REP-elect for Yewa North/Imeko Afon Federal Constituency,
and former Chief of Staff to the Chairman of the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC), Kayode Oladele, has described the decision by
the Federal Government to drag the National Assembly to the Supreme
Court over constitution amendment as ill-conceived and violates the
doctrine of separation of powers and legislative supremacy.
Oladele, who was a practicing lawyer in Nigeria and the
United States of America before his election into the Nigerian
parliament, added that the Presidency should have no official role in
constitution review.
He argued that the Supreme Court cannot rule on a bill
unless it has been passed and has become a piece of legislation. The
suit “is ill-conceived, preemptory and violates the doctrine of
separation of powers.
The reason is simple; the proposed constitutional amendment
has not become a piece of legislation, hence, it is not yet ripe for
judicial review. “The primary purpose of the litigation is to decide
whether or not the proposed amendment which they assumed, has become a
piece of legislation, is inconsistent with the constitution.
However, while it is true that the Supreme Court has the
power to interpret laws and declare them unconstitutional under the
principle of judicial review, the Supreme Court clearly, cannot
interpret a bill until such time when the bill has become legislation.
What this means is that the Supreme Court can only be vested
with jurisdiction to review the proposed amendments only after the
National Assembly must have overridden the President’s veto.”
He, however, advised the National Assembly not to override
the President’s veto as two wrongs do not make a right. “I also urge the
legislators to scrutinize and critically examine some of the objections
raised by the President with a view to ensuring that their actions are
consistent with the Constitution.
Amending a Constitution is a time-consuming process and can
be very expensive. Therefore, the National Assembly must do all within
its power to ensure that the final product of the Amended Constitution
is not fraught with inconsistencies with the 1999 Constitution which
could be a ground for judicial review and possible annulment by the
Court.”
No comments:
Post a Comment