The House of
Representatives on Thursday voted against a clause that would have weakened the
powers of the president in the process of the alteration of the Constitution,
the foundation of the nation’s legal system.
Both chambers, Senate
and House of Representatives, concluded voting on the alteration of the 1999
Constitution via “Bills to Further alter the provisions of the Constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration) Bill, 1999.”
On the whole, the two
Houses considered the amendment to 33 sections of the Constitution based on the
reports of their ad-hoc committees on constitution review with the Senate
approving 29 and the House approving 24.
While the upper house
began and concluded the amendment on Wednesday, the lower legislative chamber
concluded the exercise on Thursday.
Both chambers have the
powers under section 9 of the Constitution to amend the document.
While the Senate
requires 72 votes, representing two-thirds, to approve the amendment to any
section of the document, 240 votes are required in the House of Representatives
for that purpose.
It states, “National
Assembly can pass an Act to amend the Constitution when its proposal to amend
the constitution has been supported by two-thirds majority of all the members
of each chamber and is approved by the resolution of at least 24 House of
Assembly of the states.”
However, the procedure
to strip the president of powers to assent to the amendment to the provisions
of the constitution requires four fifth votes of the members of both chambers.
Section 9 (1) of the
Constitution says, “The National Assembly may, subject to the provisions of
this section alter any of the provisions of this Constitution;
(2) Any act of the National
Assembly for the alteration of this constitution, not being an Act to which
section 8 of this constitution applies, shall not be passed in either House of
the National Assembly unless the proposal is supported by the votes of not less
than two-thirds majority of all the members of that House and approved by
resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the
States;
(3) An Act of the
National Assembly for the purpose of altering the provisions of this section,
section 8 and Chapter IV of this constitution shall not be passed by either
House of the National Assembly unless the proposal is approved by the votes of
not less than four fifths majority of all the members of each House and also
approved by resolution of the House of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of
all the states
In exercising its power
in Section 9 (3), 92 Senators voted to strip the president of powers to assent
amendments made to the Constitution.
However, the House
could not muster the four-fifth votes, which is about 288 votes required to
effect the amendment as it was backed by only 271 members, while 20 voted
against and none abstained.
The Bill numbered 24 is
titled, “Procedure for overriding Presidential Veto in Constitutional
Alteration.”
If the amendment had
been carried with the concurrence of the House of Representatives and further
approved by two-thirds (24) of the 36 State Houses of Assembly, the legislature
would have had sweeping powers to alter the nation’s constitution without any
role for the president.
The leader of the House
of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila, told PREMIUM TIMES on Friday that he had
drawn the attention of his colleagues to Section 9 (3) of the constitution in
order to avoid a procedural error during the voting on Thursday.
He explained that with
the defeat of the amendment in the lower legislative chamber, the proposal was
dead because it meant that it would not be part of the aspects that would be
transmitted to the state legislature for concurrence.
Under the Constitution,
the president plays a crucial role in making any bill passed by the federal
legislature become law.
Section 58 (3) states,
“Where a bill has been passed by the House in which it originated, it shall be
sent to the other House, and it shall be presented to the President for assent
when it has been passed by the other House and agreement has been reached
between the two Houses on any amendment made to it.
“Where a bill is
presented to the President for assent, he shall within thirty days thereof
signify that he assents or that he withholds assent.
“If the President
refuses to sign the bill into law within thirty-days of its referral to his
desk, the bill dies unless the National Assembly overrides the presidential
veto by passing the bill again with the support of at least a two-thirds
majority in each chamber.”
“Where the President
withholds his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by a two-thirds
majority, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not
be required.”
During the last
amendment between 2011 and 2015, the federal legislators had similarly
attempted to strip the president of powers to assent to amendments made to the
Constitution.
The then president,
Goodluck Jonathan, had rejected multiple proposals laid out by the National
Assembly as part of a new Nigerian Constitution, including clauses stipulating
free education and healthcare for every Nigerian child.
Mr. Jonathan, in a
seven-page letter to the Legislature, said he could not sign the new proposals
into law due to ‘irregularities and an attempt by the lawmakers to violate the
doctrine of Separation of Powers.’
The former president
said he could not sign a proposal seeking to dispense with the president’s
consent in future constitutional amendments until the Senate and the House of
Representatives provided “credible evidence” showing the plan was approved by
the required number of federal and state lawmakers.
He also said a proposed
clause to give free education and health to Nigerians, could not stand as proposed
as the lawmakers as it failed to state clearly that such privileges could only
be accessed from a government school or hospital, respectively.
Following the
disagreement, the federal government instituted a suit at the Supreme Court to
nullify the amendments to the Constitution.
The government
requested the Supreme Court to give an order nullifying and setting aside
Sections 3, 4, 12, 14, 21, 23, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 of the Fourth Alteration
Act, 2015 purportedly passed by the legislature.
In May 2015, a few days
before Mr. Jonathan left office following his defeat in that year’s
presidential poll, the Supreme Court ordered the federal government and the
legislature to maintain status quo on the amendment exercise.
