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.
But what is the implication for us?
The implication is that the Senate is a veritable ground for sourcing presidential material and that means that senators must begin to see themselves as possibilities for presidential office and that means that a burden is placed on the Senate, especially as it matures.
Now, to your question, how come senators prefer to go for governorship? My simple answer is our level of development. I want to believe that with time, that will change, because in the U.S., people move from being governors to senators, hardly ever the reverse. But I want to believe that at some point in their history, this also (may have) happened.
If you had your way, would you ask senators not to contest for governorship?
It's not that straight forward because everything is determined by the dynamics in your constituency. So, it is difficult to advise generally. After all, we have the French President who became a councilor, after he left office. In Nigeria today, we have a deputy governor who served for eight years, now serving as councilor. The important thing is that whatever experience you have gathered shouldn't be lost.
There was an American President who left the White House, contested and became a member of the House of Representatives. Do you think that's abnormal?
I don't think it is abnormal. The nature of the Legislature is such that every spec of experience is used because we are a limited number of people who are supposed to understand and appreciate the problems of every body. So, somebody who comes with presidential background, the person will be coming with a whole lot of experience that could be used.
What is responsible for the high turnover in the Senate?
Again, that is based on the level of our political growth. First of all, the Legislature was not designed for rapid turnover. If you take the various constitutions of the various democracies in the world, you will see that it's not peculiar to the Nigerian Constitution. You'll notice that for the chief executives, they serve for specific number of terms, especially under presidential constitutions. You take the Judiciary, under most constitutions, when you serve to a certain age, you retire. The Legislature has neither term limit nor retirement age, and that's why in the U.S. for instance, there was a senator who served for 60 years. He retired at the age of 100 and died at the age of 101.
If you can even take Senator Joe Biden: he has been in the Senate since 1971, the year I was writing my school certificate. You take Senator John McCain; he's been in the Senate for over 30 years. That is after spending four years in the House of Representatives. Then you take Senator Edward Kennedy, he was in the Senate when I was still in primary school. So, the Legislature was not designed for quick turnover and the philosophy behind that is understandable.
You take the Executive: they have a whole bureaucracy with records that are available to successors with a structure that supports a chief executive that comes. The president has his own bureaucracy; the minister has the bureaucracy of his own ministry to support him. When he goes, the files stay back. So, the subsequent minister will be guided by the civil service head, in his responsibility.
If you take the judicial arm, you have the hierarchy, and then you have judicial precedence. The moment a particular reasoning has been given in a case by the highest court in the land, it binds all other courts under it. The legislative arm is the only one that the bureaucracy and the precedence all exist in the head of the senator or the member. So, if then he goes, he goes with the bureaucracy and goes with his precedence and goes with his archives. And the understanding of the constitution and the rules, they are still to pick up by being in the Senate. You create your own networks. So, when you begin to turn over that quickly, it is the institution that suffers. Someone has served two terms, they say he has exhausted his turn and it is the turn of the next village. At the end of the day, the person they are sending takes his position right at the bottom of the queue. So, he brings no tangible benefits to those he represents and that is why the older democracies have recognised the need for continuity in the legislative arm. They have recognised the need for people with networks to continue.
Is Cross River State still cohesive after the last election?
We remain cohesive. The nullification was ordered by the court. It was a truly judicial process. And to prove that we remain as cohesive as ever, you saw that the support Governor Liyel Imoke got during the re-run, far out-stripped what he had when he went to the election the first time.
That nullification by the court has united Cross Riverians even the more. He had a lot of support and understanding from people who were not even in our political party, because they believed it was more urgent to get on stream than to get distracted by these little political ambitions. When you talk of political penetration, how many parties in Cross River have offices in the senatorial districts and have offices at the centre with functioning executives? How many councillors do the have? We have almost 200 councillors in Cross River and only two are non-PDP. So, why would you have hoped to win an election even if the court ordered a hundred elections? You don't have the structures to deliver you! I am a lawyer. So, I don't want to comment on the court judgment; I want to leave it for legal historians and legal scholars.
Are you missing legal practice?
Yes, you know you spent 26 continuous years more or less in the court rooms and that has become more or less, home and very familiar environment; and 26 years are not 26 days, it becomes part of your life. And five to six years going as a senator is still a very far cry from the 26 years that I stayed in the legal profession.
And don't forget that it was legal practice that gave me recognition. So, yes, there are times I actually sneaked into a court room - then I realised I was in full time employment - and I decided to respect myself (laughs).
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.
