By EricJames Ochigbo, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)
Every four years, Nigeria’s National Assembly, in concert with the 36 state Houses of Assembly, initiates a constitution review exercise—a ritual aimed at ensuring good governance and a just society. This process involves updating laws, introducing new provisions, and attempting to align the country’s foundational legal document with its rapidly evolving political, social, and economic realities. In theory, these reforms represent a critical pathway to strengthening democracy, deepening federalism, and entrenching accountable governance in Africa’s most populous nation.
In practice, however, constitutional reform in Nigeria is neither simple nor swift. It is a capital-intensive, painstaking endeavor that demands broad national consensus. The process is rigorous: stakeholders submit memoranda, the National Assembly holds zonal public hearings, lawmakers debate and vote, and successful proposals must then be approved by at least two-thirds of the state assemblies before presidential assent. This complexity underscores the constitution’s status as the grundnorm—the supreme law from which all other laws derive their validity.
Yet, more than two decades after the return to civil rule in 1999, the promise of good governance remains largely unfulfilled. Nigeria grapples with entrenched challenges: worsening insecurity, pervasive corruption, weak institutions, poor public service delivery, and a steady erosion of public trust. This stark reality forces a fundamental question: can constitutional amendments alone address Nigeria’s deep-seated governance crisis?
The Gap Between Progressive Provisions and Political Reality
Previous review cycles have yielded notable, on-paper achievements. The Ninth National Assembly, for instance, passed amendments that empowered states in the electricity sector, granted financial autonomy to state legislatures and judiciaries, and harmonised the retirement age for judges. These were widely applauded as strides toward true federalism and institutional independence.
However, a persistent implementation deficit has blunted their impact. Many of these provisions have been selectively implemented, actively undermined by political interests, or lost to bureaucratic inertia. For example, the financial autonomy for state judiciaries, while constitutionally mandated, is often disregarded by state governors, compromising judicial independence at the sub-national level. This pattern reveals a core pathology: Nigeria’s governance problem is less about the absence of good laws and more about a culture of impunity and weak enforcement.
Accountability mechanisms are weakened by political interference; anti-corruption agencies face questions over their independence and the selectivity of their actions; and fiscal provisions meant to strengthen grassroots governance rarely translate to improved services for citizens. This gap between legal text and lived experience fuels public cynicism.
The Current Agenda and the Rhetoric of Reform
The unresolved issues now before the parliament are significant and speak to long-standing national debates: the establishment of state police, greater local government autonomy, independent candidacy, electoral reform, and the critical issue of reserved legislative seats for women to address abysmal representation.
Rep. Benjamin Kalu, Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the House Committee on Constitution Review, has framed the current exercise in ambitious terms. He speaks of delivering a constitution that promotes service delivery, streamlines electoral justice, strengthens fiscal federalism, and guarantees women’s participation. He has assembled experts to guide the process and urged that it be guided strictly by national interest, not partisan or regional considerations.
“Our political differences must dissolve here,” Kalu asserted. “Every decision we take must answer one question: Is this what is best for Nigeria… for the millions of Nigerians whose hopes our actions will shape?”
The Critical Analysis: Why Reforms Often Fail to Transform
Despite such assurances, critics and analysts identify a recurring flaw: Nigeria’s review exercises focus more on the amendment process than on implementation outcomes. As Dr. Chibuzo Okereke, a legislative expert, notes, there is a pressing need to rethink the legislative process to ensure lawmaking translates into tangible democratic dividends. This requires greater legislative assertiveness in oversight to hold the executive accountable.
The perspective of elder statesman Chief Emmanuel Ogidi is even more pointed: the executive arm’s weak implementation is a primary obstacle. “We have been playing politics with hunger and insecurity,” he notes, “and only a few benefit from it while the masses continue to suffer.” The focus, he suggests, remains on winning elections, not on faithfully executing budgets and laws.
Governance experts argue that meaningful progress demands a paradigm shift from a culture of lawmaking to a culture of law implementation. This shift necessitates:
- Strengthening Institutions: Building administrative capacity and insulating agencies from political capture.
- Safeguarding Judicial Independence: Ensuring courts can act as impartial arbiters without fear or favor.
- Enforcing Sanctions: Applying legal and political consequences for breaches of the law consistently.
- Promoting Transparency: Making government operations and spending open to public scrutiny.
Without these foundational measures, even the most progressive constitutional provisions risk remaining mere rhetoric—words on paper with minimal impact on the daily life of the average Nigerian.
Conclusion: A Test of Political Will
As the National Assembly embarks on another review, Nigerians watch with cautious optimism. The central question is whether this exercise will break the cycle and confront the enduring challenge of implementation. The legislature, as the emblem of democracy, must live up to its oversight mandate to ensure laws are executed. Citizens, too, have a role in shunning undemocratic choices and holding representatives accountable.
Ultimately, constitutional reform is a necessary but insufficient condition for good governance. It provides the framework, but the structure of accountability is built through consistent, courageous implementation and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. Until that political will is mustered, the governance question in Nigeria will remain unanswered, regardless of how often the constitution is amended.
*** If used, please credit the News Agency of Nigeria and the writer.
