A professor of Strategy and Development, Anthony Kila, is the national chairman of the strategy and local mobilisation committee of the Patriots and one of the facilitators of the ongoing national conference in Abuja. In this interview with OLAOLU OLADIPO, he spoke on the need for a new Constitution for the country. Excerpts:
You’ve always been an advocate for conditional review and restructuring. Currently, the National Assembly has been trying to get memoranda and inputs from Nigerians, with the intention of reviewing the current Constitution. How do you see this move?
Well, I think it’s a good move. I think it’s recognition of the fact that the current Constitution requires some work to be done on it, and the National Assembly, within its limits, is doing what it can do to contribute to that conversation. But I think what they’re doing is very essential, but insufficient.
Why do you say so?
Well, I say so because the duty of the National Assembly is to make laws to govern the country and to amend the constitution. They cannot redo a constitution, because for you to do a constitution or to redo a constitution, you need another body to do it. You need a Constituent Assembly that either can be gathered together through elections or through nominations. It has to be an assembly that reflects the people. The National Assembly is an elected body, but it wasn’t elected to do the constitution. It was elected to pass laws to govern the country and to hold the government accountable. So the best they can do is amending, but this Constitution is unamendable.
Some people argue that putting in place another structure for the constitutional body to draft a Constitution will be a duplication of the duty of the National Assembly. How do you react to that?
We should know that the body that does the Constitution is called Constituent Assembly, and the bodies that manage the every day-to-day life of the country, in terms of laws, and in terms of holding governments accountable, is the National Assembly, or state assembly in the state. They (National Assembly and Constituent Assembly) do different things. The assemblies, the state and national assemblies, are there to work within the framework of an existing Constitution. The best they can do is to amend that constitution. They (National and state Assemblies) cannot give a new Constitution, and what we’re saying is that we need a new Constitution.
But the current Constitution came as a result of the 1995 Constituent Assembly, and what do you think is wrong with this Constitution that you believe needs to be replaced?
Well, the first thing that is wrong with it is the preamble, which is a lie. It is a creation of the military; it is a decree that says this is the Constitution you’re going to be using. Let it be said that we were not stupid. It’s just that we were too excited to go back to democracy then that we would have taken any paper as the ground norm. We just wanted to go back to democracy. We accepted it, hoping that we’ll sit down and look at it soon but it did not come very well. That is one thing that is wrong with it. The other thing that is wrong with it is that since 1999, experience has shown us that the Constitution does not respect some of our reality. For example, it does not respect our diversity, knowing that Nigeria is a union of nations of different kinds of people. It also does not recognise that when we had a presidential system of government, it would be so costly for the country to manage. A new Constitution would take note of this kind of situation. When we were rushing to democratic rule in 1999, we did not see the possible problem with the new Constitution. The new Constitution will not only look at the future, it will also look at what we’ve gone through.
A former president of the country, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, said the problem with the country might not actually be the Constitution but with the quality and caliber of leadership in the country. How do you react to that?
Well, I react to that by saying I understand where he’s coming from. I must say that people like me would think three times before answering, out of the respect and admiration we have for him, not just because he’s a former head of state. For me personally, because I know he’s a reader and a writer, he’s a true scholar, and he’s somebody very committed to Nigeria. So when he talks, I know he talks out of the spirit of passion. But with all the respect possible, let me disagree with him. His position is logical, but it’s flawed in the sense that it’s very possible to have good people, put them together, guide them by right laws, they will behave badly. I want you to notice that, it is the these same Nigerians that are always late for events, behave in ways that you do not like in Nigeria but when they go to foreign countries that have good laws, they behave well. At least most of us behave well. But when we’re back here, we behave badly. It is because the laws of the land allow us to get with bad behaviour. So, I believe that attitude and personal character is very important, but I believe that above all, the laws are more important.
How do you now react to the suggestion that we practised the Westminster system in the First Republic but it became chaotic, prompting the military to takeover? Do you believe that the Westminster system suits us better than the presidential?
