Prominent senior lawyers, Chief Mike Ozekhome and Mr Femi Falana have faulted the decision of President Muhammadu Buhari to withhold his assent to over 15

constitutional (amendment) bills passed by the National Assembly, after the 30 days within which the president was expected to assent to the bills.

Speaking on the development, foremost human rights attorney, Femi Falana, queried the lawfulness of the president’s action, insisting that while the president may have the discretion to assent to newly passed or amended legislation, no such discretion is conferred on the president as it relates to constitutional matters, including its amendment.

According to the former president of the West African Bar, Falana, the provisions of sections 9 and 58 of the 1999 constitution requires judicial interpretation as to the property of the president’s action; “Section 9 is unambiguous on the power of the National Assembly and 36 State Houses of Assembly to alter any part of the 1999 Constitution. We are now considering the interpretation of Sections 9 and 58 of the 1999 Constitution concerning the power of the president.”

Tolling similar reasoning as Mr. Fallana, SAN, the likes of ex-President of Nigerian Bar Association, Chief Joseph Daudu (SAN); human rights lawyer, Dr. Mike Ozekhome (SAN); former Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Adeniji Kazeem (SAN), and seasoned lawyer, Mr. Kunle Adegoke (SAN) urged the federal lawmakers to override the president’s decision.

For Chief Mike Ozekhome, no law confers on the president the power or right to reject the 16 constitution alteration bills that have been passed by three-quarters of the National Assembly and two-thirds of the 36 State Houses of

Assembly. He also argued that from the amendment process, the procedure required in amending the Constitution is more tasking and stringent, and as such serves as a differential when compared with the process of making other legislation; however noting that any discretion exercised by the president is not absolute, and as such even where the action of the president appears correct to his advisers, it can be vetoed.

“In this case, 27 State Houses of Assembly passed 32 Constitution Alteration Bills, 2023. The process was on for over three years. To think the president will override the bills is curious to me. I do not think Mr. President should reject the resolution of the federal and state legislature. He should be advised to assent to these bills immediately,” Ozekhome explained.

“If the president refuses to assent, then the bills come back to the National Assembly. After 30 days, the National Assembly can reconsider the bills and then overrides the veto of the president.“Whether you call it a bill to amend the

Constitution or any other regular bill, a bill is a bill whatever may be the purpose behind it. On this ground, the 16 constitution alteration bills should be taken back to the National Assembly. After 30 days, the National Assembly should veto the bills, and then they become laws immediately.”

On his part, Adegoke noted that: “The National Assembly can reconsider the particular bills and pass them into law.

No provision in Section 9 of the Constitution mandates the President to assent to the Constitution bills. The implication is that where there is an exercise of veto by the President, the National Assembly can now pass the bills into laws and they have to become effective after some time required by the Constitution.”

Disagreeing with the trio Chief Joseph Daudu argued that Section 9, which prescribed the alteration procedure, did not expressly provide that the assignment (the process of constitutional amendment ) does not exclude presidential assent, and if that were to be the case, the legislators would have excluded it, expressly.

According to the former NBA President, Section 58 “is the provision that states the procedures whereby all Bills transmute into legislation. Specifically, sub-sections 4 and 5 prescribe that all bills without exception must pass through the President for his assent or refusal to assent.

“Except and unless the instrument is sent to the President is not a Bill but is a resolution or other legislative document that same will not require Presidential assent. “In this instance, all constitutional alteration proposals are couched in the form of bills. That being the case, it must be assented to by the President for it to become law,” Daudu said. Similar to the position of Joseph Daudu, Kazeem warned against reading Section 9 of the 1999 Constitution in isolation from Section 58, stating that all bills, whether

constitutional or regular, required the assent of the president to become effective. Maintaining that while it remains within the exclusive legislative competence of the National Assembly to make laws, the president’s assent serves as a check to the powers of the National Assembly.

“The power of the executive, which is vested in the President to veto a Bill, cannot be whittled down by any legislative overzealousness. In interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court has always recommended in a plethora of cases that all the sections are to be construed together and hence it is impermissible to construe sections in isolation,” Kazeem further observed.

He, however, noted that the power of assent “is not absolute as the President must act within the ambits of the law and not to unnecessarily withhold assent whimsically.“The

Constitution, therefore, provides for a means to dispense with this condition if the president withholds assent against the majority interest of the society.”

The debate arose from the action of the president to withhold assent to 16 of the 32 amendment bills to the 1999 Constitution, which the National

Assembly recently presented to him for assent. President Buhari signed 16 other constitutional amendment bills into law.

In this article