0
0
Read Time:12 Minute, 26 Second
Chief Olabode Ibiyinka George, a former National Vice-Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), South-West, is a member of the Committee on Politics and Governance at the ongoing National Conference in Abuja. In this interview, he speaks on why the conference committee is disposed to stripping the president and governors of immunity from prosecution while in office. Excerpts: There were discordant tunes on whether the National Conference would eventually hold when the idea was mooted, but now it is here. Do you think there was justification for the controversy?
People didn’t think it would fly. But we are all wiser and much calmer. And I believe this time, we are genuinely and honestly addressing ourselves. We’ve had a few experiences; in 1946, the constitutional conference was handled by the British. The one in 1954 was also handed by the British. The subsequent ones were handled by the military and I believe that we are much wiser than before.
I don’t agree with those who say we don’t have a Constitution because the one that is operating came from the military and not the people. At least we have a Constitution. If we are going to make amendments or suggestions or talk as Nigerians, I am enjoying it. I have listened to a lot of comments from so many people. But the point is that people now know that there can’t be winner takes all.
As brothers and sisters, there should be no fixation, no preconceived ideas. The debate is very robust now, genuine and honest and, with the experiences we had in the past, everybody realizes the indivisibility of this country. We are talking seriously as brothers. It gladdens my mind and I am happy to be part of this.
The first few days of the conference appeared like the delegates would have said “to your tents o Israel…”
It was a turbulent period. The first day when the speech of Mr. President was being discussed, people were saying 75 percent, consensus, others came up with two third majority; that’s the situation everywhere in the world.
I think it was going to tear the conference apart; people were all entrenched in their very deep trenches, ready to shoot. But we later realized it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war. A professor of mathematics from the North came up with the idea that we should adopt a mid course and that sent a lot of signal into those who came with fixed ideas that, in this scenario, you can’t win it all.
You must shift from your position in the interest of the future of the children of this country. And since that was settled, it became clear to everybody that this is the first time we are having a serious, honest national discourse. From that time, people try to achieve consensus. I don’t think we have even gotten to the point where we say, ‘let’s go into division’. We would convince ourselves after robust, passionate debate.
People talk about the passion from their local areas and others become reasonable and say, ‘Ok, on this note, we will able to convince our people. You have shifted a bit, we will also shift a bit’. That is the spirit we have been trying to imbibe since 1914.
Many issues have continued to come up from the committees. Do you see the conference agreeing to of all that?
On our side, we looked at Section 308 of the Constitution on immunity clause that guarantees that anybody in office, if he has a case before, once he gets into office, cannot be prosecuted for criminal and civil cases. The debate was quite interesting. It was robust. People went into memory lane. People looked at the environment because we have experiences of the nuisance that we have witnessed.
People have become weary to say, ‘listen, why should Mr. A be a different Nigerian before the law?’ Human rights imply that everybody is equal before the law and once you come to us to ask us to vote for you, you are telling us ‘trust me to manage the resources of this country for our benefit’. If that is the case, you cannot say you are now above the law; anybody who is coming to equity must come with clean hands. Some people said to avoid frivolous cases, let us differentiate between criminal offences and civil cases. We said no.
We were all convinced. We didn’t go into division. At the end, the memo that was presented was to say, ‘Ok, let’s just expunge the criminal part of it, if you commit a criminal offence. Whether you are the president or a governor, you should be charged. We even said there should criminal libel in own statute like they do in America. But at the end of the debate, even those who had written copiously on the issue of retaining that particular clause yielded. They were convinced by better argument and that is the spirit.
What we are saying is let us have a society where we would discuss and debate. Let the better position be. Even if you have issues that you think that on your tribal basis could be affecting you, explain the pains to other Nigerians and we will support you; that is the essence of democracy; the essence of being able to live together under one roof which is Nigeria.
Local government system has finally been expunged as part of the federating units by your committee. What informed that position?
I subscribe completely to the fact that it should never be part. The states should decide the local governments they want. The local government should never be part of the parameters at the national level for consideration in the disbursement of national revenue. Let the states decide. If they want to have one million local governments, that is their business. We look at them as an entity. We look at the population. Whatever is their due would be given to them. I subscribe to that and the day it will come to plenary session, I will support and vote for it.
Resource control is yet another issue. It has been so contentious that northern delegates are asking for a reduction from the current 13 percent to five percent.
I think that will be turning the hand of the clock backwards. I don’t think that should be the spirit we are looking at. There are many states which have minerals that are being tapped. Let’s also have a go at that so that they can have more revenue. By the time we listen to the committee on devolution of powers, I think this particular area will be quite interesting. I have my preconceived belief on this issue. But I want to listen to their suggestion and then make up my mind. But to say we will reduce it, I will not support that.
