For 71 members of the House of Representatives, reintroducing parliamentary legislature into Nigeria is a done deal; like, it’s Monday or no other day.
A bill to effect this change through an amendment to the 1999 Constitution has just passed the First Reading in the House, after which it will go to the Senate.
Traditionally, a First Reading is the first time a bill is formally introduced to a legislative chamber, either by the government or a private member, after which it is assigned to a committee.
After the Second Reading, where the legislature listens to what the committee has made of the bill proposal, all members of the chamber form a Committee of the Whole House, to consider the draft bill clause by clause.
After the Third Reading, a final, or clean, copy is produced, and sent to the second chamber where it undergoes the same process. This applies where the legislative house is bi-cameral and has lower and upper chambers.
The legislators sponsoring this bill, say, “We are… Members of the House of Representatives (whose affiliations run across party lines) who feel that the parliamentary system of government promulgated by the Lyttelton Constitution of 1954 is the best for Nigeria, since the presidential system has reduced us to the poverty capital of the world!”
It may be stretching logic too far to conclude that the presidential system, which may truly be considered more expensive than the parliamentary system, caused Nigeria’s poverty. There are other contributory factors.
The 71 legislators further claimed that “studies,” whose sources they did not clearly identify, “have shown that countries run by (the) presidential system consistently produce lower output growth, higher and more volatile inflation, and greater income inequality, relative to those under parliamentary system.”
While this position may not necessarily be supported by data, it is plausible, as they argue, that “Due to excessive powers domiciled to one man under the presidential system, consensus building, required for economic decision (making), is always (sic) lacking.”
The 71 lawmakers, who want to make the change, belong to the All Progressives Congress, whose leadership and Presidential Candidate, incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari, is homing and hemming over restructuring, the Peoples Democratic Party, the All Progressive Grand Alliance, and the African Democratic Congress.
A prominent member of the Group of 71 legislators, Abdusamad Dasuki, hints that many other members of the House of Representatives and of sundry state Houses of Assembly, have bought into the idea of the bill.
And for the benefit of politicians who may be wary of the possible electoral consequences of the passage of this bill, Dasuki discloses that debate on the bill will not commence until after the 2019 elections have been won and lost. In other words, those running for political offices in 2019 need not fret.
Not too surprising, Afenifere, the pan-Yoruba socio-cultural organisation, and its Ohanaeze Ndigbo counterpart, describe the move of the 71 legislators as a welcome development. This is typical, and not totally unexpected.
In agreeing with the legislators, Yinka Odumakin, spokesman for the Afenifere, says, “The presidential system has killed Nigeria; it is too expensive and it is the major source of corruption in Nigeria.” While it is true that the presidential system is expensive, it cannot be the sole cause of corruption in Nigeria.
Lest I forget, there was corruption when Nigeria operated the parliamentary system during the colonial era and in the First Republic. Indeed, corruption was the major accusation that the coup makers levelled against the First Republic leaders of Nigeria.
This is what Major Kaduna Nzeogwu, who led the coup, said: “The aim of the Revolutionary Council is to establish a strong united and prosperous nation, free from corruption and internal strife.”
He added: “Our enemies are the political profiteers, the swindlers, the men in high and low places that seek bribes and demand 10 per cent… those that have corrupted our society…”
Ohanaeze Ndigbo regards a return to parliamentary system as equivalent to restructuring. Their spokesman, Uche Achi-Okpaga, pointedly declares, “If we go back to parliamentary system, (and we) no longer (run a) presidential (system), it is restructuring.” Though this conclusion is somewhat reductionist, you can hardly disagree with him.
Under a parliamentary system of government, members of the Cabinet, or the Executive Council, are also members of the legislative arm of government. Typically, they, and their leader, earn their seats in the legislature after winning elections in their various constituencies.
Their leader, usually styled Prime Minister, does not combine the role of Head of State with that of Head of Government. The Prime Minister assumes office if “he appears to enjoy the confidence of the members.” He and his cabinet must resign if he loses a vote of confidence.
The Head of State in a parliamentary system is usually a Ceremonial President. He however, has a constitutional right to advise, be consulted, assent bills of the parliament into law, and call on a new prime minister to form a new government. This system is also suitable for a limited monarchy as obtains in Britain, The Netherlands, and Spain.
In Britain, the Lord Chancellor, who was member and president of the British House of Lords, was also a member of the Cabinet, responsible for the efficient running and independence of the judiciary. He also presided over the High Court of Justice, more-or-less as Chief Justice of Britain.
However, constitutional changes between 2005 and 2012 have created a separate Speaker for the House of Lords, a Lord Chief Justice, who is head of the judiciary and Chancellor of the High Court, and transformed the hitherto ubiquitous Lord Chancellor into Secretary for Justice, an equivalent of Nigeria’s Minister for Justice.
The presidential system of government is an attempt to separate and compartmentalise the duties and responsibilities of governance into the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary.
Whereas the legislature makes the laws, the Executive branch carries out the letters of the laws, while the Judiciary interprets and adjudicates the laws.
Though the President and his ministers cannot be members of the legislature or vice versa, America’s Vice President is the constitutional President of the American Senate, where he exercises a voting right.
Nigeria’s version of the presidential system of government started with the Second Republic that succeeded the military in 1979.
And, contrary to opinions held in certain quarters, Obafemi Awolowo, first Premier of Western Nigeria, and prolific writer on constitutional matters, had embraced, and even recommended a presidential system for Nigeria.
Awolowo’s position might have emboldened the Rotimi Williams-led 49 Wise Men to propose the presidential constitution, and led the military government of Gen Olusegun Obasanjo to gift Nigerians with the presidential system of government.
Asked why he preferred the presidential system for Nigeria, the military man in Obasanjo responded that parliamentary system allows the reign of two kings.
If you agree with former American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, that “No democracy ever becomes perfect, (and) the question is not one of perfection, but how an imperfect system can survive, move forward and grow stronger,” you might say that successfully working out whatever political system Nigeria adopts is what matters.
But then, there may be something in the suggestion by former Sierra Leone Minister for Information, Prof David Blake, that Nigeria’s culture is more conducive to the parliamentary system.
Twitter @lekansote1
END
Be the first to comment