 A new constitution. Nigeria is currently using the constitution as enacted in May 1999, having used five others previously. One, in the colonial era 1914 to 1960, we had Clifford of 1922, Richard of 1946, Macpherson of 1951 and Littleton of 1954. Two, the independence constitution of 1960. Three, the 1963 constitution of the First Republic. Four, the 1979 constitution of the Second Republic. Five, the 1993 constitution of the Third Republic. In the Fourth Republic, the present 1999 constitution. Now there are a lot of reasons why the current constitution needs to be trashed. But today, allow me to stick with only two reasons. Number one is the preamble to the constitution, which gives the impression that the constitution is the work of Nigerians. When it claims that we, the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, having firmly and solemnly resolved, do hereby make, enact and give to ourselves the following constitution. This is just not true. As the ordinary Nigerians were neither consulted in the preparation of the constitution, nor was the constitution written by us. Therefore, a constitution not written by us cannot work for us. Number two, the process of drafting the constitution itself was quite defective. There was inadequate consultation with Nigerians, there was no constitutional conference or no constitutional conferences to ascertain the wishes and desires of Nigerians. Nor were referendums conducted to confirm whether or not the constitution was acceptable to and by the people. So how would a constitution be fitting enough when it is not conceived with the diversity of Nigeria in mind? How can a constitution that isn't sensitive to the circumstances of the Nigerian terrain ensure its sustenance and productivity? It will seem that one major reason why we haven't made significant progress in bearing this dead horse of a constitution is because we have become so used to it. It is probably beneficial to a select few and they have therefore devised means to profit off of its misgivings. But as long as this retrogressive status quo is maintained, they will continue to weave their way. There is no shame in bearing a dead horse that doesn't work for Nigeria anymore. The horse's lifespan serves as enacted experience, a guide to making better choices in the future. So what are the steps to rewriting the constitution? Referendum, representatives of the legislature should be tasked with meeting their constituents and detailing their every desire for what the constitution should and can look like. These meetings can span months. All points must then be properly documented in the most transparent and painstaking manner possible. Constitutional convention, these same representatives and other stakeholders will then publicly meet and debate on what should be contained in the constitution. Every representative must be allowed free speech just like in the constitutional convention assembled in Philadelphia in May of 1787. Then we have the documentation process. After debates have been properly weighed and analysis derived, decisions should be put in writing by committee and then compressed. All parties would then sign an agreement if and when the document satisfies the needs of their constituents. Final step would be the approval and implementation of said new constitution. I think Raymond should go first. I would have interest in selling the country. I don't think I have too much interest in what is happening with the constitution. But if I might just, since the government has been thrown at me, of course I read the script and the argument on the Nigerian constitution is an argument that may never end. It has been with us as long as we have had this country. In recent times, it has, the idea we hear persons advocate of a new constitution seems to be high in the pro. The argument is this, that the constitution is not homemade. That is some poor quality decree and all what have you written as a decree. And they are saying that we should have a new constitution that actually that represents the independent will of Nigerians at large. And while I'm not taking away anything from the argument of those of that school of thought. My view of the school of thought that argues that the constitution, there is no constitution that is a perfect document anywhere in the world. And that's why we say that constitutions are organic documents. They continue to grow with changing realities and society continues to evolve. And that's why constitutions usually have the process of amending its provisions to catch up with the realities of the modern times. Now if for any reason the argument is that this constitution is not working, I think the argument should be how do we get it to work? Section nine of the constitution has provided elaborate means of amending its constitution. And to a large extent, I think we have explored this option. We have up to four alterations to the 1999 constitution, with each of them focused on tackling specific issues. So for me, the problem is not so much of the source of the constitution. As small as it is, the enforcement of the constitution itself. And I gave an example of the current strike action by the judicial staff workers. What is the issue? They're advocating for autonomy for state judiciaries. Now section one, two, one, subsection three of the constitution guarantees the autonomy for state judiciaries. Why aren't the state governors enforcing it? So I don't think we should put so much blame on, we should interrogate the process with the people, that all Nigerians come and gather at TBS and say, okay, put your signature, we have signed the constitution and take it. That's not the problem. I think we should focus more on enforcing the letters of what you have. If there's a need for changing, then we amend the constitution. Section nine of the constitution. What say you, Francis? My own view is that we need to revise the constitution, just like Raymond suggested. And to hold the brief of the people who gave us this constitution, there was a process. Number one is that this constitution is a photocopy of the 1979 constitution. There's a rule in law that once a document is been satisfied, it doesn't require further certification. So if you have a constitution, a 1979 constitution, that went through the drafting committee of 49 members and 230 member constituent assembly that looked at it and adopted it before they presented it to the nation. So why go through the same process again? It was 40 years ago that so much has changed in 40 years. The American constitution was written in 1787. Over 200 years, they have deployed amendment. What do they call it now? I'm not an American, I'm Nigerian. I don't have to wait until they write a new constitution and I feel okay, well, America doesn't even. The truth of the matter is, certain things might have changed, certain things still remain. The reality of 2019 is the reality of 2021. Coronavirus has redefined the world. So, and then also to further argue in support of the people who gave us that law. The fact that the photocopied, the one that went through the processes that you suggested made it less necessary to go through that process again. That is why. What brought us to the democracy we got with blood, tears and sweat in 1999? Between 1998, June and May, 1999, when Abacha died, did not leave room for too much debate. What we wanted as a country is the military out. We felt that once the military are out, we'll find a way of resolving our issues. And that did not allow for going through, because there are a lot of things that divide us as a nation, more than the things that unite us. So if you go to those assemblies, there might