Case for Sovereign National conference 10/2/13 -1

Case for Sovereign National conference


Per the 1999 legal illegality SNC an imperative For relevancy and for many other reasons, the presidential committee on national conference must recommend a Sovereign National Conference so as to give such conference the force of the law. The reason past national conferences failed was because they were merely conferences for national debate that were not backed by the force of the law. This conference too will definitely fail if it is not sovereign. ‘The committee for sovereign national conference should comprise of representative of elder statesmen or leaders of thought from every ethnicity in Nigeria. The Hausa/Fulani, Ibo, and Yoruba ethnic groups would each have representatives in SNC of number of delegates equal to the sum of the representatives from the all other ethnic groups combined.’ For any meaningful progressive change, Nigeria needs a new beginning, a new rule of engagement, a new constitution.

The current Nigeria constitution is satirically analogous to the fate of a man who is heading to the God’s paradise but took a ride in the devil’s space craft. Now, by hitchhiking with the devil this man has not committed any sin. But for his heavenly arrival he must get off the devil’s vehicle. However, he cannot because there are no more vehicles heading his heavenly direction. Yet, if he continues with the devil’s ride he will not get to his destination because deviled craft would never go near the God’s domain. Neither the Legislature nor the Judiciary nor the Executive have the power to abrogate the military’s 1999 constitutional degree; because the current constitution, like the devil’s space craft, is from where these three arms of the government derive their power, authority and legitimacy. Without the current military constitution these arms of government are in themselves inexistent and cannot function. These arms of the government cannot even correct, rectify, the 1999 constitution (the 1999 military decree) because in a republic they lack the power or people’s mandate to affect such constitutional changes except the people ratify such change. In a republic, the three arms of the government also cannot individually or collectively make a new constitution because they are but servants of the People, the Master. Servants do not make rules, laws for or over the Master.

Amendment to the current 1999 constitution with or without the presidential assent is an ultra varies; an act in futility. So long as the 1999 constitution is in itself a military construct, an amendment to it or a new constitution draft like onto it, not ratified by the people are but aberrations. In fact a presidential assent to any amendment to the 1999 constitution (or the 1999 military decree) or a new constitution draft not subject to the people’s ratification constitutes double illegalities, which does not equal legality. Any court decision for or against the amendment to the 1999 military decree is a triple illegality which again do not equal legality, because the 1999 military decree is not a people’s constitution but the act of the military dictatorship. If military regimes are aberrations so are the laws, constitutions, decrees put in place by these regimes. Under a truly democratic rule, leaders of these juntas should be put to trial for treason. The 1999 Nigeria constitution is but the fruit of poisonous tree. It is impossible for evil to beget good. So if military dictatorship is an evilly, politically poisonous tree, how can this evil beget good; the good of moral, ethical constitutional order? Military dictatorships in Nigeria were aberration, so are their decrees, edicts, promulgations, laws and constitutions regardless how these were constituted. The 1999 constitution is akin to a moral text authored by a criminal and a morally bankrupt person or persons. Of the three arms of the government the judiciary, the Supreme Court in particular must support a sovereign national conference. That is, if the Judiciary understands that it currently operates on a phantom constitutional nebula represented by the 1999 military decree. This is tricky but it is the way out from the military decree that Nigeria is currently operating on. To escape the current constitutional quagmire, elders, clergies, leaders of the people, citizens from across the nation must convene a constitutional conference while the nation still rides on the current devils craft which is the 1999 military decree. The Nigeria’s sovereignty and unitary would not be subject to negotiations in any constitutional conference. In a republic, sovereignty resides with people. And since a constitution or an amendment to it must be ratified by the 3/4 or 2/3 or the whole of the people, as the case may be, and by their delegated representatives, presidential assent is not required for such constitutional draft or amendment. The president is a servant to the people, the Master, and receives his/her mandate from the people, the Master. It therefore would be illogical that the Master’s rules or decision to draft a people’s constitution would be subservient (subject) to the servant or to his/her signatory or approval. Presidential assent to legitimate people's constitution is inconsequential and therefore not necessary. In a republic, a constitution is the law of the land by the act of the people to whom sovereignty resides with; while a statute is the law of the land by the deliberative act of the subservient delegated legislature whose authority comes from the people. Statutes are repeal-able, voidable, nullify-able, suspend-able, postpone-able, by the legislature itself or by the courts, but constitutions are not, accept the Master, the people so chooses; or a dictatorship forcefully suspends the constitution, a treasonable offense. So the legislature has no power to amend or draft a new constitution except such amendment or draft is ordained by the people and subject to ratification by the people. Constitutional amendment is not an exclusive function for the legislature and must receive explicit assent of the people. Any constitution not expressly authorized and or ratified by the people is illegal, unconstitutional and an aberration, with or without presidential assent. The 1999 military act or decree is not in itself a republican constitution and can best be called legal illegality or constitutional aberration. To avoid a constitutional crisis that is inevitable with the military’s 1999 constitutional aberration, a sovereign national conference becomes imperative.