Elder statesman and constitutional lawyer, PROF. BEN NWABUEZE, in this incisive interview with Assistant Politics Editor, DANIEL KANU,shares his views on the ongoing national conference; how the Igbo interest would have been enhanced; the place of the people in the constitution and democracy, among others…
You were one of the few Nigerians who campaigned for a national dialogue. Your group, The Patriots, even had audience with President Goodluck Jonathan at Aso Rock on the issue. But you ended up not being at conference. What actually happened?
Ben Nwabueze
I led the team of The Patriots to a meeting with President Goodluck Jonathan on that demand for a national conference. That was on August 29, 2013. I wasn’t pressing for a national conference because I wanted to be there; I was pressing for it because I believe it is what Nigerians need at this point in time. As a result of that meeting, the president set up the Presidential Advisory Committee (PAC). I was in London for medicals when the committee was announced, and when I returned to the country, I released a press statement. But while in London, I had written to the president to say I was in London receiving treatment and that I would not be able to serve. When I returned, I followed up with the press statement in which I explained why I could not be a member. I gave two reasons: one was age (83). I said it would be good for younger people to have the opportunity. The second reason was ill-health. I normally go to London for treatment every year for prostate cancer, and given my age, I would not be able to travel all over the country with the committee. But I also nominated a member of The Patriots, in the person of Solomon Asemota (SAN) to substitute for me. That was at the committee stage. On the conference itself, I said I would not want to be a delegate and I gave two reasons. One is that I had played my part as a member of the Constitution Drafting Committee in 1976, set up by the Federal Military Government – the 49 wise men. It was 50 actually, except that the late Obafemi Awolowo declined.
Not only was I a member, I was a leading member of the committee and chairman of one of the sub-committees on Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. I was the chairman of that sub-committee. The late Rotimi Williams was the chairman of the main committee. I drafted what is now Chapter 2 of the 1979/1999 Constitution. The draft of the 1979 Constitution was prepared by Williams and I. We worked on it everyday for several days and submitted the final document to the Legal Committee of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC). The Legal Committee was not really one of the six sub-committees of the CDC, but when we finished, Williams and I assembled all the lawyer members of the CDC to look at it. Based on that, it was passed. And then, the Federal Military Government made a decree – the Constituent Assembly Decree of 1977 – and made the chairman of the CDC, Williams, and the chairmen of the six sub-committees members of the Constituent Assembly. That was how I became a member of the Constituent Assembly. I played a key role in the Constituent Assembly. I was elected the chairman of the most important committee of the Constituent Assembly. Shehu Shagari was my secretary. He was later elected president. These were the roles I have played over the years concerning our constitution. So, I felt that younger people should be given opportunity this time around to play their own part. I have played mine. The second reason that I gave for declining to be a delegate was that the national conference set up by the president is not the type that we demanded.
What actually did you expect?
What I am seeing now is totally different. We wanted primarily a conference that would adopt a new constitution for Nigeria which will subsequently be submitted to a referendum for approval. That was the essence of the conference we wanted. Secondly, we wanted a conference of ethnic nationalities. The conference that we have today doesn’t have the competence to adopt a constitution. Also, this conference was set up not by law enacted by the National Assembly as we had wanted. In the memorandum we submitted, we had attached with it what we called the National Conference and Referendum Bill, which we said the president should submit as an executive bill to the National Assembly, to provide the legal framework to the conference. This would cover convocation, composition, functions, powers, modus vivendi, modus operandi etc. The bill was attached to a 30-paragragh memorandum, which we sent to the president.
Some people allege that the reason you refused to go to the conference was because you wanted to impose your views, and that because they were not accepted, you decided to back out?
My views? How can that be? Of course, people can accuse you of all sorts of things. How can I want to impose my views on the conference? Who knew my views before the conference was set up? Who rejected my views? People accuse me of all types of things. They even said I wrote a letter to the president asking to be appointed chairman of the committee. Who saw a copy of such a letter? I never wrote such a letter to the president. It is all false. Yes, certainly I have my own ideas as to what the constitution of Nigeria should be, and that idea would have been embedded in the document we have already made public. The document is titled the Position of the Igbo nation at the proposed national conference in regards to the constitution of Nigeria. Igbo leaders of thought produced it and it has been circulated. It is available to all our delegates.
