The Senate yesterday convened an emergency meeting of its Committee
on Constitution Amendment to discuss ways of responding to opposition of
President Goodluck Jonathan to the amendments proposed by the National
Assembly to the 1999 Constitution.
In addition to yesterday’s crucial meeting, the committee, which is
headed by Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, will also today and
tomorrow, embark on a special retreat to seek further ways of addressing
the issues raised by the President on the proposed amendments.
This is also as the Senate plans to devote an entire plenary session
to look at ways of reacting to the position of Jonathan to the proposed
amendments.
The Senate and the House of Representatives had passed the Fourth
Alteration Bill in October 2014 and transmitted same to the 36 Houses of
Assembly for resolution.
In February this year, both chambers transmitted the outcome of the
state Houses of Assembly to President Jonathan for his assent as
required by law.
However, Jonathan in a letter to the Senate President, which was read
on the floor of the senate yesterday at plenary, enumerated reasons why
he would not assent to the amendments as proposed by the National
Assembly.
In the letter, Jonathan objected to section 4 of the alteration act,
which seeks to alter section 9 of the constitution, by the insertion of a
new section 3A, which dispenses with the assent of the President in the
process of constitutional amendment.
He doubted if the amendment satisfied the constitution requirement,
which provides that it must be supported by the votes of not less than
four-fifths majority of all the members 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.
The President stated that going by the information contained in the
votes and proceedings of the National Assembly, it is doubtful if the
constitutional requirement was met by the lawmakers and therefore, it
will be unconstitutional for him to assent to the bill.
The President also raised concerns over the insertion of sections
45A-45B, which guarantees right to free basic education and unqualified
right to free primary and maternal care services.
According to the President, the alteration as contained is open ended
and should have been restricted to government schools only in the case
of right to free basic education.
“This is because a right, unless qualified or restricted, must be
observed by all,” the President noted, stressing that, “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.”
Same, the President argues, applies to right to free primary and maternal care services.
According to him, the implication of the proposed alteration is that,
“private institutions will be obliged under the 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.”
In addition, Jonathan complained about the alteration of section 14
of the constitution, which new section 58 removes the power of the
President to withhold his assent to bills passed by the National
Assembly.
This was also as the President objected to the alteration of section
21 of the constitution, which seeks to limit the period when expenditure
can be authorised in default of appropriation from the six months
provided in the constitution to three months.
The President also faulted the insertion of section 84A-84F, which
creates the new office of Accountant General of the Federation, distinct
from the Accountant General of the Federal Government.
Furthermore, Jonathan frowned at the insertion of new sections
174-174H; section 195 and sections 211A-211H, which encapsulate
wide-range provisions that seek to separate the Office of Attorney
General of the Federation from the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General from the Commissioner for Justice in the respective states of
the Federation.
In withholding his assent to the proposed amendments, the President
said: “In view of the foregoing and the absence of credible evidence
that the Act satisfied the strict requirements of section 9(3) of the
1999 constitution, it will be unconstitutional for me to assent to the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (fourth amendment) Act
2015, I therefore withhold my assent and accordingly remit it to the
senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Shortly after the Senate President, David Mark had read the letter
from President Jonathan, Senator Sadiq Yar’Adua (Katsina Central) rising
under order 42 of the senate standing order (matter of urgent public
importance), proposed that in view of the serious issues raised by the
President in the letter, the senate should devote special session to
debate the matter.
Ruling on the motion, Mark agreed with the lawmaker that the letter
from the President was not an ordinary one, and that it was based on
that, that the senate committee on constitution amendment had been
mandated to meet over the issue.
He assured that if the committee was through with the issue, it would
be brought before the entire senate for further discussions.
Credit: National Mirror
No comments:
Post a Comment