The Senate has asserted that the decision on whether Nigeria should transition to state and local policing, as opposed to the existing federal structure, and the type of government system to be implemented, will be determined by Nigerians through their elected representatives.
Newsmen was informed of this by the Senate spokesperson, Yemi Adaramodu, who emphasized that the Senate’s stance aligns with the views of Nigerians, emphasizing that the Senate cannot form its opinion independently of the populace.
On Thursday, February 15, 2024, President Bola Tinubu held discussions with state governors and reached an agreement on implementing state and community police systems to address the escalating insecurity plaguing the nation.
In response to this development, Adaramodu noted that the Senate had established a committee on Wednesday to review the Constitution, and it would be allowed to fulfill its duties without interference.
He said, “The Senate has just named its Constitution Review committee, with the Deputy Senate President as the chairman. The committee will have lawmakers from different states across the federation as members.
“The Senate is giving the committee a free hand to relate with various stakeholders across the country. They are to research extensively across every sector; not just as regards policing or security, they will look into different sectors of the economy; from political to economic. We want to do a thorough job this time, so that we don’t keep reviewing the constitution every four years.”
He further mentioned that the Senate would not hastily form an opinion but would instead await the committee’s engagement with Nigerians and the subsequent presentation of their feedback to the upper chamber.
Senator Adaramodu stated, “The parliament is to make laws, and the laws that parliament will make will not be generated outside the interests and aspirations of Nigerians.
“The Constitution amendment committee will meet with all the critical stakeholders in the country, including traditional rulers.
“When they meet and we know what Nigerians want, that is the law we are going to make, because we represent the people, and the law must be the people’s law.”
Speaking on adopting the parliamentary system of government, as proposed by some lawmakers in the green chamber, Adaramodu insisted that Nigerians were the ones that would determine what system of government they wanted to practise.
He said, “It is a major constitutional issue that cannot be dealt with only on the floor of the NASS. The committee will hear from Nigerians, who are the ones that will determine whether they want to change the system of government in place. It is whatever they decide that we will work.”
“A bill is not a law. A bill can only become a law after it has gone through the crucibles of legislative scrutiny. The language of the Senate is the language of Nigeria, because we are a vital part of the body. We will speak the same language as Nigerians when the bills come to us.”
Similarly, the House of Representatives has solicited inputs from Nigerians to influence the discourse preceding the commencement of the constitutional amendment process.
Earlier in the week, 60 members of the House of Representatives, led by the Minority Leader, Kinglsey Chinda, introduced several bills for first reading in the esteemed chambers of the House. These bills seek to amend the 1999 Constitution, aiming to facilitate the adoption of the parliamentary system across all three tiers of government.
In an interview with Saturday PUNCH, the spokesperson of the lower chamber, Akin Rotimi, explained that the 60 lawmakers have initiated a process that necessitates the participation of Nigerians. This participation is crucial in determining whether the parliamentary system of government is preferable to the presidential model.
He said, “The lawmakers have started a key part of the constitutional amendment process, and they are consulting.
“What is important now is for Nigerians, particularly media practitioners, to make their contributions by helping to highlight the merits or otherwise of the parliamentary system.”
Expressing his viewpoint, another member of the House of Representatives, Oluwole Oke, acknowledged the merit of the proposal while highlighting the necessity of addressing certain inquiries to facilitate the amendment process.
In an interview with our correspondent, Oke, representing the Obokun/Oriade Federal Constituency in Osun State, emphasized the intricate implications associated with adopting a parliamentary system. This includes potential repercussions such as the potential abolition of the 36 states within the federation.
Oke, who serves as the chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary, further elaborated that the adoption of a parliamentary model of governance might lead to regionalism, akin to the experience observed during the First Republic.
He said, “It is a good idea, considering cost and accountability, but will it ensure equality in terms of representation, taking into account our multicultural nature? If we have to copy the United Kingdom (which practises the parliamentary system), it means the states might have to go, and leave us with two tiers of government— local and federal. We may also need to explore regional and confederation systems, thus embracing true federalism.”
On his part, a constitutional lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, described the move by the lawmakers as ‘a great step in the right direction’.
He said, “The presidential system is prohibitively costly, wasteful, corruption-laden, unaccountable and inhibitive of progress. Wealthy countries, such as the United States of America, can afford it but not poor, hemorrhaging and struggling countries like Nigeria. The parliamentary system is accountable. It makes a prime minister just a minister who can be booted out of office following a vote of no confidence. The United Kingdom is a ready example.”
Meanwhile, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kayode Ajulo, told Saturday PUNCH that the process would entail a fundamental shift in the structure of political governance in the country.
He said, “A transition from the presidential system to a parliamentary one would entail significant changes in the structure and functions of the government.
“Transitioning from a presidential system to a parliamentary one would require amending various provisions of the Constitution to accommodate the new system’s requirements. Some potential constitutional implications that might arise from this transition include the fact that the distribution of powers and roles between the executive and legislative branches would need to be redefined. This would include determining the powers and responsibilities of the prime minister, the cabinet, and the parliament.
“The method of electing the head of government may change, as the prime minister would typically be chosen from the majority party or coalition in the parliament. This would affect the electoral process, including the role of political parties and the voting system.