Asked who should check the legislature during a recently held presidential media chat, within context related to the unchecked profligacy of
the National Assembly on a matter relating to their welfare – vehicles for
official work and the attendant costs – President Buhari stated that the
judiciary is expected to do us the honours. I had a problem immediately with
that, and not necessarily about the political correctness or otherwise of that
response but the mindset that it betrays. Asides apparent lack of understanding
of judicial review within constitutional democracies, and the deliberate
reduction of Nigerians to onlookers in the process, President Buhari made a
gaffe that I will try to address.
The budgetary process in Nigeria is one that requires an
Executive Bill which is sent to the National Assembly for passage in a usually
elaborate ceremony with the president as a celebrity brimming with optimism and
hope. Till date there is no role from my studies that is clearly outlined for
the judiciary besides budgetary input up to the point of presidential assent or
veto as the case may be. It remains the statutory responsibility of the
president to present the budget to the national assembly just as state
governors do same to their local assemblies. If there is a case of malfeasance
spotted along the budgetary process, what is the constitutional role of the
judiciary in this wise? The budget, in process is NOT A LAW. I think there is a
fundamental misunderstanding of what the core function of the judiciary is and
while many of us think that they are supposed to be equal partners in the separation
of powers philosophy, I believe that political history of governance and administration
has not particularly entrenched that in practice, even in the most advanced of
democracies.
Justice Mustapha Akanbi stated in a paper discussing the role of the judiciary and which he delivered on the 12th of September, 2006:
“The separation of powers provided by the constitution appears to me useless and a camouflage if the three arms of government are willed or influenced by the Executive.”
He goes on further to state:
“The implicit confidence of Nigerians in the Judiciary must not be misplaced. The Judiciary is still battling with the Executive and other agencies of Government about the disobedience of Orders of the Court”.
These concerns were raised 8 years ago by the eminent Jurist and again remain a legitimate concern today. Our national leadership has undermined the judiciary repeatedly by their actions of disregard for rulings and pronouncements of the judiciary.
How does the judiciary without the inputs of Nigerians, and on
its own intervene in the budgetary process – a purely executive – legislative matter?
The real power within the context of the discussion, to check the legislature,
with regards to corrective action lies with the Nigerian people through a process called ‘recall’
in constituency backed movements. The President must rise beyond assessment of
this onslaught by the National Assembly and its intended response as a fight against agents and
instruments of government and advance his assessment to that against the
Nigerian people. It is the National Assembly versus the people of Nigeria. The
ultimate interpretation of the success of the principles of checks and balances
must be weighed against its impact on the people of Nigeria for whom these
institutions exist in the first place. The tradition of inter-arm rivalry has
earned us no value. Imagine if the president pointedly asked Nigerians to
recall people working against their interest in the national assembly with the
same fervor that he pushes disregard of court orders in the national interest.
A semblance of the power of the judiciary under this context
I find in the function of judicial review which lies with the Supreme Court of
the Unites States. Even at that, a matter must be law first before
adjudication. Do we have such in Nigeria? If we did, how many times has our
judiciary embarked on review of judicial policies and laws that are usually
contradictory, outdated or even inconsequential to campaigns that promote our national causes? The function of the judiciary as
enunciated in the constitution is primarily the interpretation of law.
Checking the legislature, while desirable is hardly possible without motions
and actions by citizens with the locus and groups with the capacities. The
judiciary is a moral moderator in our affairs and will first of all assume
innocence for even our legislators till those of us who are angry can take
executable action that is legal and convincing enough to justify correction.
I will recommend executive bills within this current
dispensation aimed at checking the profligacy and tendencies of our
legislators and even the president for budgets undergoing legislation. My
studies have revealed that there are currently flaws within even the budgeting
process which are beyond the judiciary because there are just simply no
relevant laws! The Judiciary DOES NOT MAKE LAW and we must understand that. For
instance the NASS has power to determine government expenditure yet the
constitution does not call for approval on government financial or revenue
planning. This explains why the ding dong on acceptable and realistic oil benchmark
prices always occur. There is no law that again specifies what documents are to
accompany the budget or when and how budget information is to be disseminated
during legislation or during implementation. What will the judiciary do about
this? Nigerians are barred, technically from participation in the budgetary
process and we think that the judiciary can check the legislature when there is
not even a law to enable public participation? From where can we approach the judiciary
if we are so lacking in even the basics in the legislative agenda for a budget?
No comments:
Post a Comment