Mr. Sayo Odumosu is a constitutional lawyer that is not pleased with the state of affairs in the country, especially on the political scene. In this exclusive interview with BAYO OLADEJI in Abuja during the week, he bares his mind on the controversial single term tenure, and many more issues. Excerpts:
One of the on-going debates in the polity today is the six-year single tenure. President Goodluck Jonathan argues that the recommendation, if passed as a law will reduce the tension associated with the second term agitation. How would you react to this?
My own position is that if we are sincere, the provision of the 1999 Constitution is very good for the country, a constitution is as good as its operators and a constitution is as bad as its operators. So amending the Constitution is not the problem per se. For example, what we are experiencing in the two terms of four years each for the president and the governors cannot be removed, if the five or six years single tenure is adopted. We would still be having the same problem because, it is an attitudinal problem and not a constitutional problem at all.
The thinking of some people is that the political tension is majorly caused by the second term agitation and if this is true, then the adoption of single term would create more problems and generate much tension in the land. It would turn the struggle into a do or die battle, and the moment you know that you are not coming back to that office for the second term, you would do worse things since you stand to lose nothing. We would now have a deregulated system without regulation. It is only in Nigeria we deregulate without regulation. If what we want to take care of, is the political tension in the country, then the single term would not solve that problem. A man who knows that he is not coming back could steal so much from the public office which he would be enjoying after leaving the office. All he needs to do is to look for one of his cronies and impose him on the state. This has been happening in a situation where the incumbent has concluded the second term. So, how would the proposal address this imposition?
Nevertheless, what we need is a committed leader, we need a sacrificial leader, we need a leader who is focused, and we need a prepared leader. What we have been having in the country are accidental leaders, who could not meet the challenges because they are not prepared, they are not capable to handle the challenges they met on ground. They are not focused because they don’t have mission. They are accidental in the sense that preparedness always meets opportunity, and if they get opportunity when they are not prepared for the task that follows, they would fail woefully. A prepared leader is a committed leader, a prepared leader is a leader that is focused, and a prepared leader is a leader that first and foremost always wants to defend the constitution. A prepared leader talk with authority, he says this is what the constitution says on this matter. A prepared leader would not take wrong advice from his subordinates; it is an unprepared leader that runs from pillars to posts looking for support after he has already gotten the mandate. A prepared leader gets support and commands respect because he is doing what is acceptable to the people, we don’t have that. A prepared leader has a rhinoceros skin, thick skin, a leader who is pursuing his critics is not a good leader, that is distraction and you don’t welcome any distraction because you have focus. People may gang up against a prepared leader to derail him, but that is not his focus.
A leader that is not prepared if given either eight years of two terms of four years each or one single term tenure of six years would only give us same result. We are bereft of leaders. What we need is the orientation to deliver, we need leaders who have prepared for the task of nation building who would then come out to say ‘I want to serve’ and not waiting to be called to come and serve. This is why you don’t see any dividends of democracy on ground because all that we have been having are unprepared leaders, the accidental leaders who would be going after the blue print after winning the election. Some of our leaders do not have pedigree of what they have done in the past before becoming leaders. Let us begin to look for a prepared leader, if we must move forward.
What is your attitude to the on-going testimonies of major Al-Mustapha before a Lagos High Court especially over the alleged murder of M.K.O?Abiola?
?
It is highly embarrassing. To my mind, that Al Mustapha statement has no weight and it does not help the situation. For example, this case has been on for 13 years now during the life time of Chief Abraham Adesanya and Chief Bola Ige, that they could be called to come and defend themselves, the allegations were not made when they were alive. The principle of fair hearing is not limited to only the living but it extends to the dead. Now they cannot be called to come and defend themselves. Where was Al Mustapha when these people were alive? You said you have audio and you have video clips but why didn’t you make this claim when they were alive? You claim they came to the Villa to collect money but are you saying there is no living witness to the transaction? If you have video clips or audio tapes, where were they before now? Why didn’t he present them before the Oputa panel? What he is saying will not solve the problem at hand because if you accuse the dead of gratification, some people would react in their defence. Afenifere has been reacting to the grave allegation already and this is just the begining. Who says video/audio clips cannot be edited to sweet the author’s agenda? We want is the real thing, what is coming from Lagos today will not take us anywhere. It is not real.
How would you describe the local government system in Nigeria?
The local government system in Nigeria is provided for in Section 7 (1) of the 1999 Constitution that says, “The system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the government of every state shall subject to section 8 of this constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.”
Subsection 2 speaks of the entity, subsection 3 addresses its primary function, subsection 4 is about who could vote in the election to usher in the council, and so on and so forth. By virtue of subsection 1, the Local government is an appendage of the state government by stating that, “The government of every state shall subject to section 8 of this constitution, ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils.”