Did Ohanaeze Ndigbo buy into the document, because we heard there was disagreement along the line with the Ohanaeze leadership?
We prepared the letter and the letter was based on the letter by The Patriots to the president. It was something that everybody knew about because it provoked public discussion in the country. The Igbo leaders of thought adopted it. I invited the President of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Gary Igariwey, to my house in Enugu, gave him a copy of the letter and we discussed, and he was quite happy about it. He had a copy before any other Igbo leader of thought. In the meeting with the Igbo leaders of thought, he was also present. But suddenly in that meeting with the Igbo leaders of thought, he said he needed two days to consult his executive before signing. This was something he had already discussed with me. So, how could he say he needed more time for consultation again when the previous day we had the Imeobi meeting of Ohanaeze? There was so much anger, but I quieted everybody. We gave him two days and four days after he came back and said he would not sign. So the letter was changed from Ohanaeze Ndigbo to just Ndigbo. That was what happened.
Why is there always a crisis in Ohanaeze Ndigbo?
Is it only in Ohanaeze that we have crisis? There are more crises in Afenifere. They are more divided than you think. Afenifere has been split since the death of Abraham Adesanya. Maybe Ohanaeze crisis is well pronounced, but other groups have crisis too.
Would it be right to say that on this issue of national conference, the Igbo are divided?
I don’t know what you mean by divided. Divided as to whether the conference should take place or not?
Not having a common position because Ohanaeze is participating. But we are not sure the Igbo leaders of thought are in support, as we can cite your position on the conference?
You must take into account when you are discussing this, the question of selection of delegates. Fifteen slots were given to ethnic nationalities in conjunction with other socio-political organisations per zone. The Yoruba were quite wise on this. They decided that the best thing would be to share it.
They shared the number according to number of their states, which is six. They shared two for each state. For the remaining three slots, the body called the Yoruba Assembly decided how and who to pick.
In the South East, Ohanaeze said they were the ones to make the selection and then selected all the 15 delegates to fill the slots. I spoke with Peter Obi, former governor of Anambra State; and Chairman of the South East Governors’ Forum, Theodore Orji of Abia State; as well as with Governor Martins Elechi of Ebonyi State. I told them what the Yoruba did and that it appeared to be the best method; that we should share the 15 slots among our five states, giving each state three and that the states should make their own selection, taking into account the circumstances of the states. The governors agreed to convene meeting of the South East Governors’ Forum. By this time, Ohanaeze had already made the selection, including themselves – the president-general and secretary-general – and sent the list to the office of Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator Pius Anyim, and he approved. But I think there is, among the delegates, one Igbo leaders of thought member, like Dozie Ikedife. So it is not that the Igbo leaders of thought did not want to participate; but it is simply because they were excluded by Igariwey and Joe Nworgu.
Is the Igbo Leaders of Thought a rival organisation to Ohanaeze Ndigbo?
No, it is not meant to be. I have said that concerning this national conference, any group could come up with ideas. In the South West, so many groups came up with ideas. Eventually, the Yoruba Assembly had to marry all the views. We have so many socio-political organisations in Igboland with different positions. There is nothing to fear about that. We only need to marry the views along. The Igbo leaders of thought was set up just for one purpose: the national conference, to adopt the Igbo position. It is not an all-purpose organisation.
I was one of those who created Ohanaeze and I was the pioneer secretary-general and chief executive, and that was like answering president-general today. The chairman then was a traditional ruler. I was there for more than 20 years, and all these divisions we witness today were not there. It was when I left that all this started.
When you talk about the conference producing a new constitution, one gets the impression that the present constitution is faulty. What is wrong with the constitution, or is it not a matter of implementation?
