Home Letters OPINION: Of Good Governance & Parliamentary System of Government, By Adémólá Òrúnbon

OPINION: Of Good Governance & Parliamentary System of Government, By Adémólá Òrúnbon

0

It is almost 22 years of democratic rule in Nigeria. There is no better time than now to assess the suitability of the 1999 constitution.

It is even more compelling in the light of recent happenings in the country, especially the wanton killings by the Boko Haram, kidnapping of innocent people by the bandits, and insecurity of lives and property that has becomes norms and part of the people, indeed, Nigerians are now living in fears, many Nigerians are now scampering for safety instead of searching for the means of livelihood, which a lot of people expected to cement democracy proved clearly that we are not yet in civility.

Unexpectedly, the 2021 budget is more on recurrent expenditure than capital projects. The recurrent expenditure is to maintain political office holders and their numerous aides. In fact, since the advent into civil rule the cost of running government has been on the high side.

These amongst others shows that there is a need to implement the 2014 conference report and do away with the 1999 constitution which is the guardian angel of this republic, or better still, we should go back to the parliamentary system of government.

Indeed, the 1999 constitution was full of abnormalities and biases, which caused major havoc to the living conditions of common man in this country. The model of government under the 1999 constitution is called the presidential system of government.

The presidential system of government is a system of government where the President has strong powers to function as head of government independent of the legislature. Here, the President has executive powers which he can exercise directly or indirectly through his ministers.

Section 5 of the 1999 constitution provides as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the executive powers of the Federation shall be vested in the President and may subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Minister of the Government of the Federation; and (b) shall extend to execution and maintenance of this constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws.”

The sweeping powers of the President is limited by section 5(4)(a)&(b).The President by the aforesaid sections cannot declare a state of war between the federation and another country except by the sanction of a resolution of both houses of the National assembly or deploy any member of the Armed Forces of the federation for combat duty outside Nigeria without the sanction of the National Assembly in the form of a resolution.

The President is also the Commander-in–Chief of the armed forces of the federation .By section 218 of the 1999 constitution ,he is to determine the operational use of the armed forces of the federation .

These are sweeping powers indeed! Although section 218 (4) provides that the national assembly shall have power to make laws for the regulation of the powers exercisable by the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federation.

This is not enough to limit the enormous powers conferred on the president by the said section. Acts or laws can not envisage every human scenario that might crop up so effective regulation of that power is really out of it. In principle, though, the 1999 constitution has checks and balances. This can be gleamed from some of the sections cited above. An active National Assembly can check the enormous powers of the president but there is a limit to what the national assembly can do in the face of these enormous powers.

Our experience has brought this question to the front-burner, can we afford to give enormous powers to one man ‘The framers of the 1979 constitution which introduced the presidential system of government for the first time in our political history which later changed to the 1999 constitution did not anticipate a president that could transform into a civilian dictator.

We and them have since been woken up from that ignorance! The proponents of strong powers for the president, a main feature of the presidential system of government, believes that such powers is needed for strong and united leadership especially in times of crisis and because of the diverse ethnic composition of the country.

These are good reasons to give strong powers for the president but it is the reverse that we have seen as a people .We are living witnesses to what transpired in the last administration. We had a President that was surreptitiously removing governors, senate presidents through the instrumentality of state, a President that was disobeying court orders and a President that rigged a lot of his party-men into office. Obviously these are the dangers inherent in a presidential system of government or better still points to the fact that the presidential system of government might not be compatible with our clime as a people.

Every constitution however good it might be is premised on one fact that the operators would be gentlemen, men of honour.  Our experience has shown that we might not always have men of honour in office and we should not wait till another autocratic leader springs up before we realize our mistake .We need to switch gears. A country where political patronage is the major source of livelihood and a President that controls the disbursement of funds and all governmental structures, extremes that should not exist side by side, there is no way everybody will not be at the beck and call of the President. We need to go back to the parliamentary system of government that we operated in the first republic under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions.

The parliamentary system of government that we practiced then offers some bright lessons for a time such as this. In this write-up, I will enumerate the good side of the 1960 and 1963 constitutions and the provisions that need not be adopted again as it relates to the model of government. The parliamentary system of government under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions was characterized by four main features. (1) The separation of the Head of State and Head of Government. (2) The plurality of the executive. (3) Parliamentary character of the executive. (4) The responsibility of the ministers to the legislature. The plurality of the executive: The executive is plural in the sense that the Prime Minister is the Head of the Council of Ministers. It is plural in the sense that the Prime Minister has more than one vote in council meetings deliberations.

In the cabinet, all other members stand on equal footing – one man, one vote. It is the Prime Minister that is primus interpares. The council of Ministers derives its authority from the Prime Minister because they leave office when his tenure ceases. He chooses his Ministers from among his colleagues in the parliament. The separation of Head of State from Head of Government: The head of state was the Governor-General which later turned into the President (under the 1963 constitution) while the head of government was the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister with his cabinet members that coordinate the government while the Governor-General plays a titular role. Parliamentary character of the executive: Members of the executive are also members of parliament. It is the political party that has the largest number of votes that forms the cabinet.

The responsibility of the Executive to the legislature; Here, the legislature has greater control of the cabinet. They are actually fused. The legislature could pass a vote of no confidence on any of the ministers including the Prime Minister. Now, let us go to the relevance of the above features of 1960 and 1963 constitutions to our present situation. One complaint that has been recurring from the National Assembly in this present Republic is the non-implementation of the budget which has led to infrastructural decay and the absence of the dividends of democracy. This cannot happen in a Parliamentary system of government where the legislature has greater control of the executive. The executive of the First Republic was described thus: ”the major task of the cabinet is not to lead the party, to manage the parliament or think out policy, but to coordinate administration, ensure that legislative proposals are acceptable to the departments concerned, to keep senior minister in touch with the various lines of activity and to give the work of government a measure of unity.”

