By Auta Nyada

Nigerians have always desperately desired a Government that will address socio-economic inequalities in the society; a Government that would be free from unhealthy tales of espionage and skulduggery; a Government that will be accountable to “the people”. Unfortunately, most of the Administrations since political independence in 1960, have neither addressed socio-economic inequalities nor shown any reasonable level of accountability to the people. This has resulted in a society where the Governed feel and actually are alienated from the Government, where patriotism is lacking, where material deprivation is at its peak, where there is high level of unemployment, where education is not considered a priority, where there is profligacy in Government, where there is increasing level of crime and criminality amongst a host of other ills and social faux pas.

It is a nototorious fact, that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) is the grundnorm of the land, which has provided for the treatment of these issues under Fundamental Objectives And Directive Principles of State Policy in Chapter II. Sadly and by some relatively strange act of somersault, the same Constitution made a counter provision vide Section 6.6(c), which hinders their realization by stating that the issues in the said Chaoter II are not justiciable.

I am certain that the later provision referred to herein has contributed largely to the state of affairs as we have it in our country today.

Elucidation at this point will suffice. The Constitution provides for two types of rights in Chapters II and IV. While the rights in Chapter II are called socio-economic and cultural rights, those in Chapter IV are called civil and political rights.

It is worthy note that whereas the rights in Chapter IV are justiciable, those in Chapter II are not, According to Section 6.6(c) of the Constitution: ‘’The judicial powers vested in accordance with the forgoing provisions of this section- Shall not, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy set out in Chapter II of this Constitution’’

Under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in Chapter II, the State is assigned certain political, economic, social, educational ,environmental, foreign and cultural objectives. We are told in Section 14(2b) that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Section 16(2 a-d) states : The State shall direct its policy towards ensuring – The promotion of a planned and balanced economic development ; that the material resources of the nation are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve the common good ;that the economy is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of a few individuals or of a group; and that suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age and pensions, and unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of the disabled are provided for all citizens. Section 17 (3) provides that: The State shall direct its policy towards ensuring that- all citizens without discrimination on any group whatsoever, have the opportunity for securing adequate means of livelihood as well as adequate opportunity to secure adequate employment. Section 18(3) states that: Government shall strive to eradicate illiteracy ; and to this end Government shall as and when practicable provide-

(a) Free, compulsory and universal primary education; (b) Free secondary education; (c) Free university education (d) Free adult literacy programme…

As plausible and grand as these provisions appear, what begs for an answer is what was in minds of the drafts men of our supreme grundnorm when this Chapter was made non justitiable?

While there have been many arguments on the rationale or otherwise for the non-justiciability of Chapter II of our Constitution, to my mind the most interesting argument is that Nigeria must have been influenced by the notion in international law where socio-economic rights are differentiated from civil and political rights.

Although, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948 and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights did not differentiate between the two categories of rights, it is argued that the ideological differences between the two power blocs caused the division leading to the creation of two international covenants – the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The two covenants were to be applied differently.

It is argued that even though Section 6.6(c) declared Chapter II not justiciable, the legislature still has powers to confer actionable rights on the contents of the Chapter vide Item 60(a) of the Exclusive Legislative (part 1 Second Schedule ) of the 1999 Constitution which empowers the National Assembly to make laws for the ” establishment and regulation of authorities…to promote and enforce the observance ” of Chapter II of the Constitution. When the legislature takes a step in this direction, S 6.6(c) will become impotent and right of access to court for enforcement of such rights by aggrieved citizens will be boosted.

The subject matter under discourse is a broad spectrum subject matter which has attracted significant attention over the years but not sufficient enough to cause the desired change or effect . Considering the brief narrative above, I am delighted that SPIDEL has decided to champion this conversation; and looking at the quality of speakers, and attendees of this historic event, I am certain that Nigeria is set to walk the talk in respect of this all-time burning national issue. It is on this premise that I salute the courage of the leadership of SPIDEL in daring to walk the talk.