Nigeria: Bill On Presidential Address Not Frivolous
10 January 2010By Abdulrahman Muhammad Dan-Asabe,
Ph.D.
Ningbo, P. R. China
It is public knowledge that incompetent, visionless,
corrupt and arrogant leadership have been the serious
problems that have plagued Nigeria and prevented the
country from achieving its rightful place amongst the
comity of nations.
One of the ways to address and minimize the impact of
the above lethargic attitude of leaders is by
constantly calling them to order and holding them
accountable for their actions/inactions while in or
out of the office. This is why every well-meaning
Nigerian should reject and condemn the recent claims
by the Nigerian Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of the Federation, Mr. Michael Aondoakaa, that
a proposed bill that will mandate the president to
address a joint session of the National Assembly
periodically is “frivolous,” and that “there is
nothing (for Mr. President) to come and address the
legislature for” (Daily Trust: Wednesday, 18 November
2009).
No, Mr. Michael Aondoakaa, this bill is not a
frivolous one and there is plenty for Mr. President to
come and address the legislature for.
At minimum, the president’s appearance and
presentation to the peoples’ representatives, the MPs,
will bring transparency and possibly spark-off debate
on policies of the government among the people. The
debate, if properly conducted and followed, could
provide valuable inputs for future policy formulation.
Mr. President’s presentations will also show Nigerians
the direction (or otherwise) and intentions of the
government. And faced with the realities on ground and
the prospect of being assessed on subsequent
appearances, it would be difficult and politically
unwise for the president to attempt the type of
deception and/or vagueness that are associated with
election campaign promises. Furthermore, the
presentations at these appearances coupled with the
practical results achieved by the leader will enable
Nigerians determine whether or not such a leader
deserves a second term in the office.
Rigorous demand for accountability of this nature is
also capable of sanitizing politics in Nigeria. It
could put off all pathologically lazy and criminally
minded moneybags that now think that leadership of
Nigeria is a simple task of chairing the distribution
of the nation’s commonwealth to the three tiers of the
governments, using any formula they fancy, and
pocketing the rest.
That the MPs already have constitutional provisions
giving them powers to summon the president through
oversight of MDAs, is being economical with the truth,
and Mr. Aondoakaa knows better than anyone that those
behind this new bill are not unaware of the said
constitutional provisions. The fact is these existing
powers have never been excised in the past and it is
unlike they will ever be exercised by the MPs. The
reason the present constitutional power of MPs to
summon the president may never be exercised is the
requirement for consensus amongst the MPs before the
president can be summoned. Petty bickering in the
legislature due to immaturity and selfishness will
always ensure no consensus to summon the president,
irrespective of the issue at stake. The opposition
party’s efforts at such a move will always be blocked
by the president’s party. This is aside the
all-powerful ethno-religious tool that is always
available for use by political leaders to
divide-and-rule Nigeria. Therefore, the existing
powers are, for all practical purposes, as good as not
existing.
This bill if passed however makes it automatic and
compulsory for Mr. President to appear before the MPs
to answer questions/queries on national matters. It
also eliminates possible political witch-hunting of an
individual or groups for being behind summoning the
president for questioning.
The Attorney General’s rhetoric on the lack of
provision for sanctions in the bill should the
president fail to comply with the law when passed is
purely legalistic, and does not in any way diminish
the importance of the proposed bill. After all, the
nation has witnessed many budget failures in the
current and the immediate past administration with no
consequence to anyone, let alone the president. Are
there no constitutional provisions, including possible
impeachment, for addressing such momentous failures?
Has the president ever been called in by MPs to
explain budget failures? Suffice it that with this
proposed bill passed, Nigerians will know if their
leader respects the laws of the land, has vision,
direction and cares about their yearnings. These are
critically important.
We must not forget too easily. The current Yar’Adua’s
administration has been roundly criticized for being
too slow and too unconcerned about serious national
matters because Nigerians don’t know anything about
the administration’s direction and/or intentions.
While other world leaders are seen seriously engaging
their people immediately after taking office through
televised addresses to their parliaments, answering
questions and addressing press conferences on almost
daily basis, it took almost two years after moving
into Aso Rock Villa for Yar’Adua to address Nigeria.
This is not acceptable. Had this proposed bill that
mandates the president to address a joint session of
the National Assembly periodically been passed into
law earlier, it is difficult to see how a sitting
president could have ignored the nation for nearly two
years.
Abdulrahman Muhammad Dan-Asabe, Ph.D.
muhdan@yahoo.com
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments