Constitution Review: Senators, Reps push stronger law to override presidents veto

Bill to mandate budget presentation three months to year end
Law to end parade of suspects before trial by security agencies

Worried about past experiences where Appropriation Bills were rejected by the President after passage by the National Assembly, Senators and members of the House of Representatives have proposed measures that will strengthen existing constitutional provisions on overriding Presidential veto on bills.

The lawmakers have also proposed an amendment to the constitution to compel the President and governors to present annual Appropriation Bills to the National and State Houses of Assembly at least three months before the end of the year.

The National and State Houses of Assembly are duty bound by the new amendments being sought to the Constitution to pass the Appropriation Bills before the 31st of December every year.

These and several other amendments to the Constitution are contained in the recommendations of both the Senate and House of Representatives Adhoc Committees on Constitution Review, chaired by the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege and Deputy Speaker, Rep. Ahmed Idris Wase, respectively.

The lawmakers are expected to vote on the 67 and 68 different recommendations in the Senate and House of Representatives respectively, between Tuesday, March 1 and Wednesday March 2, 2022 and each of the recommendations are expected to be approved by two-thirds majority of elected members of parliament.

Bill number 14 which provides procedures for overriding Executive Veto in respect of Money Bills introduced new measures which will make it easier for lawmakers to override the President by altering the provisions of Section 59 (4A) and Section 100 (4A) as it relates to states.

Section 59(4A) of the Constitution reads: “Where the President, within thirty days after the presentation of the bill to him, fails to signify his assent or where he withholds assent, then the bill shall again be presented to the National Assembly sitting at a joint meeting, and if passed by two-thirds majority of members of both Houses at such joint meeting, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required.

The new amendment to section 59 (4) of the Constitution reads: “Where the President, at the expiration of thirty days after the presentation of a Bill to him, fails to signify his assent or where he withholds his assent, then – (a) the President of the Senate shall, within seven days, convene a joint sitting of the National Assembly to reconsider the Bill; and (b) if approved by two-thirds majority of members of both Houses at such joint sitting, the Bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required or his veto shall be deemed overridden by the National Assembly”.

Hitherto, the President has had course to reject the Appropriation Bill as passed by the National Assembly as a result of what they had often described as budget padding.

Bill number 44 which sets the timeline for the Presentation of Appropriation Bills amended the provisions of Section 81 (1) and 121 (in case of states) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which says that “the President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year, estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year.”

However, the amendment is seeking to strengthen the provision by including specific time limit for the President and governors to prepare and lay their budgets before the National and State Houses of Assembly.

The new subsection 1 will now read: “The President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly, not later than ninety days before 31st of December of every year, estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next financial year.”

The law also introduced a new subsection 1(a) which makes it mandatory for the National and State Houses of Assembly to pass the annual budget before the end of end of the year, saying “the National Assembly shall pass the Appropriation Bill before the 31st of December of every year for the next financial year.”

In addition, the long drawn agitation to have a minister appointed from the FCT is captured by bill no 61 which seeks to alter the provisions of section 147 of the Constitution which deals with the appointment of ministers from each state of the Federation.

The FCT has never had a minister appointed from the territory who is an indigene, while the 36 states have always benefited from such appointments.

Section 147(3) states that, “Any appointment under subsection (2) of this section by the President shall be in conformity with the provisions of section 14(3) of this Constitution:- Provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one minister from each state, who shall be an indigene of such state.”

When approved and signed into law, the new provision will now read: “Provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one minister from each state and the Federal Capital Territory, who shall be an indigene of such state and in the case of the Federal Capital Territory, who shall be a resident and a registered voter in the Federal Capital Territory.”

This provision was rejected by the House of Representatives in the 8th Assembly as it failed to muster the required two-thirds majority to sail through.

Besides, Bill number 60 seeks to amend the provisions of section 299 (a), 301, 302 and 303 of the Constitution to establish the Office of the Mayor for the FCT and transfer the executive powers hitherto conferred on the President over the FCT to the Mayor.

Section 299 (a) of the Constitution states that, “The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation; and accordingly – (a) all the legislative powers, the executive powers and the judicial powers vested in the House of Assembly, the Governor of a State and in the courts of a State shall, respectively, vest in the National Assembly, the President of the Federation and in the courts which by virtue of the foregoing provisions are courts established for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;

It created a new 299 (a) which states that “(a) all the legislative powers, the executive powers and the judicial powers vested in the House of Assembly, the Governor of a State and in the courts of a State shall, respectively, vest in the National Assembly, the Mayor and in the courts which by virtue of the forgoing provisions are courts established for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;”

It also altered the provisions of section 301 to make provisions for other offices within the Terriroty that shall be saddled with the responsibilities of the day to day running of the Terriroty.

It also seeks to delete the provisions of section 302 which states that “the President may, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 147 of this Constitution, appoint for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, a Minister who shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be delegated to him by the President, from time to time”, since the functions obtained therein will now be performed by the Mayor.

It created a new section 303 (A-K) which sets out the procedures for the election of the Mayor of the FCT, required qualifications and tenure of office.

The new section 303A states that, “there shall be for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja a Mayor who shall be the Chief Executive of the Federal Capital Territory Administration.

To qualify to be elected as Mayor, the law states in the new section 303 (B) that the “person shall be qualified for election to the office of the Mayor if – (i) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; he has attained the age of thirty-five years; and (iii) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that party or is an independent candidate, presents himself as such and complied with the requirement for an independent candidate as prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

The candidate must also have been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.

The lawmakers in Bill number 64 also seek to alter the provision of section 34 of the constitution which deals with the dignity of the human person by defining what constitute torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The bill creates a new subsection which ban security agencies from parading persons arrested for any form of crime until they are charged to court.

Section 34 (1) of the Constitution states that, “Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly – (a) no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment; (b) no person shall he held in slavery or servitude; and (c) no person shall be required to perform forced of compulsory labour.”

The new amendment states that, “For the purpose of subsection (1) (a) of this section, “torture, inhuman or degrading treatment” includes parading persons arrested by the police or any other law enforcement agency in the public.”

In the same vein, Bill number 38 seeks to put an end to issues of indigeneship in the court by setting conditions for citizenship of the country and of any particular state in the country.

The Bill seeks to amend section 31 of the Constitution which states that, “for the purposes of this Chapter, a parent or grandparent of a person shall be deemed to be a citizen of Nigeria if at the time of the birth of that person such parent or grandparent would have possessed that status by birth if he had been alive on the date of independence; and in this section, “the date of independence” has the meaning assigned to it in section 25 (2) of this Constitution.

The bill created new subsections “(2) – (5)” which set the conditions to be met to become a citizen.

The subsection states that “a citizen of Nigeria is an indigene of a State if he – (a) was born in that State; (b) has lived in that State for a continuous period for at least ten years; (c) can show evidence of residency in a Local Government Area of that State for a continuous period for at least ten years; or (d) has evidence of tax payment returns issued in that State for at least ten years.”

Subsection 3 states that, “A person under subsection (2) of this section is entitled to apply to the Local Government Chairman for a certificate of indigeneship of a State.”

Also, Subsection 4 states that, “A woman who is married to an indigene of a State different from her State of origin for at least five years becomes an indigene of that State and is entitled to all rights and privileges of an indigene of that State in cases of employment, appointment or election into any political or public office.”

In taking cognizance of discriminatory practices that may work against the woman, the Bill provides some protection for the women in subsection 5 that, “In the case of divorce or death of a spouse, a woman remains an indigene if (a) there were children born of the marriage or not; or (b) she elects to remain an indigene of that State”.

The bill will also alter the provision of section 318.