Abuja — The controversy over the need for the President to assent to the amended constitution before it can become operational is yet to do, with the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN), insisting yesterday that the assent is necessary.

But the House of Representatives yesterday joined the Senate in dumping the option of transmitting the Constitution First Amendment Bill 2010 to the President for assent, insisting that anybody who is against the procedure should go to court.

The House also jettisoned the rather cumbersome Special Order Procedure it initiated last week. It simply laid and adopted for gazetting, the resolutions of the State Houses of Assembly on the Constitution Amendment and proclaimed that 29 sections made up of clauses and schedules that scaled through the ratification of the 36 State Houses of Assembly have become law with effect from Tuesday, July 27, 2010.

Adoke spoke on the new constitution at a roundtable on 2011 elections themed, "Imperatives and Challenges for Credible Elections" organised by the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in collaboration with the National Human Rights Commission and the Federal Ministry of Justice.

He said: "It is my respectful view that this process should be duly completed in strict compliance with the well-defined procedures for law making as enshrined in our constitution with the eventual assent of Mr. President.

"While I respect the position of those who hold contrary view on this procedure, it must be appreciated that the constitution, which is the groundnorm, must be interpreted as a whole document.

"It is therefore my humble view that even if for the sake of argument, it is contended that the assent of Mr. President is not specifically required, obtaining the assent, would only amount to a mere surplusage that will do the nation no harm, but rather entrench the amendments."

He also commented on zoning, saying: "I believe that this great country is at the threshold of history and, as citizens, our pre-occupation should be how we can tackle our developmental challenges without unnecessary bickering."

He said he was indeed surprised that what was regarded as an internal arrangement of a political party had been elevated to the front burner while down-playing the express provisions of the constitution regulating who qualifies to contest election as president.

"I personally feel that the provisions of the constitution are so clear that we need not over-heat the polity with such trivial issues."

Meanwhile, in a motion sponsored by Deputy Speaker of the House, Honourable Usman Bayero Nafada and 43 other members of the House Ad hoc Committee on the Constitution Review, the House recalled that over the past few years, several attempts made to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 had remained inconclusive and never achieved the intended goals.

Nafada who led the short debate also recalled with a great sense of fulfilment, the historic occasion of July 16, 2010 when the Conference of Speakers of the State Assemblies transmitted to the National Assembly the resolutions of the State Houses of Assembly on the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill 2010. He said that the July 16, 2010 event, which became the first successful attempt to alter the provisions of the 1999 Constitution by the Nigerian legislature was in pursuant to Section 9 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The House then resolved that the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill 2010 as passed by the National Assembly supported and approved by the resolutions of the State Houses of Assembly, pursuant to Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution be gazetted as an Act of the National Assembly.

Addressing newsmen shortly after the resolution was passed, Chairman, House Committee on Rules and Business, Honourable Ita Enang explained that the House took this line of action because it was convinced that the amendment of the constitution unlike other bills do not require the assent of the President before it becomes law. He dared any one or group who holds a contrary opinion to go to court to challenge what the parliament has done.