Constitution: States Fail to Transmit Resolutions

Written by This Day Friday, 09 July 2010

The amendment to the 1999 Constitution ran into troubled waters yesterday following the failure of state Houses of Assembly to hand in their resolutions on the document to the National Assembly as planned.

THISDAY learnt that about sixteen states are yet to conclude work on the harmonised amendment bill, the reason why it was not handed in.
The transmission of the resolution was initially scheduled to hold on June 29 but was re-scheduled for 12 noon yesterday to give them more time.

But dignitaries, which included the Senate President David Mark and Speaker of the House of Representatives Dimeji Bankole, left the venue of the event disappointed  as the expected document was not ready.

Also present  at the botched event were  the Deputy  Senate President  and Chairman of the Senate Ad hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution Ike Ekweremadu; Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and  Chairman of the House Ad hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution Hon.  Usman Bayero Nafada; as well   as other principal officers and members of both chambers of the National Assembly.

Chairman Conference of Speakers of State Houses of Assembly Hon. Istafanus Gbana blamed the failure of the state assemblies on several factors including the adoption of long processes before voting on the amendments.
Some of the states, Gbana said, took the long road of treating the harmonised amendments as a bill, organising public hearings before deliberating on the clauses slated for amendment.

Gbana also disclosed that the amendments were delayed in some of the states because their Houses of Assembly were on recess as at the time the National Assembly transmitted the bill to the 36 states.

“Basically, I think that what I can say for now is that the procedure that was adopted for the passage of these resolutions differ. Some states organised public hearings, others adopted the same procedure for a bill before the House and you know these two procedures are not the same and one will consume more time.

"So I think, basically that was why some states are left behind and they have not been able to pass the bill. But that does not mean that they have not started any process towards the passage; it is just that they have not been able to conclude the process.
“Secondly, by the time the National Assembly transmitted the harmonised copy of the document to the Houses of Assembly, some of our colleagues were on recess and they had to reconvene immediately to start this process. This is where we had some of the delays,” Gbana explained.

The bill was handed over to the state legislatures by Mark on June 15, 2010, while the states were expected to pass their resolutions and send it back to the National Assembly.

The Constitution stipulates that before any amendment to any section or clause can become law, the consent of at least two-third of the 36 state Houses of Assembly (24) is required.

According to Gbana, the Secretariat of the Conference of the Speakers of State Houses of Assembly  has been in touch with all the states since the exercise began  and received assurances that all of them will submit their resolutions ahead of yesterday’s formal hand over. These unforeseen circumstances  have aborted the earlier plans, he explained.

He disclosed that over 20 states have so far submitted their resolutions to the secretariat while the remaining have been given the next one week to conclude deliberations on the amendment and pass their own resolutions for onward transmission to the National Assembly.

Although some states have long concluded work on the document, Gbana said the Conference of Speakers prevented them from sending in their resolutions individually and prefers to send in the entire document at once.

In a brief remark, Ekweremadu apologised to the lawmakers for the failure of state legislatures to meet the deadline.
He urged everyone to see the development as a temporary set back which will be overcome in a matter of weeks, adding that Nigerians should not lose faith in the process of amending the 1999 Constitution.

Over the past three weeks, the First  Constitution Amendment Bill 2010 has dominated political discourse  across the nation. Some states sought to alter the document while others went for outright rejection of some sections they considered offensive to the sensibilities of their constituents. Only Kogi State House of Assembly adopted the document fully.

The section mostly rejected by the states was Section 65, which seeks to raise educational qualification for political office holders from school certificate to diploma. Also, Section 177 which provides for independent candidates in future elections and Sections 108 and 109 which approve cross-carpeting were widely rejected.

 Against all expectations, Section 121 which proposes first line charge in the consolidated revenue fund for state and federal legislatures was also widely rejected.  Even though it was designed to free the legislature from the stranglehold of the executive arm of government, legislators at the state parliaments kicked against it.