For people like me who follow the activities of the legislature with keen interest given my knowledge of the functions of this arm of government which depicts the difference between democracy and other systems of government, it is only mind-boggling to observe that the much anticipated mandate of the legislature in Nigeria is not being used optimally or better still, to the credit of the generality.

Recently, the National Assembly received an autonomous status in the provisions of funds to finance its critical activities. This would have been more robust if we as a people are actually sincere and realize that the welfare of the people comes first then follows, integrity of Nigerians especially the ones in elective positions. One of the features of true democracy with regards to accountability is an independent legislature free from executive interference. By independence, the legislature should have a straight-line charge with regards to release of funds from its share from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without the vigorous bureaucratic manoeuvring from finance related (executive) government agencies. This also means that with a well organized and direct system of finance, the legislature especially the National Assembly can effectively carry out her functions including lawmaking, representation and oversight.

The oversight function of the legislature in Nigeria is enshrined by Section 88 of the 1999 Constitution. By virtue of its germane and sole mandate to authorize expenditure from the purse derived from Section 81, the legislature is also saddled with the responsibility to cause investigations into (executive) government spending. What this obviously postulates is a system of checks and balances that is meant to institute judicious ways of implementing the national budget for the benefit of all.

The picture I have tried to paint above represents an ideal situation. The real situation however shows that oversight functions in Nigeria do not guarantee a service to the people but reflects a different agenda all together, call it personal interest!

How can a government Ministry, Department or Agency you intend to investigate its budget spending activities, provide the itinerary and necessary arrangements for the exercise and you expect that the result of such exercise shall not dwell in futility? Can you bite the finger that feeds you? The answers to these questions are as clear as the nose on our face! The adage, he who pays the piper dictates the tune further shows that until the legislature in Nigeria begins to spend its time and resources on doing those things that truly reflect the aspirations of the people, we shall continue to lament as to the huge amounts of salaries and allowances of our legislators and the general expenditure of the legislature since its return in 1999. 

When Nigerian legislators embark on oversight visits to government MDAs, the scenario suggests a sightseeing adventure (especially those ones who visit the industrial sector) than a fact finding mission. Sometimes these (executive) government MDAs even provide the vehicles to convey lawmakers embarking on oversight.

What then are the monies appropriated for oversight visits used for? Are we saying there is no money appropriated for an obvious function of the legislature? If inadequate, the legislature knows exactly what to do, since it remains the only institution responsible for appropriating funds to service the nation and for the advancement of good governance and state policy. 

Whereas, oversight visits are meant to advance development, they rather deplete the purse and end in futility. There is apparent compromise on the aspect of legislators. Employments are done with the consent of the lawmakers who enlist their preferred candidates (even when they are not necessarily constituents) and therefore do not require vigorous enquiry by respective committees of the legislature to determine equity in the spread of employment. Lawmakers are offered contract opportunities to implement some of the projects of MDAs. More so, there is currently a system of seasonal remuneration to lawmakers; during Sallah, Easter, Christmas, Burial, Birthday and other celebrations. There is no gainsaying that compromise negates development.

This does not mean that the legislature has done nothing in this area of endavor. Applause must be given to them in unveiling some of the ordeals (though insignificant) of government culminating in the misuse and diversion of funds meant for public utility. What amuses me most times is that they sometimes begin the process in a well fashioned manner, thereby lifting our spirits, but end in the obvious (vague) manner we anticipated. Look at the power sector and fuel subsidy probes, the intervention in the aviation sector, pension scam, to name a few. Where did they end? No single culprit was convicted for a crime that is punishable by death in other countries. Rather, a minimal N750, 000 was awarded as penalty to an individual who was found guilty of misappropriating about N27bn or there about. How sad, the legislators never envisaged that their efforts would be frustrated by the same laws they have the power to make or review.

There is this argument that legislative office should be made selfless to encourage those who candidly wish to serve their people vie for these positions. I agree totally with this assertion but I also want to state that bulk of it lies with us human beings especially the acclaimed ordinary Nigerians. We must sacrifice our old ways of doings things, of not paying attention to the activities of those we voted for (when we really come out to vote and ensure that our votes count) so we can keep legislative office holders on their toes, giving them the required push to pursue selfless service to the nation and its citizens at the expense of self interest. We must resist voter apathy, vote in subsequent elections and ensure that the notion of one man, one vote prevails. Only so, would governance attract our attention and vigilance would ensure that those who go out of our wishes and aspirations are shoved aside for better representation. Under this situation, while those who we voted to represent us help to check the excesses of the executive arm, we, the people shall also oversight on our representatives. Obviously, we shall be enshrining a new system of government that is mindful of every single Nigerian.   

           

WHEREAS THE ISSUE WAS NOT CHILD MARRIAGE BUT....

After all the hullabaloo about Sen. Yerima and the Nigerian Senate voting for child marriage, it wasn't the  case afterall.

Why do Nigerians appreciate rumors even at the expense of peace.

The Nigerian Constitution stipulates that a woman can only denounce or renounce her citizenship as a Nigerian only when she attains the adult age of 18. Using the current Constitution amendment process, Senator Yerima and a few others argued that once a woman is married regardless of her age i.e under 18, she should be able to renounce her citizenship since as a married woman, she is viewed as an adult that can take critical decisions for herself.

