“Flouting the order of the Supreme Court is not only contemptuous but punishable with imprisonment”.
Some days ago, a full panel of the Supreme Court, gave an order directing the parties, in a suit instituted by the Federal Government of Nigeria against the National Assembly, to maintain the status quo. By this Order, the National Assembly was essentially required to put on hold, all actions geared towards the passage of the Fourth Alteration Act to the Constitution. Prior to this development the President, Dr Gooduck Ebele Jonathan had refused assent to a bill sent to him by the National Assembly. Obviously piqued by the President’s stance, the leadership of the National Assembly was reported to have begun consideration of means by which the National Assembly could override the Veto of the President and thereby ensure that the Fourth Alteration Act becomes law. Indeed the Chairman, Senate Committee on Information and Public Affairs, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe is reported to have stated that:
“The Supreme Court is wrong. The law does not allow one arm of the government to stop another arm of government from performing its duties.The Supreme Court cannot stop us from legislating and if they say that the Supreme Court is stopping us from making laws, it is misleading and it amounts to misreading the powers of the Supreme Court,”
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY MUST OBEY ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
This statement is worrying as it discloses that the National Assembly may truly be intent on disobeying the orders of the highest Court of the land. If the National Assembly proceeds to flout the order, such a move will portend grave danger for our democracy and portray Nigeria within the international community as a lawless country. It has long been settled that all parties to a dispute must obey an order of court irrespective of their view as to its legality. Until set aside, all orders remain valid. The National Assembly, the country’s law-making organ must therefore not be seen as disobeying an order of Court. Flouting the order of the Supreme Court is not only contemptuous but punishable with imprisonment.
Furthermore I believe the controversy generated by the attempt to pass the Fourth Alteration Act would have been avoided if members of the National Assembly had realised that they could not arrogate to themselves, without a Referendum in which Nigerians would vote, the decision of what or which of the recommendations of the last Constitutional Conference would attain the force of law.
GENESIS; LOPSIDED 1999 CONSTITUTION
For a long time, it has been generally realised that the lopsided nature of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 accounts for most of the problems troubling the country. Being a creation of the Military without any appreciable impute from the civil populace, the constitution in many respects has been proven incapable of meeting the dynamics needed to hone the over 250 ethnic identities that make up Nigeria into one truly united Country. Furthermore, the constitution provides for a system of government which is very expensive to run. These realities and more continually fuelled the agitation in many quarters for the convocation of a sovereign conference which would be saddled with the responsibility of coming up with a Constitution that would finally recognise the yearnings and aspirations of Nigeria and its citizens.
ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
After much debate as to the nature of the proposed conference, President Goodluck Jonathan finally inaugurated it. The conference upon its establishment set up various committees covering several aspects of our existence as a nation the reports of which formed the basis of the recommendations made to the Government.
However no sooner had the Report of the conference been submitted than a fresh controversy arose as to how the said recommendations should become law. Whilst some were of the view that the recommendations should be turned over to Nigerians in a form of a Referendum, many members of the National Assembly took the view that the National Assembly alone was best suited to determine just what was good for Nigerians and Nigeria. In an article on the issue I stated as follows:
In arriving at its decision the National Assembly disregarded the advice and or suggestion of several Nigerians including the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association which called for a referendum in the Constitution making process. In direct response to this, the leadership of the National Assembly described a call for referendum as unconstitutional. The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Ndoma Egba in particular posited that as the process of amendment of the constitution as set out in the constitution itself did not make a provision for the holding of a referendum, it would be unconstitutional to hold one. …As I have already argued in this column, sovereignty belongs to the people. It does not and cannot belong to their elected representatives. Indeed the Section 14(2) of the Constitution provides that sovereignty belongs to the people from whom the government through the Constitution derives its authority and power…
What is clear from the dismissal by the National Assembly of the idea of a referendum or the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference is a mistaken belief that strict adherence to the law making procedure is all that is required to guarantee the promulgation of a true peoples constitution. However It is settled that it is not the procedure adopted in the passage of a law that will determine whether a law meets the aspirations of the people or not. What is at stake is the form of government that would adequately reposition this country to its past glory. What is required is recognition of the sovereignty of the people.
In disregard of this view, the President declared that his government would begin the implementation of those recommendations that required only a change in policy while those requiring constitutional amendment would be turned over to the National Assembly.
To be continued.
TRIBUNE
END
Be the first to comment