Nigeria Content Online

Constitutional
lawyer, Bamidele Aturu, has decried the ongoing process to amend the
1999 constitution, saying the process falls short of what the original
document stipulates.

Both arms of
national assembly, last week, agreed to forward the amended document to
the 36 states house of assembly for concurrence. But Mr Aturu said the
legislators “ought to have passed a resolution before passing the bill
and sending it to the states house of assembly.” He quoted section 9 of
the constitution, which stipulates that the “National Assembly can only
pass an act to amend the constitution when its proposal to amend the
constitution has been supported by two-thirds majority of all the
members of each chamber and the proposal is approved by the resolution
of at least 24 Houses of Assembly of the States.”

This section of the
constitution, which states the procedure to be adopted in amending the
constitution, according to the lawyer, has “simply been ignored or
deliberately trampled upon by the legislators. The implication of which
is that the whole exercise…is an exercise in futility, an unnecessary
waste of taxpayers’ money and an indefensible trivialisation of
legislative time.”

Mr Aturu said the
National Assembly has violated the 1999 constitution in the process of
trying to amend the constitution because in law, one cannot build
something on nothing and expect it to stand.

“The illegal process which the national assembly has embarked on will soon collapse,” he said.

Harmonised illegality

Mr Aturu expressed
shock at the pronouncement of the National Assembly that it has passed
a bill to amend the constitution, saying the lawmakers has only passed
a “harmonised illegality.”

“When a procedure
has been laid down in a statute for the doing of a thing, to do that
thing in a different way is an illegality,” he said. “If they go ahead
with the proceedings, anybody can challenge them to court to nullify
the whole process. It is better for the National Assembly to halt the
illegal process, recommence constitutional review by merely passing a
resolution and then take the resolution to the states for approval. If
they secure the resolution of 24 Houses, then they can pass the bill
for the amendment of the constitution. If not, then that is the end of
the attempt.”

The lawyer also warned against claims that the bill to amend the
constitution, once passed by the National Assembly, does not require
the assent of the president. Quoting Section 58 of the constitution, he
said: “the section makes it clear that a bill does not become law until
it has been assented to by the president; unless after a period of one
month, the National Assembly passes the bill by two thirds majority and
overrides as it were the president’s veto.”