Falana Faults Jonathan for Rejecting Amendments to 1999 Constitution
Identifies controversial sections to be rejected
Gboyega Akinsanmi A human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), yesterday faulted the decision of President Goodluck Jonathan to reject in its entirety, the 70 amendments the National Assembly had proposed to the 1999 Constitution.
Falana also warned that the 70 proposed amendments might suffer the same fate that led to the rejection of the 108 proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution in 2006.
He expressed grave concern over the reasons the president gave for rejecting the 70 proposed amendment to the constitution in a statement he personally signed, thereby warning against throwing baby with the bath water.
As argued in his statement, Falana identified some controversial sections in the newly proposed amendments, which he said the president should have withheld his signature rather than rejecting the entire amendments.
The human rights activist identified the controversial provisions to include the section that sought to pay pension for life to former leaders of the National Assembly, which he described as outrageous and scandalous.
He said the letter, which the president addressed to the National Assembly, called for a sober examination of the reasons he adduced for rejecting the controversial amendments, which Falana said are patently illegal and unconstitutional.
He, however, argued that the president goofed on the procedure for altering the provisions of the constitution, citing that the president’s view that an amendment of the constitution “requires the votes of four-fifths of the National Assembly and approved by the resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the states is patently wrong.
“The stringent requirement of section 9(3) of the constitution is only applicable to the alteration of section 8 (on state creation), section 9 (on constitutional amendment) or chapter four (on fundamental rights) thereof.
“In other words, the alteration of any of the other provisions of the constitution requires the resolution of two- thirds majority of the National Assembly and the Houses of Assembly of all the states of the federation.”
He, therefore, pointed out that it “is on record that the last three alterations of the constitution were passed by the two-thirds majority of the federal and state legislators and signed into law by President Jonathan in 2010 and 2011.”
Falana urged the president to withdraw his letter to the National Assembly and review his position on the constitutional amendment since he rejected the amendments based on the erroneous belief that the requisite constitutional requirement was not met.
He referred the president to one of his promises during electioneering that he would implement the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference, which he said the Federal Executive Council (FEC) “has since passed a resolution for the immediate implementation of the resolutions of the confab.”
He said one of the most important recommendations “is that chapter two of the constitution on the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy be made justiciable. Since that recommendation and a few others are in tandem with the proposed amendment of the constitution, President Jonathan ought to have endorsed the relevant provisions.”
Falana argued that rejecting the proposed amendment that every child be entitled “to free education, the president said that there was no dichotomy between public and private schools.”
He added that he attention of the president “ought to have been drawn to section 15 of the Child Rights Act, 2003 and section 2 of the Compulsory, Universal, Free Basic Education Act, 2004 which have made education free and compulsory from primary to junior secondary school for every Nigerian child.”
The human right activits also argued that before rejecting the amendment on the right to basic health care, the president should have been reminded that the National Health Bill, 2014 he signed into law in November 2014 “has directed the federal government to fund basic health care with not less than one percent of the consolidated revenue of the federal government.”
He, therefore, observed that since the amendment “has merely enshrined the right to basic education and basic health care in the constitution, the president ought to have signed that aspect of the proposed amendments in the interest of the poor and vulnerable segment of the country.”
Falana warned that in 2006, the 108 amendments of the constitution were thrown away with the third term agenda of President Olusegun Obasanjo, noting that if care “is not taken, the over 70 proposed amendments proposed by the legislators might suffer the same fate.”