Well, I think that the system will go forward. I don’t want to translate this out of the Constitutional Review. From a very personal level, as you know that I have been synthesising the Westminster parliamentary system of government for three major reasons. Number one is that it costs less to manage. Number two is that it makes the people in power more accountable. You know, they don’t have to wait for four years to be judged. They’re judged every week. And, you know, for everything they do, it makes governance lighter. Then number three, which is not the least of the reasons, is that it allows the people who are challenging them to be prepared for governance. Because one, every week when they challenge the prime minister in the Westminster Parliamentary system of government, they have to come up with alternatives. And two, while they’re doing it, they have to be prepared for government so that you do not have a magician or somebody who says I can do 10,000 things and they get there, they don’t know what to do. It allows you to see three alternatives. You don’t get criticised when you stand up. That’s the third reason. The second reason is that accountability of the government of the day continues. And the first reason is that it is less expensive.
Apart from the structure of governance that you alluded to, what other defect do you think this 1999 Constitution has?
It has the flaws of its origin. It also has the flaws of the ability to deal with diversity. The 1999 Constitution has allowed our executives to grow bigger than life. It has not allowed some agencies to be accountable. It has not allowed the necessary decentralisation of structures and the devolution of power that the modern state requires.
Your group, the Patriots, is organising a conference. Could you tell us what is actually happening there?
This summit is a forum for stakeholders across the country to gather together to not only produce a report, but also review the issues that we’ve gathered around the country. As you might know, I am the national chairman of the strategy and local mobilisation committee of the Patriots. And in the past month, we have engaged with various parts of the country, state to state, zone to zone, and we have collected their views and the data secured has been deliberated upon. So this two, three-day summit is a way to present all those results, go through them, and allow others to add their own inputs to it. And at the end present the findings to the executive arm of government and to the legislative arm of government hoping to get a bill for the actualisation of the people’s democratic Constitution.
Some people will argue that will this does not amount to duplication of efforts? They argue that what the country should do is to go back to the 2014 Constitutional Conference, rather than starting all over again. They are saying your group should mount pressure on the government to implement the report of the conference. How do you react to that?
I think what those people miss is the fact that a lot has happened between 2014 and now. I personally think the 2014 conference has very good recommendations that came out of it but it is not just because of the merits, but because of the consensus. I think it is one of the documents that came up out of overwhelming consensus of those present at the conference. The voting patterns on it had about an average of about 85% of consensus of members on most of the matters. Some of them were even 99%, some of them were 100%. But between then and now, some other things have happened. So, instead of saying just go and present that, the central position would be to absorb some of the recommendations and do some modifications on some others in the form of some adjustments, I think that’s the way to look at it. You want to move on because a lot of things have happened. We must have a Constitution that can look at the past, the present and predict the future.
What is the mode of representation at this conference?
The mode of representation is such that people came from all the zones of the country. There is representation from various professions, from those considered to have physical disability. We’ve also considered gender, religion, traditional institution as well as the orgainised labour.
So, do you have the necessary spread in terms of representation?
Well, that’s correct because it was a deliberate effort to make sure it happened.
And what do you hope to do ultimately when this assignment is concluded? Do you hope to send it to the National Assembly for enactment or do you hope to forward it to the President? What do you intend to do with it?
We’re going to do both. We’re going to send it to the President and we’re going to send it to the National Assembly. Two of the co-chairmen of the summit, Senator Gbenga Daniel and Aminu Tambuwal are also with us. One of the things we’re going to be imploring them to do is to take it to the National Assembly where they come from and where they’re very senior members. And we would also take it to the President. Don’t forget that even before the summit, we have already spoken to the President about it. Most Nigerians will need to know and are aware of what is going on.
What was the disposition of the president to the summit when you met him?
I think he had a positive position. He said to us: ‘this is a group I cannot ignore.’ But I also think, you know, we were rather proactive because when we talked to him, we reminded him that before he became President, he was a very vocal voice for the people’s Constitution from the time he was a governor. He said: ‘this is a group I cannot ignore.’
