Constitution Review: House Replies Jonathan

Constitution Review: House Replies Jonathan

The House of Representatives on Thursday insisted that it did not flout any constitutional requirement in the process of amending the constitution, which President Goodluck Jonathan rejected via a letter to the parliament on April 13, 2015 and further sued the House to court.

The Deputy Minority Whip of the House, Hon. Eric Osagie (APC, Edo) gave explanations on aspects of the constitution review contended by the president.

On Clause 4 (alteration of Section 9), Osagie said: "the National Assembly met the requirement of the said Section 9 (3) for four-fifths of votes of members of each House.

"A reference to the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives for Wednesday 24, July 2013, No. 15 at page 117 shows that the alteration of Section 9, attendance of members as registered was 338. Ayes votes were 317, Nays votes were 6, Abstain 15, totalling 338. The Senate also voted accordingly."

Clause 4. seeks to alter Section 9 of the constitution regarding the assent of the president in the process of constitution amendment.

Further on the mandate given to the president to assent to bills sent to him within 30 days, the lower chamber. Said it is not strange. "The only new thing is that the National Assembly introduced an amendment to the effect that if the President fails to assent to the bill or indicate his withholding of assent, the bill shall become law after the 30 days interval.

Another clause which the president contested is Clause 12, where new sections 45 A and 45 B were inserted seeking to guarantee right to free education.

On this portion, the House explained that it was silent on some salient points because the constitution is self -xplanatory on "institutions and organs against whom constitutionally guaranteed rights are usually sought to be obtained from are known by the citizenry.

"Besides, in the event of a dispute on this, the interpretative role of the courts come into play."

On the amendment seeking to reduce the period when expenditure can be authorised in default of appropriation from 6 months to 3 months, Osagie, who also co-chairman of the ad-hoc committee on the constitution review, said: "The constitution envisages that the president shall communicate his withholding of assent before the National Assembly could invoke the powers to override the veto, or sustain it."

"But where this is not communicated, the National Assembly becomes hamstrung. Thirty days is certainly long enough for the President to do his solemn constitutional duty," the House observed.

Turning to the reservation of the President on the separation of the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice, the lower chamber argued that the separation "is to guarantee the impartiality of the  Attorney-General over public prosecutions while the minister of justice serves as Chief Legal Adviser to government