ABE: Constant Update Is Good, But Obedience Is Better

Senator Magnus Ngei Abe represented Rivers South East constituency in the 7th National Assembly. Speaking with KAMAL TAYO OROPO, the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Petroleum Resources (Downstream) insists that review of the constitution is necessary in a democracy, but cautions there must be strict obedience.

Despite the fact Nigerians are yet to see the outcome of the previous constitutional reviews carried out by the National Assembly, the legislature has constituted another committee for similar exercise. Is this fresh exercise necessary or is this exercise part of the legislative routine of the National Assembly?

WELL, first of all you, have to appreciate that constitution review is an ongoing process, as far as legislation is concerned. There are various legislations that one way or the other, are affected by the constitution. So, the Senate has a permanent committee dedicated to looking into such issue, that is, senate constitution review committee.

So, whatever may have been the fate of the last exercise, the National Assembly would not stop from reviewing issues that require such. Look at the one that concern creation of state police; if somebody were to introduce the bill, it would automatically require a review of the constitution. There are lots of laws like that. So, constitution review is permanent.

The second one is that, most Nigerians saw the need for a constitution review in the last dispensation, but the exercise was not successful, because it was frustrated by the Federal Government, through the then attorney general of the federation, who ill-advised former President Goodluck Jonathan not to sign the amended constitution, despite the fact that the executive had every opportunity to participate in the process and let its views be reflected. But at the last minute, the executive arm of government scuttled it. I do not think that as a result of that, Nigeria, as a country, will now not continue to make attempt to bring the constitution in line with exigent realities in our democracy. I do not think that unfortunate episodes such as this should stop the National Assembly from continuing to work at that process until success is achieved.
S
ome are of the opinion that the senate committee on the constitution review could have handled the exercise without much of a public fanfare. Is this new exercise beyond them?
That is why I explained that the Senate has a lot of committees and that this committee (constitution review committee) is just one of the most important, because it deals with the Constitution. Even If it is not for this particular exercise, issues that affect the Constitution would continue to come up in the course of dealing with legislations that may be proposed, and at such times, matters would be referred to the constitution.

What is the major achievement of the last exercise despite the uncooperative attitude by the executive?
That exercise dealt with a whole lot of fundamental issues, it separated the office of the attorney general from that of the minister of justice. It sought to create a means of re-writing the Constitution; it dealt with a whole lot of purpose that would have been beneficial to the Nigerian people. Unfortunately, that exercise was truncated by the Jonathan administration.

But since governance is a continuous exercise, why is it difficult for the National Assembly to dust the old file, work on some grey areas and present again to the current executive arm of government instead of embarking on a fresh exercise?
Well, I’m sure there would be legal considerations to that effect. The nature of our Constitution is such that it provides that where the assembly discusses any matter of our Constitution and that particular session is dissolved, it dies with that particular case.

So, if this particular 8th session makes such a presentation, there would be legal implications in that respect. I am not sure if it is legally permissible for this assembly to now forward a document, which they did not originate and which some members know nothing about. Many people who served in that assembly are no longer here. So, to go and present a document that they did not originate on their behalf may raise issues. Nobody is happy, even the legislators, to go back and review the whole process, but that’s what our own law provides and these are some of the things that can be amended in the Constitution, so that we don’t have to be going round and round over the same issues.

What would you say are the most fundamental issues that need to be amended in the present Constitution? What particular area is missing that you think if it is not resolved, we would still be going round and round?
I do not think any part of the Constitution is more important than the others. That is why, as an individual, I still don’t think the problems of this country are the laws that we have or do not have. I think it is our inability to implement the existing laws in the true spirit they were intended.

The present Constitution, more often than not, is obeyed only in the breach. People do anything regardless of what the law says and there is no consequence for their actions. That is what I think is the major problem. Bringing more laws, yes it is necessary to keep the laws updated, and to also amend the laws and in keeping with whatever realities at any particular time, but I tell you honesty must be the key word. Until we enforce our laws in good faith, without fear or favour, it may be difficult for us to get the desired results. That’s my own take. Our problem is not the existing laws, but enforcing it. If you refuse to obey the old laws, how would you obey the new one?