Daily Independent (Lagos)
Sam Akpe
17 November 2008
interview
Abuja — Victor Ndoma-Egba, a ranking senator and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is the Deputy Senate Leader. His understanding of international politics and excellent grasp of parliamentary issues, especially the complexities of Senate procedures, are revealed in this interview with DEPUTY EDITOR SAM AKPE, at Abuja.
He speaks on the delay in the review of the Constitution and why Senate procedures are usually slow.
Excerpts:
What does the election of Obama have to do with the black man generally?
First of all, I think that it is liberation more or less. It is the end point of a journey that started with the abolition of slavery. It is a long hard-won fight, so it is a significant point in that journey. But it comes with its burden: that is the burden of expectations. Being the first black president, the whole world is interested in seeing how he performs. Secondly, that burden of expectation is heightened by the worldwide sense of expectation. The whole world was waiting for Obama, as it were, and now he is there. When you have unanimity in expectations, you have heightened burden on you shoulders. Then for the Black man, the black American especially, believes that he has now achieved that equality that he has always fought for. So, it is a very historic event in the world's history.
Would it have made any difference if McCain had won?
If McCain had won, it would have been a run-of-the-mill thing; it would have been a normal thing. But an Obama victory is exceptional.
People are rejoicing across the world, across Africa, what specific expectations are there?
The world has reached the point of redefinition. The world has gotten tired of the old order. We just had a global financial meltdown which means that the world economic order could no longer hold as it were. Things needed to change. Not only in the way we do business but also in the way we politic. It is all part of the global redefinition.
Let's talk about the Senate.
What is delaying the amendment of the Constitution?
The tradition in the past has always been to have a joint committee of both Houses. The Senate has since announced its committee and the House announced much later. It is just getting a date that is acceptable to both Houses, the membership of the committees of the two Houses are now in place.
What is the problem with the date? Who is supposed to fix it?
The Senate President is the chairman of the National Assembly. But I believe that even though he is chairman, he is expected to fix the date after consultations or input from the Speaker.
I have been told that the Senate President is supposed to officially write to the Speaker, is that the tradition?
I don't know what the tradition is in the matters of administrative details, but I do know that both Houses have made their nominations and, as soon as they find an acceptable date, they will be inaugurated.
You are not saying all you know on this issue. Is there any kind of disagreement between the House and the Senate on this matter?
Not, to the best of my knowledge. I don't remember us meeting on it or either side taking a position that is inconsistent with the position of the other.
A review of the Constitution is not an overnight matter, and this is something that has been on since 1999. Can it still be done?
We have had two Senates - this is the third one. Constitutional review is a major issue, and don't forget that if you even look at the mechanism for the review of the constitution provided for by the Constitution itself, it is not going to be an easy exercise. A lot will need to happen outside the review process itself because if you look at the provisions for constitutional review carefully, the National Assembly has a role to play, so do states' Houses of Assembly. The implication of that is that for you to be able to pass any amendment of the constitution, no matter how minor, you need to build a national consensus on that issue or you would have had extensive national discussion on the issue. Now, the building of that consensus around that issue is certainly not a part of the review process; it is something outside of the process, but it is something that is essential to the review process. So, the review process, I would like to say, is the formal process. But you also have the informal steps that you need to take to arrive at a national consensus on specific issues being considered for review.
So, the informal steps are going on now?
Discussions are going on, conversations are being held at different fora, and don't forget that we also have had some situations that were created for the purposes of this review, like the National Political Conference. The report is still part of our national archives and it is something that we can draw from. We also have the Justice Uwais Panel on Electoral Reform that is still working. The report also, will form part of the raw materials that we need for this process. So, it is a process that is going to require extensive consultations and a dip into our very rich archival materials.
Is there any hope that this particular session of the National Assembly will accomplish it?
I believe that this session of the National Assembly will undertake the process of the review and will undertake it with a sense of urgency, when it starts and will complete it.
The Senate naturally has never acted with a sense of urgency!
You know, in Parliament, processes and procedures are more critical than outcomes. The Parliament is a very formal institution, not to talk of the Senate. The Senate is governed critically by two factors: formality and deliberateness.
The Senate, historically, was conceived as a very deliberate body because the essence of the Senate is to stabilise the polity in times of trial. So, the Senate gets very deliberate, it doesn't become part of the problem. So, I haven't changed my views about what the Senate should be. I am not surprised by the seeming delay because the lawmaking process itself is a very formal process and it takes time, when you are going to legislate for every body and for all time.
An American President once said that if ageing were to require approval, then no one would die.
It cannot be true because, if everything were not to pass through the Senate, then perhaps, everything will be done and most likely wrongly.
Why do you say that?
You know that in a democracy, first of all, it is the Parliament that defines the part of every community; whether it is an autocratic government or a democratic government. Now, the Parliament offers an opportunity for virtually every shade of opinion and for every insight to come into being. Now, the Executive arm, for instance, is limited by its perspective. It is usually limited by the vision of the commander-in-chief, but the National Assembly has no such limitation. An issue is brought to the table, I see it by my own perspective or am guided by my experience or the expectations of the people I represent. So, the Parliament offers the best opportunity for every shade on any issue.
A parliamentary historian has also said that the Senate was not created to act in urgency.
If the Senate acts in urgency, what will happen?
It is not in the nature of the Senate. It is like expecting a car to fly. It is not just in the nature of the Senate. The Senate was conceived as a deliberate body.
Does that imply slowing down the process?
If slowing down the process increases the likelihood of things being done right, then there is nothing wrong with that. I am sure you have heard the saying, 'Make haste slowly.'
We just noticed that among the presidential candidates and their running mates in America, three of them are senators: one, a state governor. In Nigeria, a senator would rather contest for the governorship of the state. Why is it like that?
It has to do with the state of our democratic development. Don't forget that you are comparing a nine-year-old democracy to a 232-year-old democracy. Secondly, you should even look at history of the U.S. presidency in terms the number of governors and senators who have been president. They will now have 16 governors and 16 senators who have been president of the United States of America. So that leaves us with just 12 presidents who were neither senators nor governors, probably former military men.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
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.
