Daily Independent (Lagos)
Olusola Balogun
13 October 2008
interview
Senator Olorunnimbe Mamora, a chieftain of the Action Congress (AC), is not an alien to Nigerian politics. The medical doctor-turned politician stormed the political scene in 1999 when he emerged Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly ahead of several veteran politicians in the House. From there, he was elected into the nation's highest law-making body - the Senate - in 2003.
In this interview with Assistant Editor, OLUSOLA BALOGUN, the Senate Deputy Minority Leader explains why the upper chamber is not happy with President Umaru Yar'Adua over the handover of Bakassi. He examines on other issues including the controversy over the President's health.
Excerpts:
There is a lot of uncertainty about the health of the President and some people believe the matter is not being well handled by the people who ought to disseminate information about the President's health status. It is believed that the government is being too secretive about his health. Do you share the view that the health of the President is his private business?
Let me start by also saying that I wish the President good health. I wish him speedy recovery and I wish him sound mind and health for him to cope with the enormous responsibilities of his office. The day we took oath of office to be public office holders, we have lost, if not our entire privacy, a larger portion of that privacy. So, we are subjected to public scrutiny in all aspects of our life, including our health. Nigerians have the right to know what is happening in terms of the President's health, at any given point in time.
It will appear, as you rightly said, that undue secrecy is being applied to the issue of Mr. President's health. We are all human beings, we can take ill; we have blood in our systems, we can take ill at any point in time. But, again, there is nothing to hide about it.
In other climes, where things are done better, every little thing concerning the health, particularly of the President or a Head of State, attracts the front page, even common flu, what we call catarrh, there is no big deal.
When you hide the truth from the people, then you cannot blame them for rumour mongering. My advice is to the handlers of information about the President and the Presidency to own up openly without delay, if and when there is need for it, particularly on issues as it affects the health of the President.
But the PDP (Peoples Democratic Party)is saying that it's the opposition that is fueling the speculations about the President's health?
I have said this repeatedly, that the PDP appears to be a confused party. Recently, they came out and said the opposition parties are trying to destabilise the government, they are trying to even engineer a coup. It's balderdash and totally nonsensical outburst. What has the opposition got to do in this matter? We have all the entire Nigerians. You see the problem is the tendency to always want to politicise every matter in this country. Every thing cannot be politicised. But, unfortunately, every thing that happens, the PDP has a way of always reading politics into it. It's unfortunate and we really need to talk to PDP to please govern and stop applying politics to all issues.
Another very contentious issue, especially in Lagos, is the number of local governments. Governor Fashola said that elections would be conducted in the 57 local governments, including the 37 LCDAs, but the PDP is opposed to that insisting on the 20, even the Attorney-General of the Federation wrote a letter to Lagos State advising them over this. You were part of it from the beginning. Where do you stand in all this? Also some people said that the Constitution has already been violated by the ceding of Bakassi to Cameroon, because Bakassi Local Government was in the Constitution?
The issue of local governments in Lagos has become an over-flogged matter. To start with, the Attorney General of the Federation has no business writing to Lagos State Government regarding the conduct of elections, because if you look at the Constitution, there is no role for the Federal Government in the conduct of local government elections. It is squarely the business of the state.
You will recall that following the creation of these local governments, as far back as 2002 under my speakership, Lagos State fulfilled its own side of the bargain because, what the Constitution said under Section 8 is that following the creation, the states shall make returns to the National Assembly which we did. I led the state delegation that made that returns. The then Speaker, Ghali Umar Na'Abba and Senate President, Anyim Pius Anyim received us.
To that extent, we have fulfilled all righteousness in respect of the process for creation of new local governments in Lagos, and we need to understand properly the issues: creation of new local governments and then post creation. Creation is exclusive preserve of the state, which we did.
Now listing into the First Schedule of the Constitution, that is the problem of the National Assembly.
Now, you recall that in a suit filed by the PDP against the state that has since been decided even at the level of the Supreme Court. One of the prayers sought by the plaintiff, the PDP, was that the Supreme Court should nullify the election conducted in Lagos State. But the Supreme Court refused to do that, and stated clearly that it was within our powers to create, and once we have so created, we also have powers to conduct elections to them. As far as I am concerned, there are no new issues to be determined, no new issues.
The only issue that is still outstanding is the listing into the First Schedule of the Constitution where local governments are listed, and that is not the business of Lagos State, it is the business of the National Assembly. So, as far as I am concerned, it is the National Assembly that has failed to do that which the Constitution has vested them to do and in so doing, the Constitution is clear about what the Constitution says that, 'the National Assembly shall make consequential provisions.' So, it's a directive, it's mandatory, it's not a request. As far as we are concerned, we have done what we need to do and, as far as we are concerned, the new 37 local governments have come to stay.
We need to get it clear; creation and listing are two different things, and this is the crux of the matter. And you cannot deny the fact that we have created new local governments, and if they have been created, they will also need to apply the Section 7 of the Constitution which talks of being democratically elected, and that's why we are proceeding into having elections to them. I have always argued that now that we have another chance for constitutional amendment, my position has always been that we should expunge this first schedule listing of local governments in the Constitution.