Proponents of the presidential system of government might argue that under the 1999 constitution the legislature has the power to investigate government ministries and parastatals (section 88 of the 1999 constitution). That it is, because the National Assembly has not been up to its responsibility that is why we have had that ugly experience. The power to investigate is curative in nature but the parliamentary system of government will bequeath to us a proactive approach to the issue, it will prevent it from happening. The point is well summed up in this aphorism “Prevention is better than cure.” Also, the collective responsibility under the parliamentary system of government will make long term planning easier and will effectively check any slide to civilian autocracy or dictatorship. Section 83 of the 1960 constitution provides as follows: ”the cabinet shall be collectively responsible for any advice given to the Governor-General by or under the general authority of any minister of the government of the federation in the execution of his office.” This no doubt will ensure for careful reasoning on the part of the cabinet. It will make for well thought-out policies that can stand the test of time.

Mind you, no member of cabinet will be railroad into adopting a policy he clearly believes to be wrong. He can resign because he knows the public will hold him accountable for any wrong policy he supports. It makes for more ethics in governance unlike a Presidential system of government where the Minister feels he is obligated to the President because he put him in office. He cannot fully exercise his moral convictions. The Prime Minister cannot act arbitrarily because he knows he is in a position of power as a result of the collective effort of an organized party in which there would be many other acknowledged leaders .This means he cannot exercise his power in complete disregard of these other interests within his party. If he did, he would risk the break-up of his cabinet but also his own downfall. This will make for careful and conscientious leadership.

What we have presently is immediately the President is elected, he becomes the Leader of the party whether it is contained in the party’s constitution or not. Everybody gravitates towards the President including the Chairman of the party, in fact; he owes his being in office to the support of the President. Lastly, the parliamentary system of government is cheaper to run. The cost of election is relatively cheaper because candidates are limited within their confined constituencies. Also, it is cheaper to maintain political office-holders because members of cabinet are chosen from the parliament unlike in the presidential system of government where Ministers can be chosen from anywhere. This will reduce over-head cost on government officials.

At the moment, we hold elections into 774 Local Governments, 36 Governorship Seats, 109 Senatorial Seats, 360 House of Representative Seats, thousands of Houses of Assembly, which cut across the 36 States of the Federation and the office of the President and the National Assembly which contains four hundred and sixty nine members. If we hold elections based on the number of constituencies, it will not be that expensive even if we increase the number of constituencies. However, there is a rider, if we go back to the parliamentary system of government, we must jettison the state structure we currently have. It cannot be fully practiced at the lower tiers of government because of their small nature. We need to go back to the regional arrangement we had in the first republic.

We presently have six geo-political zones. We should have regions along that line. The six regions will be namely: SOUTH-SOUTH region, SOUTH-EAST region, SOUTH-WEST region, NORTH-WEST region, NORTH-EAST region, NORTH-CENTRAL region. The six regional arrangements is a better response to agitations for more States than amending the constitution to create more States which is even hard to do under the present constitution. Again, all the demands for more States can never be satisfied and actually it will address the structural imbalance we presently have in the polity where the South has 17 States while the North has 19 States.

The operation of the 1960 constitution was marred by a constitutional provision which in actual fact was intended to enforce the collective responsibility of the executive. Section 33 (10) (constitution of western region) provides that the Governor could dismiss the Premier if it appeared to him that the Premier no longer enjoyed the support of the majority in the parliament. The problem created by it was actually due to bad drafting. The question left unanswered by the provision was how the Governor should determine when the Premier no longer enjoyed the support of the Parliament. This led to a crisis in the western region and gave rise to the case of Adegbenro vs Akintola. The lacuna was effectively resolved by the Constitution of Western Nigeria (Amendment Law) 1963 where it was clearly stated that the Governor could remove the Premier in consequence of a vote of no confidence by the House of Assembly.The personality clash that we saw in the first republic between the president and the Prime Minister was due to the lack of knowledge of the workings of the parliamentary system of government. Nigerians are more knowledgeable and exposed that they were in the First Republic. Also, we have elder statesmen that could conveniently fill the fath

erly role of the President. There should be a clear demarcation of powers of both the President and the Prime Minister. Another omission in the 1960 and 1963 constitutions is on the structure and organization of political parties which allowed political parties to develop along regional lines. We had no national party then. This would have been averted if there was a clear provision for political parties. Section 222 (e) of the 1999 constitution which provides that the symbol or logo of a political party should not have any religious or ethnic connotation or that its activities be limited to a particular geographical area would have been beneficial in the first republic.

National spread should be the basis of the existence of political parties. This should be made a criterion at the point of registration and after registration. Despite all the shortcomings, the parliamentary system of government represents our best hope for careful and conscientious leadership. The system is more democratic as we will see more people-oriented policies. Most of the policies will emanate from the legislature who are elected representatives of the people-legislators who are in touch with their constituencies. It will give the people greater participation in governance.

Òrúnbon, an opinion writer, poet, journalist and public affairs analyst, writes in from Federal Housing Estate, Olomore, Abeokuta, Ogun State.

Can be reached via: orunbonibrahimademola@gmail.com, or 08034493944, 08029301122

 

nigeria_news_access_bank_online

Like and Share this:

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here