- Joint committee okays reduction of items in the Exclusive List ν Wants portfolios attached to ministerial nomination
By Chinelo Obogo
The Joint National Assembly Committee on constitution amendment yesterday approved the withdrawal of some items from the executive list to the concurrent list, saying the ongoing review of the 1999 constitution would partly involve restructuring the country as being clamoured for by Nigerians.
The committee also approved the separation of the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) from the office of the Minister of Justice.
Similarly, the lawmakers have also okayed a provision that would compel future presidents and governors in the country to attach portfolios to the names of their nominees for appointment either as minister or commissioner before sending same to lawmakers for confirmation.
These proposed amendments were part of the major highlights of a three-day retreat on the review of the 1999 constitution held by the lawmakers in Lagos.
But all the proposed amendments, according to the Senate Constitution Committee Chairman and Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, would only become final after passing through the two houses of the National Assembly and 36 states Houses of Assembly and are assented to by President Muhammadu Buhari.
Briefing journalists at the end of the retreat yesterday, Ekweremadu gave the assurance that the ongoing review of the 1999 constitution would partly involve restructuring the country.
He said that there was a need for the Federal Government to shed some of the ‘weight’ it was carrying by moving some items from the exclusive list to the concurrent list. Outlining some of the issues that would be reviewed, he said: “We have been talking about the restructuring of Nigeria. One of the components of restructuring is that they are saying that there is too much power in the hands of the Federal Government and we need to strip some of them from the Federal Government. So, what we have done is to look at the nitty-gritty where some of the items which they actually need will be removed from the executive list to the concurrent list, where the federal and the states can make laws regarding some of those items. And where there is conflict, the laws of the National Assembly will prevail.
“So, things like railways will have to be moved to the concurrent list; the idea is that state can build railways within their states and then a couple of states can then decide to build railways across their states. The Federal Government can also be building railways across the country and make policies around it. That is why we moved it to the concurrent list so that both the state and federal governments can make laws to guide it. “We have broken all the sections of the constitution that will be amended into specific bills. Between yesterday and today we have looked at about 23 separate issues, which will amount to separate bills. The idea is to ensure that by the time we vote, each of them will succeed or fail on its own. When we conclude the work and send it to the State Houses of Assembly to approve, we will return it to the National Assembly; then we will collate and ensure that the provisions of the constitution have been fulfilled regarding the alteration and we will send it to the President for his assent.”
He explained: “The implication therefore is that if he assents some, then those one becomes a part of the constitution. And for the ones he refuses to assent to, we might decide whether to veto it. We want each of them to have a separate life on its own. And this is based on our own experience in the last exercise where everything was in one single document and when the President withheld his assent, all of them collapsed. This is just an improvement on what we did last time. It is something we innovated based on our experience in the last exercise.
“We have gone through some specific issues like the time frame within which a governor or president will be able to assent to a bill. If you look at our constitution, I think Section 58, if you pass a bill, you need to send it to the President for his assent and he has to assent it within 30 days. But the law did not state what would happen if after 30 days he fails to assent to it. So, we have introduced a time frame based on the provisions of the American Constitution.
In the American Constitution, if you send a bill to the President and he doesn’t sign it within 14 days, it automatically becomes law because they believe that within 14 days, the president would have made up his mind to assent or not. Now, we have also increased the threshold to 30 days. So, if the President refuses to sign or withhold his assent within 30 days and have not returned it to the National Assembly, it becomes automatic law.
“The other issue is the time frame within which the President can authorise expenditure from the revenue fund. The argument is that the constitution as it is today, if the budget has not been passed, the President or Governor can authorise expenditure up to six months into the year.