|
1960 - 2004: A legislature of
our dreams?
By
Chesa Chesa
National
Assembly Correspondent,
Abuja
Since
1989, after the velvet revolution that tore down the Berlin Wall as well
as the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, democratic tentacles have been
inching ever forward. In all parts of the globe, it is enjoying an
unprecedented consolidation. Nigeria has had little choice, particularly
in recent times, but to flow with the tide. The very idea of democracy has
been on the rise; looking set to reclaim the prestige it lost when it and
the country suffocated under military jackboot. Nigeria has moved forward
to the past; when we secured for ourselves what we gladly refer to as our
independence 44 years ago, on October 1, 1960.
The
democratic experiment introduced then was not home-grown anyway. After
all, it was an offshoot of the struggles that led to the colonial masters
leaving us alone. Nigeria�s independence was fought for and got on the
principles of democracy, so it naturally followed that democracy was it,
all the way. It was seen as the one type of government that could allow
the ordinary citizen have reasonable input into who governs him and how he
is governed.
Instructively,
democracy is best practised on the principles of separation of powers -
that is the interdependent and mutually exclusive powers of the judiciary,
the legislature and the executive. Of these, the masses have the greater
participation in the legislature, which is actually that arm of government
that should be closest to them and serve as a lever with which to monitor
the activities of the executive. The ultimate lever in this arrangement as
is well known is the judiciary, which is to be the buffer between the
other more visible and boisterous arms of government. Nigeria, quite
rightly, bought the whole package from Britain, from which the political
independence was secured that October 1, 1960.
Having
been colonised by Britain, it was not unusual that Nigeria modelled its
government after its coloniser. So, the new country gaily incorporated the
English legal system, had an executive head of government who was at that
time answerable to the Queen of England and established an English-styled
parliament.
The
parliament that was in place in 1960 continued until Nigeria achieved a
republican status in 1963 when the sovereign head ceased to be the Queen,
and then up to 1966 when a military coup ended the first democratic
experiment after independence. That parliament was headed by Dr Nnamdi
Azikiwe, a front liner in the struggle for independence. He was succeeded
by Dr Nwafor Orizu, who in turn handed the baton over to Chief Denis
Osadebey, in whose hands the First Republic parliament ended.
The
parliament of the First Republic had its own turbulent times. It was not
entirely unexpected as the country was just emerging from colonialism and
was still struggling to
weave
the fabric of nationhood. There were several centripetal forces tearing at
the seams and there was no experience to handle the situation; no
precedents and it all appeared that the nation and the legislature groped
along until the military struck in 1966. Many have tended to blame the
legislature for the collapse of the First Republic, arguing that if they
had performed their assigned role, the executive, with the Prime Minister,
Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, in charge, would not have erred to the extent of
creating the opportunity for a disenchanted citizenry to welcome a
military putsch. It was obvious of course that as the executive arm
battled to remain on its feet, the legislature was also doing same. Only
the judiciary, as conservative as it is wont to, appeared insulated from
the vagaries of the unstable political clime.
Azikiwe
had the good fortune of presiding over a relatively calm legislature as
the nation basked in the euphoria of its new found freedom that
independence ushered in. 1963 saw Azikiwe metamorphosing from the
Governor-General to the President of the country, following the republican
status of the nation. Nobody seemed ready to want to rock the boat set
sailing by the colonialists. But things were to change as the nation, as
time went on, supposedly mustered the boldness to decide for itself what
democracy really meant to it.
This
attitude came to the fore after the military interregnum of 1966 to 1979.
The stage for that appeared set as from 1963 when political upheavals in
the Western Region started attracting more than a passing attention. A
seemingly inexperienced parliament watched helplessly as the all-powerful
executive tried frantically to douse the widening inferno and at the same
time reaping political fruits from it. The misadventure culminated in the
bloody coup of January 1966 that ended the tenure of Osadebey.
Incidentally, of the three arms of government, the legislature suffers
most whenever there are such military interventions. It is always wiped
out and kept in the cooler for as long as it takes to return to a
semblance of democratic rule.
It
took 13 years to have a Nigerian legislature back in place. That was in
1979 when General Olusegun Obasanjo handed the reins of power over to
Alhaji Shehu Shagari, as the elected civilian president. The military
regime that preceded the Shagari government had then decided for Nigerians
that it was better to switch from the British parliamentary system of
government to a presidential system; this time specifically modelled after
the American experience.
The
lot of piloting the legislature then fell to Chief Joseph Wayas, as
chairman of the bicameral National Assembly and President of the Senate.
His tenure, along with that of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Chief Edwin Umezeoke, turned out to be the most stable in
the nation�s history as they lasted four years and three months, the
longest by any of his predecessors and successors yet. They would very
likely have chalked up eight years on the seat if the military had not
struck again on December 31, 1983.
Even
as the Shagari government of 1979 to 1983 had been accused of corruption,
one of the reasons given by Gen. Muhammadu Buhari for the overthrow of the
civilian government, it is argued that the legislature then was not as
�monetised� as the ones that succeeded it. Since then, the National
Assembly has been more or less a place of musical chairs, one spiced with
complex intrigues, blackmail, opportunism and of course impeachments. That
is apart from the frequent allegations of financial impropriety that,
however, are not restricted to the legislature, as deeper probing has
often indicated greater financial recklessness in the
executive.