The Constitution has put the local governments effectively under the state, so it should be the business of the state to determine what they do with the local governments and once that is done, we would not have this problem because we are not the only one in this, many local governments were created in Niger, Nassarawa and so many other states. So, the earlier we amend the Constitution to expunge this so-called listing, the better for us, because we are under a federal system and, as it is now, the federating units are the states. So it should be the business of the states to determine the number of local governments that they want, given the circumstance of which the state is in the federation, so that once and for all, we can put this issue to rest.
Do you see the ceding of Bakassi as causing harm to the Constitution?
Well, you see again, there are so many issues; but yes, it's also part of what we are saying, the Bakassi issue. Its quite unfortunate because of the kind of processes the whole thing went through. Now when you talk of Bakassi, as it is today, that has become a very big issue: when you talk about ratification of a treaty, the so- called Green Tree Agreement. The ratification of a treaty is the business of the Executive and the Green Tree Agreement came as an aftermath of the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where we voluntarily submitted ourselves to ICJ.. And, unfortunately, arising from that ruling we seem to have lost out and it now came to the issue of implementation of the ruling - that was how the issue of the Green Tree Agreement came into being. Of course, we had arbitrators from both sides. We had the highly respected Prince Bola Ajibola, he was one of the top arbitrators involved. But to cut the whole thing short, we decided to implement the Green Tree Agreement. But where do we find ourselves?
The grouse of the Senate as at when the issue was reopened in this present Senate, the grouse was based on certain fundamentals: one, is the fact that we are of the opinion that to the extent that Bakassi is an entity within the geographical expression called Nigeria, we believe that if it has to be ceded, then one would expect that some constitutional amendment takes place because the constitution recognises the geographical entity called Nigeria.
So, to the extent that no constitutional amendment has taken place, to really effect that ceding, then the process or procedure is defective.
Two, we are of the opinion that because Nigerians are involved, Nigerians who have their homes in that part of the country, it's only fair to have allowed them the birthright of self-determination which is guaranteed under the international Convention of Human Rights. Also, minimally, we ought to have been given a chance in referendum to determine where they want to belong - Nigeria or Cameroon? So the people have been denied that right to self-determination.
Three, is that under Section 12 of the Constitution, no treaty can have the force of law until it has been domesticated and the domestication involves passing it as a bill in the National Assembly. That was not done.
Finally, the fact that at the end of it all, we were talking of displacement of people who are Nigerians, and if these people must be displaced, adequate preparations ought to have been made for resettlement and rehabilitation. So those are the four main issues involved in this Bakassi affair, and we must be our brothers' keepers. So, these are the issues that we are not too happy about and, we felt as representatives of the people, we had a duty to alert Nigerians and let people know that things have not been done in the proper way, the procedure has been defective and, to that extent, not acceptable to us.
These are impeachable offences. Is the Senate thinking towards that line?
I don't want us to use the word "impeachment". It is a weighty word, which we can't afford to use like that. Impeachment is an extreme sanction that the Legislature should not think of as a matter of routine; it should be a last resort. We must always explore and dialogue at all times. I would not be thinking of impeachment.
Again, we really need to look at the circumstance that (produced)President Yar'Adua. All these are not of his own making. This is something that started prior to his coming into office. The whole process had started, he had only come in to take it further or bring it to conclusion, if you like to call it that way. It all started with the Obasanjo administration, so it would not be fair to hold him absolutely responsible for the whole thing, he came in to see the process through.
What we must be looking at is that it is not necessarily over, its not an issue that you can say it is closed. The people still have a right to explore, under the international convention, that right to self- determination; they can go to court to seek redress, at least, not only at the ambit of challenging of the ruling of the ICJ, but within the right of self-determination. I see that as a window of opportunity that can be explored. Of course, they still have the right to be properly resettled and properly rehabilitated.
Are you shocked that the President recently extended the tenure of the electoral review panel again, till December?
Well, you see I hold the position that in a democracy the electoral process is the most important pillar, so, if you hold that position with me as well then, nothing would be too much to do in the process of getting things right. We must get it right and I do hope, at the end of the day, we get it right. So, if extending the period of their operation will make us get it right, then let it be because the issue is just too important and when you are talking of electoral process, you are talking of pre-election, election and post-election. We must look at the issues involved in all theses phases. One of the greatest problems we have is that a lot of people that were elected into offices, were not elected in the true sense of it. We have a very shoddy process; we have a very unacceptable process; we have an electoral body that is anything but independent; that is partisan and, even criminally so. And by the end of the day, you have people coming into office, that were not elected. We are waiting because at the end of the day, if we must get it right, we even have to go into some constitutional amendment to effect certain radical changes in the constitution. For example, changes that would guarantee the true independence of the electoral body, certain changes that would guarantee true independence in terms of financial independence, true independence to the extent of having stakeholders involved in the commission. I was happy when I read a few days ago a kind of release by the NBA, the TUC, the NLC - I think these are some of the things we must try and take on board so that we can really have, at least, a basis for credible electoral system.
