By
Joshua Egbodo 

President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration at the commencement of the 4th Republic initiated moves to review the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, focusing on key areas such as devolution of powers, state police, fiscal federalism, local government autonomy, and electoral reforms. The argument then was that what he inherited was a military tailored constitution which did not reflect the people’s will.

Initially, a joint committee was set up by the National Assembly to execute the exercise, but both Chambers later went their separate ways following controversies over the leadership of the joint panel. Issues of “chairman”, “deputy chairman” or “co-chairman”, marred the take-off so the option of independently running the exercise was adopted.

But aside the initial challenges in 1999, subsequent efforts in every four years have been a progress that has been adjudged slow, and the review process facing various challenges, including resistance from various interests and concerns about the potential impact of changes on the country’s stability.

Recurring issues

From the first attempt in 1999, almost the same issues have routinely been the recurring decimals which have remained unaddressed. These include devolution of powers: chiefly intended to review the distribution of power between the federal government and states to ensure a more balanced federalism.

State Police: Granting states the power to establish and maintain their own police forces, Fiscal Federalism: Reviewing the allocation of resources and revenue sharing between the federal government and states, Local Government Autonomy: Enhancing the autonomy of local governments and their financial independence, and Electoral Reforms: Addressing gaps identified in previous elections and strengthening electoral institutions.

Poor outcome and impact

In spite of the huge resources deployed over the years, the wider perception have remained of poor outcome and negligible impact. Despite efforts at reviewing the constitution, meaningful change has been slow to materialise, and many of the challenges facing Nigeria’s governance and democracy remained unresolved, and analysts have continued to argue along that line.

In one of the exercises and under former President Goodluck Jonathan, the National Assembly made the grave error of lumping all the proposed amendment clauses as one alteration Bill, and when Jonathan vetoed it after pointing out some unacceptable provisions, including typographical errors in the document, all ended as throwing out the baby and the bath water. Lessons were learnt as later efforts have been devoid of such mistakes.

Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator George Akume, Tinubu described the exercise as a “golden opportunity” to advance democracy and nation-building. “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is not static, but a living document that must continually respond to the realities, aspirations, and challenges of our people. 

“I urge all participants to approach this exercise with a spirit of patriotism, responsibility, and constructive dialogue,” the speech read. 

“The quality of ideas generated here will go a long way in shaping the laws and institutions that will serve generations yet unborn. I wish the Committee and all stakeholders fruitful deliberations, and I assure you that the outcome of this process will receive the deserved attention as part of our collective quest to build a stronger, more united, and prosperous Nigeria,” he said.

What expectations? 

The Committee of the House in the current dispensation, under the chairmanship of Benjamin Kalu as deputy speaker has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the outcome of the ongoing exercise would be satisfactory to the majority, saying that the report of the panel, and by extension the National Assembly would be ready before the end of December 2025.

Besides Kalu’s unwavering assurances, his principal, Tajudeen who declared the recent apex  public hearing in Abuja open, while describing the exercise as “a significant moment in Nigeria’s democratic journey,” also assured citizens that the process would not be bogged down by delays.

“Reform delayed is reform denied, and Nigerians deserve clarity and closure. We intend to vote on the proposals expeditiously and give the States enough time to deliberate and endorse the people’s will,” he said.

Kalu on his part, noted that the proposals were not legislative impositions but the “thought-out demands and memoranda of the Nigerian people themselves.”

He said, “The ultimate authority for this process resides with you, the sovereign people of Nigeria. Constitutional reform is a marathon, not a sprint. Your continued engagement is crucial to see this through.”

But despite the assurances, Nigerians are still worried as followers of the repeated exercises since 1999 have faulted the frequency of the alteration moves. So much movements without motion appeared to have been the dominant inferences arrived at by pundits, who argued to the belief of many that the same issues being canvassed to be addressed remained the subject of the efforts to date.

The question have, therefore remained whether there would be a timeline to giving a break in the repeated amendments by each assembly of the national legislature, more that moves were eagerly on for a return to a homegrown parliamentary system of government for the country.