Anyhow,
another legislature, or something very close to it, as some analysts have
termed it, emerged in July 1992. It was a National Assembly that operated
under a military regime; that of Gen. Ibrahim Babangida. Such arrangement
was novel but it was explained as been in line with a transition process
that would have ultimately produced an elected civilian president. That
was not to be as the presidential ambition of the incumbent military
dictator suffocated any such hope of a full democratic government. It was
the same reasons that smothered the blossoming of a relevant legislature
then. It was basically a legislature in name only and made no laws. It was
idle for the most part of its less than two years in existence.
The
Senate President then was Dr Iyorchia Ayu, who suffered the first
impeachment on account of defying the military junta and allowing motions
for the termination of the military rule of Babangida. Ayu was a supporter
of Chief Moshood Abiola, whose election as president was annulled by
Babangida. Ayu�s sympathy cost him his job even as it was also alleged
that the late Shehu Yar�Adua, who had opposed Abiola�s emergence, used his
financial muscle to effect that unprecedented impeachment.
Senator
Ameh Ebute took over in November 8, 1993 but his removal was just around
the corner as the musical chairs moved round quickly and brought in Albert
Legogie. All the while, the Speaker of House of Representatives was Agunwa
Anekwe. Apart from these impeachments, there was nothing about the
National Assembly then as it almost never existed, no thanks to the
�hidden agenda� of the military regime of the time. That was the situation
until Gen. Sani Abacha�s military government came on board on November
17,1993.
Abacha�s
death and Gen. Abdusalami�s transition programme paved the way for the
return of Olusegun Obasanjo as the civilian president in May 1999. The
National Assembly was inaugurated June 3 same year. Obasanjo�s tenacious
hold on this current National Assembly is one tale told over and over.
The
signs started showing early in the day. Riding against popular opinion,
the president ensured the emergence of Evans Enwerem as the Senate
President while Alhaji Salisu Buhari easily emerged as the Speaker of the
House of Representatives. However, while agitations were on for the
removal of Enwerem, Buhari was battling to extricate himself from
allegations of being underage for the post, claiming spurious educational
qualifications and lying under oath. In the end, both capitulated as
Enwerem was impeached and Buhari owned up to his misdeeds and resigned.
To
take over from Enwerem and Buhari were Chuba Okadigbo and Ghali Na�Abba,
respectively. Political analysts and commentators have thrown up these two
as unarguably the best mix to sustain what could be described as the best
National Assembly Nigeria ever had, particularly because they were
prepared to serve as a check on a rampaging executive.
The
�stubborn� trio of Obasanjo, Okadigbo and Na�Abba brought on Nigeria a
most turbulent executive/legislature relationship. The many squabbles
between the legislature and the executive showed in the many externally
induced impeachment attempts on Okadigbo and Na�Abba. In the end, Obasanjo
remained the last man standing as Okadigbo was eventually impeached on
some allegations of financial impropriety and Na�Abba did not make it back
to the House after his first term.
Okadigbo
was replaced by Anyim Pius Anyim, a supposed political greenhorn that
astounded pundits with his dexterity in handling the fury of an
overbearing president. He is still credited with having balanced his
political interests well enough to have survived impeachment plots until
he voluntarily relinquished his position at the end of his tenure. The
National Assembly under him made a spirited attempt to kill the
Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC)
as it was obvious it had become a weapon in the hands of the executive.
Interestingly too, for the first time, Obasanjo was at the receiving end
of the unpleasant impeachment threat stick, a development he described as
a joke taken too far. It marked a watershed in the relationship between
the executive and the legislature in Nigeria.
A
senator who had tried a number of times to grab the Senate presidency
eventually had fate smiling on him as he turned out the favoured one to be
the 10th Senate President of the country. He is Adolphus Wabara, who has
so far succeeded in keeping his job by not engaging in confrontational
tactics with the executive. In fact, that helped save the day for him
during a recent attempt by his colleagues to impeach him. In the lower
house, Aminu Masari is in charge as the Speaker, and has not had the kind
of opposition or close shave with impeachment as Wabara did.
Anyway,
many Nigerians insist that this National Assembly�s relationship with the
executive arm of government is too cordial for the interest of democracy
and the nation. What the executive claimed was a dangerous relationship
during the better part of the last Assembly is what many ordinary
Nigerians seem to have realised, with the benefit of hindsight, to be
indeed, advantageous. This is because it appears the present National
Assembly has been cowed into ceaselessly towing the line of the executive
against the general wish and anticipation of the masses.
After
44 years as an independent nation, it certainly should not be the kind of
impression Nigerians should have of the lawmakers they supposedly elected
to represent them in government. It is not as if they are satisfied with
the executive either but the hope they repose in the legislators to
correct the mistake (deliberate or otherwise) of the executive appears
unrealisable. The leadership of the National Assembly argues that it is
merely exhibiting maturity in handling its relationship with the Obasanjo
presidency but the number of Nigerians who are convinced by that are not
in the majority.
A
summary of the opinions from current members of the National Assembly
shows that they are not comfortable with the opinion their electors have
of them but they concede that they have on some occasions played into the
hands of the executive, which they insist is no better than legislature.
Some of them have been bold enough to admit that the legislature in place
now is certainly not what Nigerians want after 44 years of nationhood.
There is a long way to go.
| 