It's very important, I am anxiously waiting to see the report of that body which, hopefully, we would take further, not just by incorporating them to the new electoral bill that would emerge or even taking this things far into the Constitution itself, so that at the end of the day we can look for a very credible system.
Let me say, at this point, that I am a very strong advocate of two, three party system in the country. In fact, if I have my way, I would opt for two-party system. Because, once you don't have a one-party state, then that means you still have option. So, if you have a two- party system, there would be room for independent candidature. The two party system, just like we had in the days of Babangida - SPD (Social Democratic Party) and NRC (National Republican Convention). In fact, that was probably the greatest thing that happened under that administration which, unfortunately, he also messed up.
It would abort largely the North-South dichotomy, the religious dichotomy; it will abort ethnic dichotomy, and then it will make the polity stronger and, it would be easier for us to monitor each other. This is the way it should be and then you can look forward to a very robust Constitution, the ruling party can be put on its toes at any given point in time.
Should government continue to fund parties, because people believe this mushrooming is because funds come from the government: that's why they are springing up?
If we are going to have a two-party system, then government can fund, but if we are going to remain with this motley crowd, then government should stop funding. I will agree with you that what people explore now is to just gather themselves and form one mushroom party and expect some funds, as you said because all the parties are entitled to something as baseline, a subsequent allocation to these parties are now up to how many sits won in the National Assembly. But I'm saying that if we abort that system and adopt the two party-system, government can fund at least to some extent, so that we can really have a virile system. But if you are going to remain with this crowd of useless and mushroom parties all over the place, government should stop funding the parties.
Are you happy with the way the tribunals are handling the cases of election petitions?
Seriously, I have my reservations because the tribunals seem to be taking too long. We are almost one and half years into the new dispensation and some election petitions are still unresolved, and some have not even started, like in Ogun and Kwara.
So, there is no way one can be happy under that kind of circumstance. You see, when we were working on that Electoral Bill then, before it became an Act, some of us argued, very strongly too, that there was need for us to give a sealing beyond which the tribunal should not operate. We were thinking of three to six months; that within six months, a serious tribunal should be able to conclude its assignment. In fact, we advocated that no Certificate of Return should be issued to any candidate whose election is being challenged, because we seem to be making a mockery of the democratic process. But then some of our colleagues, particularly our learned colleagues, as they would be called, were thinking in the line that justice rushed is justice crushed.
What we know commonly is that justice delayed is justice denied; but they added that justice rushed is justice crushed. They said we could not limit the tribunal, but we now see what's happening and it's unfortunate because it's not what democracy should be; because at the end of the day, you have a situation where people who genuinely won election are being denied the fruit of their labour. You have a situation where some governors have been awarded tenure elongation because you have at least three governors now, who after having spent one year in office and their election revalidated, they were now sworn in afresh. So, at the end of the day, they would spend about five years, because their tenure starts afresh, and this is what I consider most unacceptable. And with all due respect to the tribunal, I cannot understand the basis for this kind of thing. For a governor whose election was challenged, the sitting governor whose election was challenged and who invariably triumphed as it were in the tribunal, I would have thought that he should just continue not having to do a fresh swearing in or a fresh oath-taking session, thereby having an additional period in office. But this is what is happening.
This is what happened in Kogi, Cross River and Adamawa. So, you can see that it's like we are creating confusion in the system. There are still some cases that are yet undetermined - like Ogun, Delta, Kwara and even Ondo - and so, you can see that it's why I said it's like we are making a mockery of the democratic process. So, these are some of the basis for my reservations. The second thing is that you find it difficult to understand. I look at this thing with the eyes of a lay man. Notwithstanding, you seem to have certain situations that appear similar and yet you have conflicting judgments arising. Seemingly similar cases, but conflicting judgments; conflicting rulings arising from them, and you cannot understand. So, I have highest regards, I have deep respect for the Judiciary. I only hope that we are not having a situation where the more you look, the less you see.
Are you comfortable that more than several months after judgment in the cases of Abia and Edo, the appeal court is yet to do anything about them?
I am more than worried. I am extremely worried. And it's also part of what I am saying, because the more the case lies fallow, with all due respect, the more the chances of manipulation in the system. These cases have been there lying fallow for so long, why? I think the National Judicial Commission should really come in and find out what exactly is happening in these circumstances. I am very uncomfortable; I am disturbed and worried about it. It is not helping the system at all and, in fact, the way some of these things happen, you start to wonder whether or not we should not even bring in the Supreme Court to intervene in some of the cases, because there have been certain pronouncements at the election petition tribunals that people raised a lot of eyebrows about.
I wonder if we should not even review the Electoral Act and make it for all cases to terminate at the Supreme Court, particularly the governorship cases and, possibly, the National Assembly cases. We need to take cognisance of our experiences in other to solve the problems on ground.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Daily Independent. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