Another issue is the type of government suitable for Nigeria. Many people want us to do away with the presidential system and the committee responsible for that has presented what it called a modified presidential system. What do you think?
I want to draw our minds to our natural environment, the culture in Africa. A British man with his parliamentary system follows his culture. When you watch the Prime Minister’s question and answer time in England, the leader of the opposition will get up and say, Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable Prime Minister has just goofed, he is not telling the truth. I don’t think he is familiar with the truth, and he shouldn’t be silly’. It is their language. You hear them in their natural language. They don’t get offended.
They tolerate the brickbats and all of that, it is natural because that is the way they grow up. But in an African setting, for a younger person to tell an old man, ‘don’t be silly’, is an insult. It is not acceptable. So, the level of tolerance here is so different and because we don’t talk in our language, if it was in our language that we talk, maybe you will weave in the cultural aspects of addressing the older person rather than speaking in English. So, if you look at it purely on that, that is one major area where I do not support the parliamentary system.
It doesn’t make sense to me as an African to have a divided alleyway. You cross the line and you are talking, arguing. It is not in our system. Secondly, before the incursion of the Europeans into our own system, we had a system of government where in every community, you have a leader whether you call him Oba, Obi, Amaghinabo or an Emir or Sultan, there is somebody you call the first among equals. And in his palace, he will have leaders, representing each family in that community as his advisers.
That is our natural way of governing which is akin to the presidential system. You don’t have a set of people on one side and another on the other side arguing. They will call you to the palace to defend yourself and of course you know the kind of language to use. If you use the language that is not palatable, that is not culturally acceptable in that community, they banish you. So, the natural environment for the presidential system is Africa. One of the reasons the parliamentary system failed here was the level of intolerance.
But in the presidential system, the president contests and gets the mandate of everybody who wants to vote and we say, yes, ‘we accept you to be the leader of our nation’. People said it is expensive to run. Why is it expensive? We put a lot of premium on salaries and the number of the constituencies. We can increase and also decrease the number of the constituencies and merge some. It is within our purview and when this thing is based on population, not on local government, then we have to redo delineation for the constituencies because you are representing the people, not land.
If you are representing the people, the population of this country is known, not land mass. The people are to be represented and so representation at the national level would be the same. The Senate is on equal basis. Three per state; no matter how small your state is, you get it. That is what obtains in America.
They don’t look at the number of local governments or municipalities that you have. The number of population determines how many representatives you will have. So, let us come back and do it the way civilized people do it so that there is no cheating. If you are coming to equity, come with clean hands. Let’s us all be fair to ourselves. Let us be equitable in the distribution of resources. There wouldn’t be any fight.
Do you see this conference solving many of Nigeria’s problems?
The hood doesn’t make the monk. But at least the hood shows that you are still a monk. Now, when we get to this point that this will be the guiding principles, the laws by which we will exist and co-live as Nigerians, that’s the starting point. But because it is not a Sovereign National Conference, it will be subjected to the National Assembly because a lot of people don’t even understand the difference. I have heard many people talk that once we finish here, the president will just sign it and we have a new Constitution. It doesn’t work like that.
It is not a Sovereign National Conference where the nation probably has collapsed and we are going to redraft the Constitution. This is a National Conference meaning a time to talk, a time for stock taking, a time to look at the way we have co-existed, a time to look at ourselves and find out why are we not where we should be?
This is a talk shop. It is nothing more than that. But out of that talk shop, facts have come out, suggestions have come out about how we can live as Nigerians and no body will be left behind. People now are saying that even the educational curricula is not as it should be. Why should this nation not teach history. Who took that decision for God’s sake? How can you not know where you are coming from? Where would you know where you are going? Those are issues that have come up.
The issue of indegeneship and non-indegeneship, the issue of land tenure, the issue of immunity clause in our statute book; those are serious issues. But by the time we finish, some people are saying that we should go for referendum. If you go for referendum, it is either yes or no. How are you going to capture all the issues?
But I believe that by the time we finish, whatever decisions we arrive at would still be a book and in that book, there will be some parts of it that will go as policies to be executed by government. There are some that would be legal in outlook which would go to the National Assembly for the lawmakers to look at them passionately and see this is good thinking.
What do you think about state police?
I will never ever support state police. The police in the hands of some of these governors? I take myself as an example. I was hounded, maltreated, convolutedly conspired against by the state; my state sent me to jail for doing nothing and you are now talking about state police? In the past when I was growing up, we had Native Authority Police. We knew what they did to the political class.
We are not yet mature enough to that level (of having state police). Right now, the governor is the chief security officer of the state; if you step out of line, they can come and mark your house for demolition. Thank God they need to get the support of the federal police to do it with court order. Otherwise, many people will be in jail because they may have opposed the governors on policy matters. State police? Not in my generation.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
Facebook Comments