Those mischievous Nigerians (wonder if they actually paid attention to the debates) heard child marriage and jumped into conclusion. Like fire the news about the Senate of Nigeria voting for early child marriage becomes public discourse; a lot of energy, resources and time is being used to discuss a mere rumor! how sad!!!

 

Whereas there were pertinent issues to protest about, Nigerians were deep in trivial discussions. I wonder if they succeeded in making the Senate reverse its position.  (and I ask, position on Yes or No for under 18 marriage?)

I like to use this medium to implore Nigerians to try as much as possible to get to the root of the matter before engaging discussions on irrelevant issues. While the poor Senator and his followers argued that they were trying to improve the rights of women to denounce their citizenship at any age once they are married and have become adults, they women themselves were crisscrossing the country bastardizing their personalities. Hmmmmm! Ignorance is evil!!!!

My point is, know it to a large extent before you say anything about it or else silence is golden!!!!

Still on the Constitution Review Process in Nigeria

I watched with dismay how the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria voted against granting local governments in Nigeria autonomy. To say I was surprised is an understatement. What did I expect, when a host of them were past governors and a lot more are wanna be governors!

My issue is, after consulting us electorates and obtaining our views on certain issues including local government autonomy (which we all assented to; if not, why was the proposal brought to the National Assembly in the first place if it did not receive enough recognition), the so called Nigerian senators voted against it. Who are they representing? Electorates or self interest?

It's a pity, most of us, Nigerians are not aware of our rights as citizens who vote and make leaders. We have the enormous power to sack every political appointee; either through our consent  demonstrated by legislators (our mere representatives) on our wishes by impeaching executive appointees or recalling legislators themselves  who tend to represent themselves or a section of people.

I am urging Nigerians to follow the activities of their representatives especially how they vote on issues of national interest, upon which we can demand explanations, query or recall them or don't return them at subsequent elections. At least the people of Ondo demonstrated this power by inviting their Senator to a Town Hall meeting to explain why he voted for a particular issue against their wishes. Didn't he weep? He explained, he did in error. That's what I am talking about! 

Please go to the National Assembly and request for the documents that carry your representatives' voting pattern in the constitution review process and all other national issues. If their voting is contrary to the views you asked them to portray at the National Assembly. Please begin statutory process of bringing them back home! Enough is enough!!

Early Marriage in Nigeria

After engaging my self in self education with regards to early marriage, I now realize that a lot of countries and societies allow marriages under 15 yrs with a caveat, "parental consent". This means that for such marriage to be legal and recognized, the couple must present their birth certificates and their parents must be their for identification or a legal guardian in case their parents are deceased. This is the practice in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado and Connecticut all in the US; Australia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tibet and many parts of South America. I didn't mention Arab countries cause Islam encourages early child marriage. Objectively, I appeal that Nigerians begin to view this matter with unbias and instead hammer more on the legality of ensuring that such under aged brides are enrolled in school by their so called husbands. Don't get me wrong I am in no way supporting Sen. Yerima and his colleagues! It is painful but truth ought to be told especially when u aware of it. Is it not surprising that the international community are yet to comment on the proposed law?

Constitution Review in Nigeria and the Nigerian Legislature

when the National Assembly in Nigeria began the process of amending the Constitution in Nigeria, it was met with enthusiasm by Nigerians. The first phase saw the amendment of the electoral to make way for the 2011 General Elections and other Sections of the Constitution including the first line charge status of the National Assembly. Unfortunately the State Houses of Assembly voted against their own autonomy, thanks to the enormous powers wielded by the Executive Governors (a situation the state houses of Assembly have vowed to correct this time around.

Recently, when the National Assembly began the second phase of the process, public hearings were conducted round the country and the people were consulted by both Houses. with a lot of public resources sank into the system, it is hoped that the exercise shall culminate in correcting the gaps hitherto occasioned in our Constitution and entrench more people oriented sections and clauses that would help govern our society and enhance the state policy of good governance.

After this rigorous process of consulting the people and recording their needs and demands, the respective Committees on Constitution Review of both Houses summarized these positions, memoranda and proposals to pencil down those that carried majority yearnings from the people. However the Senate would turn around to vote against some of these proposals. For instance, the Senate voted against local government autonomy much in disagreement with the majority of Nigerians who agitated for it.

My question is, who are the legislators representing? how come the people want autonomy at the 3rd tier of government and the Senate voted against it.

It is sad that the process now looks like our legislators are now ridiculing a process that was before now perceived to be in good faith. No wonder public commentators and lawyers are beginning to see them as funny actors instead of legitimate representatives.

If the process continues like this, then I pitch tent with Tam David West when he said there is nothing wrong with our Constitution but the people. Why were they wasting all the public resources used to go round Nigeria in the  name of consulting the people, if they wishes of the people would not be met. Were they elected by the majority of electorates as our mouth piece and representatives or they were (s)elected by godfathers and as such are projecting the views of a few majority. Why is it so difficult to allow a federating unit operate independently as true federalism suggest?

Only time shall tell. Nigerians please be vigilante enough to demand for voting sheets to know how your representatives voted. Hold them responsible for voting against your choices and lets make this review process a worthy one!