Mike Ozekhome, a constitutional lawyer and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has countered Auwal Yadudu, a professor of law, on calls for referendum and a brand new constitution for the country.
Many Nigerians including Ayo Adebanjo, the leader of the socio-cultural group, Afenifere, have faulted the 1999 constitution, calling for its reversal to the 1963 constitution or promulgation of a new constitution.
This and many more were presented at the Zonal public hearing for constitution review held nationwide few weeks ago.
The Senate and House of Representatives versions of the event held in April and June respectively.
Yadudu, who served as the legal adviser to the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, opined that Section 9 of the constitution has spelt out explicit rules to govern specific steps to follow to alter its provisions.
“I am satisfied that the procedure for any alteration does not envisage or recognise “referendum”, as the mechanism for bringing about change to the existing Constitution or the adoption of a new one. Moreover, for any alteration to the Constitution to be legitimate or credible, it must be validated by the concurrent adoption of the National Assembly and the resolution in support of 2/3 (24) of the Houses of Assembly of the States, where this is assented to by the President,” he wrote in a recent article.
On clamour for a brand new constitution, Yadudu said that the condemnation of the 1999 constitution is laughable.
“Of recent, it has become fashionable to lay all the evils bedevilling our polity, society, the economy etc at the door of the 1999 Constitution, the authorship of which has gratuitously been ascribed to me personally. My attitude to this ‘donated’ honour or infamy, depending on how you view it, is to laugh it off or humbly state that it is unearned,” he said.
However, Ozekhome, presented an argument countering the position of the law Professor.
According to the senior lawyer, Yadudu’s memo is nothing short of a deliberate attempt to frighten National Assembly from ‘critically examining the near descent of Nigeria into a failed state’ through the promulgation of a new Constitution.
“By this rejoinder, I hereby call on the NASS to maximally reject and ignore Yadudu and his incoherent thesis. His submissions are neither grounded in law, logic nor in morality and constitutionalism. I have not seen any “slippery slope on the current constitutional review exercise, except in Yadudu’s fertile imagination.”
“The NASS should therefore, discard his recommendations in their entirety. They are meant to nurture the current repressive system of unitarism, social injustice and faulty lines of our fumbling, dawdling and groggy country,” Ozekhome stated.