be focus so much more on the things that divide us. Why the military? And let us just move to the next stage. Now, it is the next stage that we are that has not given us the opportunity for you to suggest that we should amend or review or revise the constitution. Should be told, if we want to amend the constitution, will we go through this thing? Comfort less, let's hear your view. Yeah, so the constitution, the amendment of the constitution is another topical issue. And I think I'm with Joyce on this, but I think my view would be on the, for me, on clarity of what the constitution seeks to convey. We've had the issue of, on one hand, we say we're a circular country and we base it on the constitution. On the other hand, we have the religious part of it and the traditional part all lumped up in the same constitution, which for me is what creates the unbalance, the imbalance and a lot of the problems that we're having. As she said, a lot of things have happened and gone through in our nation. But I think it is also the people who put the constitution together that probably just were not up to scratch. You alluded to the American constitution and we've seen is over 200 years old. Why has it endured? It has endured because the people who sat down to write that constitution wrote it not from selfish interests, they wrote it in the interest of everybody who couldn't be at our, in the figurative in Tinibu Square. They wrote it that if I'm not here, will the next person be able to use this constitution, find justice, find fairness, find legal standing? And those are the things that are missing in our constitution. And on that premise for me, yes, we do need anyone. We now need selfless people who understand that it is not about me, but about the next generation coming and the next generation's coming that this constitution needs to be written for. And the first point for me is that it has to be clear. It has to be homogeneous. Are we a secular nation following a straight path of justice, fairness or whatever? Or are we a religious one that is following the dictates of God that satisfies everybody? Over. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for coming down to that same issue. This argument may never end because of it has to do with the constitution. Well, you see, I keep asking myself, what is it that will be written in this new constitution that will be totally different from what is contained in the current document? Some things that will be written. For example, comfort made argument that the constitution should be based on principle of equality, justice, and fairness. When you go to these chapter two of the constitution, it gives an idea of what this is called and the idea of the constitution. It doesn't it? So it still comes down to the issue of the enforcement. So should we amend the constitution to say that chapter two should not be justiciable? Yes. Yes. If there is a case, then we have to write it. Yes. So, so, so... May I come in here so that I can clear that, please? I guess Raymond's point. Raymond is in favor of amendment and improving on the constitution as it were instead of writing one. And there is no, there will be, we will not be acting on any legal basis if we are writing another one because the constitution that guides everything that we ought to do makes provision for amendment and not the writing. So we'll be acting outside the chief law of the land by saying we want to rewrite. If it will only satisfy the itch of Nigerians who are alive now, then it's good enough reason. If we feel like we own the constitution and we commit ownership, then wouldn't it be worth it? So this is where I come in on the constitution. Raymond. Yes. Sorry, I just wanted to answer what he said when he said the chapter two. And that was why I referred to the fact that it is unclear the type of constitution we're operating. If you have half of the country saying that their law is Sharia law, for example, and I do not subscribe, I am not an adherent of Sharia law, how does chapter two help me when my rights get violated? Because there is an entrenched, it's the Sharia is entrenched in the constitution which still has this chapter two, but then the Sharia itself is a law. And so because of that unclearity and that clash, you cannot have an equitable constitution. It's not possible. You must be clear on what you are doing. Are you secular? And all of us are on one foundation so that if you violate my laws, I can go to one source and get my redemption. Comfort, if I may, I would defer to Raymond, who seems to have a PhD in constitutional law, but my view is Sharia law in Nigeria that is enshrined in the constitution is treated as customary law and it is Sharia private law. Now, if you have issues with people and it has to relate with the criminal part of Sharia law, that is not what our constitution speaks to. What does our constitution speak to? What is the practice? Private law. Isn't that the clarity that comes from practice? It is clear in the constitution that we have now. It's only for you to find it. Slumming personal law. So it is the slumming personal law and it is treated as customary law. And our customary law is also recognized. And that is why you have the Sharia court of appeal and then you have the customary court of appeal in our constitution. And so the clarity is there. So if we treat the Sharia, even if that is source from the religion, it is more of a customary law under our laws. Now, and it is not so difficult to understand what it is, particularly if you look deeper into what we have as against what has been painted. That is one. What has been painted? What has been painted is that Sharia law is operating somewhere and it's to enable some people to trample on other people's right using Sharia law, prosecuting people using Sharia law. No, no. That is not what our constitution says as of today. So when you have laws in certain states, that says you must not take a call. It is the law of that state. It is not the constitution that allows an Isba to come and break your bottle of beer. I've stopped drinking beer. So I have. And that aligns with the principle of federalism that allows states to be autonomous and independent and break their own private laws. So that's not part of what we have now. Is that what we're operating? You're still going back to what I'm saying. You have just spoken about federalism, but it's not what we are practicing. Is it the regionalization? Let every state do what it wants to do. So in that case of the Isba, the missing link is any state infrastructure that is missing and which I think we should, amendment of the constitution should be, effort should be made in a many constitution to meet up with the missing link that has to do with its enforcement. So the truth of matter is no perfect law. When he brought up the issue of Isba and breaking of bottles, right? And you said it's related to only the states. Yes, there's no perfect law. And who would have thought that the American law has released a transition from one government to the other was that weak until we did advent of Donald Trump. Okay, Francis, the conversations will continue and they will never be complete without you. Tamila Day Amuludun says, I like your talk show, very interactive and insightful. Thank you, Advocate Team. So follow us on our social media platforms on Facebook, plus TV Africa using the hashtag The Advocate NG or on Twitter and Instagram at plus TV Africa using the hashtag The Advocate NG. To catch up with previous broadcasts, go to plus TVAfrica.com forward slash The Advocate NG. Comfort is talking to us on the effect of social media on our mental health after this break.