Why Nigeria Cannot Have New Constitution Now, By House Of Reps

The House of Representatives said on Sunday a new Constitution
remains impossible because the 1999 Constitution only made
provisions for amendments.

The House also said returning to the 1963 constitution as being
demanded by some sections of the country was impracticable because
it will only take the powers of the people and confer them on a few
individuals.

Reacting to agitations in some quarters that the ongoing
constitutional amendment process should be abandoned for a brand
new Constitution, House spokesman Benjamin Kalu said: “The
constitution establishes the parameters and limits of government
engagement and power. It serves as a tool for the government to
determine the extent to which it can impose laws and regulations on
the country’s population.

“The Constitution serves three important functions. It is the
legal document from which every institution in the country gets its
validity; it contains all the fundamental rights of every Nigerian
citizen and it is the basis of the social contract between citizens
and the state”.

Speaking on the 1963 constitution, Kalu said: “The 1963
Constitution had certain merits at the time. In that document, an
elected president replaced the British Monarch who was Nigeria’s
head under the Independence Constitution and the constitution was
an autochthonous one credited for being a product of extensive
consultation and public input.

“It made the Supreme Court the final court of appeal instead of
the British Privy Council and the rights of Nigerian citizens were
fully guaranteed and entrenched in it.

“Despite these merits of the 1963 constitution, Nigerians must
acknowledge that law is made for man and not man for the law. The
1963 constitution was ideal for a Nigeria that had just attained
its independence and was still asserting its sovereignty and
freedom from British colonial influence.

“Our country, and indeed, the world have evolved from the
prevailing circumstances of 58 years ago and as such, we must focus
on improving the current constitution rather than adopting a
6-decade old constitution.

“We must also acknowledge the fact that the 1963 constitution
was an imperfect document that had certain demerits. These include
the fact that the President was elected by the National Assembly
who constituted the minority instead of the majority of the
electorate.

“It permitted ‘carpet-crossing’ in which elected politicians
shifted party allegiance for personal rewards, there was
parliamentary supremacy in the constitution, while the Prime
Minister was accountable to the parliament and not to the
people.

“So, rather than replacing the 1999 constitution with an archaic
one, I am strongly of the opinion that a comparative analysis of
the merits and demerits of both Constitutions must be had in order
to adopt that which worked from 1963 and expunge that which does
not work in the current constitution”.

He added: “While the calls for a total constitutional overhaul
are valid and understandable, we must acknowledge that the
situation in Nigeria demands a quick review of the constitution as
opposed to a total overhaul, for want of time.

“A review of the Constitution has become necessary in the face
of growing insecurity and threats exposing the fragility of the
Nigerian state. Fortunately, the 9th House of Representatives has
severally affirmed its commitment to reviewing the 1999
Constitution in line with the yearnings of Nigerians”.

The House of Representatives said on Sunday a new Constitution
remains impossible because the 1999 Constitution only made
provisions for amendments.

The House also said returning to the 1963 constitution as being
demanded by some sections of the country was impracticable because
it will only take the powers of the people and confer them on a few
individuals.

Reacting to agitations in some quarters that the ongoing
constitutional amendment process should be abandoned for a brand
new Constitution, House spokesman Benjamin Kalu said: “The
constitution establishes the parameters and limits of government
engagement and power. It serves as a tool for the government to
determine the extent to which it can impose laws and regulations on
the country’s population.

“The Constitution serves three important functions. It is the
legal document from which every institution in the country gets its
validity; it contains all the fundamental rights of every Nigerian
citizen and it is the basis of the social contract between citizens
and the state”.

Speaking on the 1963 constitution, Kalu said: “The 1963
Constitution had certain merits at the time. In that document, an
elected president replaced the British Monarch who was Nigeria’s
head under the Independence Constitution and the constitution was
an autochthonous one credited for being a product of extensive
consultation and public input.

“It made the Supreme Court the final court of appeal instead of
the British Privy Council and the rights of Nigerian citizens were
fully guaranteed and entrenched in it.

“Despite these merits of the 1963 constitution, Nigerians must
acknowledge that law is made for man and not man for the law. The
1963 constitution was ideal for a Nigeria that had just attained
its independence and was still asserting its sovereignty and
freedom from British colonial influence.

“Our country, and indeed, the world have evolved from the
prevailing circumstances of 58 years ago and as such, we must focus
on improving the current constitution rather than adopting a
6-decade old constitution.

“We must also acknowledge the fact that the 1963 constitution
was an imperfect document that had certain demerits. These include
the fact that the President was elected by the National Assembly
who constituted the minority instead of the majority of the
electorate.

“It permitted ‘carpet-crossing’ in which elected politicians
shifted party allegiance for personal rewards, there was
parliamentary supremacy in the constitution, while the Prime
Minister was accountable to the parliament and not to the
people.

“So, rather than replacing the 1999 constitution with an archaic
one, I am strongly of the opinion that a comparative analysis of
the merits and demerits of both Constitutions must be had in order
to adopt that which worked from 1963 and expunge that which does
not work in the current constitution”.

He added: “While the calls for a total constitutional overhaul
are valid and understandable, we must acknowledge that the
situation in Nigeria demands a quick review of the constitution as
opposed to a total overhaul, for want of time.

“A review of the Constitution has become necessary in the face
of growing insecurity and threats exposing the fragility of the
Nigerian state. Fortunately, the 9th House of Representatives has
severally affirmed its commitment to reviewing the 1999
Constitution in line with the yearnings of Nigerians”.