The basic defect in the 1999 Constitution is that it is not anchored on the people. All over the world today, especially since the democratic revolution that began in 1959 to 1994, the whole movement in the world today is towards the democratisation of the constitution. The democracy we talk about, we have it on two levels; at the level of the constitution, the democratisation of the constitution and democratisation of the system of government, which is what you are talking about. That is wrong with the constitution. The basic thing is that the 1999 Constitution is not a democratic constitution. It was not adopted through the democratic process – a referendum. The cardinal value, advantage of democracy and democratisation, is that when you get the masses to participate in the making of the constitution, to participate in government itself by way of elections, you create a sense of involvement; you give to the constitution an authority that transcends everything. It produces supra-abundant force that carries everybody around it, gives it legitimacy. It legitimises the constitution, legitimises the state, legitimises the government. Referendum is simply to democratise the constitution. Our constitution is not a democratic one because it is made by the military government and imposed on us. We need to democratise the constitution.
How do you subject the outcome of this conference to a referendum that is not provided for in the constitution?
You cannot have a referendum without a law authorising it. The National Assembly members are saying that they don’t have the power to make the law authorising a referendum. It is not true. They have all the powers. They have power to make a law authorising a referendum.
Without an enabling law backing this national conference, don’t you think it is a wild goose chase?
That is exactly what I am saying. We will go nowhere. This conference that we have was convened by the president entirely by virtue of his power under Section 5. It is a power he has to do something without authorisation by law. He cannot, by virtue of this power, set up a national conference to adopt a constitution that will be binding as law. It is only the National Assembly that can do that. The conference cannot take any decision that will bind you and I. Where do they get the power?
Can’t an enabling law be made now to take a retroactive effect, although the conference is already in place?
It does not need to be retroactive; make it now, as they still have about one month to go. If they make the law now, it will still be valid notwithstanding that the conference has already been established. It depends on how fast they can pass the law.
What fears do you have for Nigeria?
I have serious fears, but I still believe that Nigeria will survive as a state. Nigeria is not a nation yet. I want Nigeria to survive. Nigeria’s problem is not insurmountable; our problems can be solved. Ethnic nationalities hold the key to the problem of unity. You don’t solve a problem by running away from it.
Many people believe that Nigeria’s biggest problem is corruption. Do you share in that view? Also, do you still believe that the solution to Nigeria’s problem is by a revolution?
Yes, corruption is a big problem, no doubt; but do you think it is Nigeria’s biggest problem? I am not sure about that. It is one of the big problems, but I am not sure that it is the biggest. There are problems that are more fundamental than corruption. Corruption is man-made; it is made by us, and so it is not fundamental. There are problems that are inherent in the structure of the country. The North/South divide is also another issue. People did not sit back to reflect on the enormity, sheer enormity of the North/South divide. It is one of the greatest problems that we have.
I have said that not only corruption, but other problems abound every day. Each passing day that I critically look at Nigeria, it seems to be confirmed in my belief that indeed a revolution is needed to solve this problem. It may be violent, it may be non-violent; but there has to be a revolution, perhaps non-violent, to change things. The rot is so much. Morality no longer counts. Truth no longer has a place in this country. Now, we have something else creeping in: impunity. It is overtaking almost everything else. Impunity is also man-made. Corruption is what it is because of impunity.
Actually, if you look at impunity, it became what it is today because of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. It was Obasanjo that gave impunity the frightening enormity that it acquired. Study his regime; all through the eight years, impunity reigned supreme. He would wake up one morning and sack the vice president. How can a president sack the vice president?
It is incredible when you read the story of the regime on Obasanjo for eight years and you wonder whether all these happened in a country of enlightened and civilised individuals. But it did happen.
I have taken time to chronicle some of the atrocities in two books; the rule of law under Obasanjo, how he desecrated and subverted the rule of law, how he desecrated and subverted the federal system. It is incredible what Obasanjo did. He has a few good parts; no doubt, he is a man of courage who can say, yes, this is what I want.