Whereas, there is supposed to be an autonomy for the local government councils because they are the grassroots government, what a state should not provide for in terms of effective monitoring, supervision of the functions of the local government but as it were today, it is the state government that holds the jugular of local government and that is why they cannot function, they cannot meet the yearning of the people, because they cannot provide the dividends of democracy to the people at the grassroots. it would have been better not to have the local government system because, the existing ones cannot justify their existence. What we have now could not be regarded as the local government councils, but departments or units of the state government. As it is today, you cannot separate the local government from the state government. The whole essence of the local government system has been jeopardised. That is what we have.
So, you are saying the problem in our hands has to do with the constitution?
Of course yes. The problem has to do with the constitution, because it is the constitution that empowers the state government to have an overbearing influence, high handedness on the local government. So, if you are even elected as a local government chairman, you must subject yourself to the whims and caprices of the state governor. Otherwise you cannot function because the system will frustrate you. In fact, the moment you are not ready to take orders from the state government, you would be removed from the office because the money you are going to be receiving from the federation account will pass through the state government. This is why the state government will always ensure that whoever would emerge as the chairman of each of councils will be their man, because they would be giving him the order on how the money should be spent and you dare not disobey them. This is what is affecting the realisation of the local government system in the country.
On paper, we have three tiers of government, whereas in a three tiers of government, we have the central or federal government, the state government and the local government. And they should each be autonomous even though the power flows from the centre, but the power will be guided by the provision of the constitution. But now, between the principles of autonomy is being jettisoned by the relationship between the state and the local government at the expense of development and relevance. As long as there is no autonomy for the local government council, there is no end in sight to the problem of the local government in the country. Ordinarily, the economic development of a state depends on the viability or otherwise of the local government system.
The constitution expressly states it clearly that, “It shall be the duty of a local government council within the state to participate in economic planning and development of the area referred to in subsection (2) of section 7 and to this end, an economic planning board shall be established by a law enacted by the House of Assembly of the state.”
So by implication, it is the development of these councils that translate to the development of the state, the governor cannot be going round the local government, but instead, he has to rely on the local government chairmen to develope the state. But what we see is the governor exploiting the constitution to have an overbearing effect on the function, finance and the staffing of local government. So, the purpose of having the local government system is defeated. There is a difference between theory and practic. On the paper, we have a functional local government system, but in practical sense of it, what we are having is a mere appendage of the state government.
So, what we are operating is only a two-tier of government because, the structure, the function, and the finance of the council are the handiwork of the state government who supervises whatever the councils are doing, whereas it is not supposed to be. the relationship between the state and local government should not be that of master-servant, but a kind of partners in development, they should be comparing note on how to develop the state and not that the council chairmen would be reporting directly to the stat governor or taking instructions on the functions and the finances of the local government councils. Since the functions of the local government are enshrined in the constitution at the fourth schedule of the constitution.
So, the state should not be supervising them. The right thing is to have the same relationship that is existing between the state and the federal government; this is why these councils are not viable just as most of the states are not. That is why it appears there is nothing to show as dividends of democracy at the grassroots level since 1999. There are no good road, no primary health care delivery, the primary education has been taken away from the councils, there is no potable water for people to drink, go to all these primary schools, their buildings have collapsed, some are making use of make-shift classrooms, some are still making use of dilapidated buildings at the risk of the innocent pupils. This is one of the reasons why there is no more infrastructural development in the country. The information department and public work department do no longer exist at the local government councils. How many feeder roads are being rehabilitated by the state governments?
From what you have being saying so far, it means the local government system is supposed to be democratically elected. But, does that mean that the appointment of care taker committee or sole administrators is alien to the constitution?
?
Nigerians have accepted what is wrong as being right because of the constant ways the illegalities are being used. The use of sole administrator belonged to the military, it is illegal and because of the prolonged military rule, our political psyche has been bastardised. Election gas a process, there should be regular elections at all levels of the government. Sole administrator is dictatorial, it is unlawful, it is illegal, and the sole administrator has no power from the constitution. It is high time we stopped it.
The constitution is the problem and as long as the constitution remains the way it is, the local government system would never justify its existence. The local government system has collapsed in the country and all hands must be on deck to restore it. The National Assembly must wake up to its responsibility by amending the constitution in a way that will give autonomy to the local government. What we have now will never help the local government to live up to its expectation. They should outlaw the so-called Joint Local Government Account, because it gives power to the state government to suck the local government dry. The local government should have an independent accounting system. The Committee on Local Government in the National Assembly should take it up as their responsibility to ensure the monthly allocation of the councils goes directly to them. Let us have a uniform tenure system for the local government. There is no provision for tenure of the local government in the constitution.
I suggest a four- year tenure system too for the chairmen as this would shield them from the governors who want to be removing and replacing them to achieve their selfish goal. If the governor knows that he has the same tenure like that of the local government chairmen, the idea of turning the appointment to political patronages would be reduced to the barest minimum.?