The Conference of  Nigerian Political Parties  and  eminent  lawyers on  Wednesday  disagreed with  the Senate  on President Goodluck Jonathan’s promise to send the report of the planned national dialogue to the National Assembly for  ratification.

While the Senate said doing so was absolutely in order,  the CNPP  and the lawyers – Itsay Sagay, Fred Agbaje, Tunji Abayomi ,  and Jiti Ogunye – argued that it would  cast  further doubts on Jonathan’s sincerity.

Jonathan had  on Tuesday said  the report  of the conference would form an integral part of the ongoing constitution amendment by the National Assembly.

Describing the President’s comment as being in tune with its  position that National Assembly remained the custodian of Nigerians  sovereignty, the Senate  stated that in vetting the report, the provisions of the 1999 Constitution   as amended,  must be taken into cognisance.

“For the President to declare that the final outcome of the proposed national conference would be subjected to National Assembly’s ratification is in recognition of the fact that there cannot be two sovereigns at the same time,” the Senate said in a statement by its   Committee on Information, Media and Public Affairs Chairman,  Senator  Enyinnaya Abaribe.

The statement added,  “The Senate welcomes the President’s pronouncement and   assures that the wishes of the majority of Nigerians would always determine the constitutional review process, which is ongoing.

“The Senate still believes that whatever will be done to uphold the unity of Nigeria will always be welcomed.”

But the CNPP, Sagay, Agbaje, Abayomi and Ogunye  agreed in separate interviews with our correspondents,  that the only appropriate body that should ratify the outcome of the conference  is  a referendum which is composed of the voting populace.

 The CNPP,  in  a statement on Wednesday,  said  it was not against the proposed national dialogue, but  was opposed to  subjecting its outcome  to  the National Assembly.

In the statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Osita Okechukwu, the group added that  it would not support a national conference that  was  not sovereign.

It said, “Regrettably, with his (Jonathan) statement that the outcome of the dialogue would be handed over to the National Assembly, we have been vindicated.

The  CNPP recalled that the National Assembly  had at various times  embarked on   amendment  to  the 1999 Constitution  but had at no time, amended  any   fundamental issue in the constitution.

The statement   reads in part, “The present national and state  houses of  assembly lack the political will to insert in a new constitution critical issues like devolution of powers to the regions, unicameral legislature under a parliamentary system, truly independent INEC, EFCC, ICPC, creation of additional states, fiscal federalism, among other issues.

“Therefore, the Jonathan Conference is dead on arrival.”

In a telephone interview with one of our correspondents, Sagay, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria,   said, “What  the President has done confirms the fear of those who have been sceptical  whether he is insincere about convoking this national conference.

“You do not convoke a national conference and then subject the result to a body which represents the status quo (that is about to be changed); which  has entrenched interest that it wants to protect.”

 He  added that if the President insisted on subjecting the outcome of the process to the National Assembly, it would mean that the conference was dead on arrival.

 “National Assembly is just a partisan group which  can participate in the conference; it    should not be in a position to have anything to do with the outcome. It  should not have any say concerning the outcome.  It is the people that should take that decision. If he (the President) goes ahead to do it, it will just destroy the whole concept. In other words, the conference and the outcome would have ended before it even starts.”

 Agbaje argued  that the National Assembly would be a biased umpire in the process as it had “consistently opposed” the convocation of  a national conference.

 He  said, “The National Assembly has been a biased umpire in the quest by Nigerians for the convocation of a national conference.

“Will the President not use members of the National Assembly who are members of his party to thwart the resolution of the national conference? Will the concept of sovereignty which confers  on the Nigerian people in Section 42 of the constitution not have been compromised by the President?”

 Abayomi, in a telephone interview with  one of our correspondents, noted with dismay,  Jonathan’s plan to subject the outcome of the national  dialogue to the National Assembly for  ratification.

He  claimed that  the action had further confused Nigerians about the possible outcome of the  dialogue.

Abayomi  said, “If all that is to be achieved is to talk and thereafter send the outcome to the National Assembly for ratification, then we have not moved forward an inch.

“The National Assembly has not resolved the agitation of our people for a people’s constitution to replace the 1999 constitution forced on us by military dictatorship.

“Another unwarranted ratification will neither improve constitutional thought, effect, legality, legitimacy nor expectation of the people of Nigeria.”

He argued that the National Assembly “cannot give us a constitution by amendment.”

Ogunye said the President’s promise  constituted an attack on  a proposed  conference that was still trying to gather credibility.

“The President’s statement  is revealing. It is a vicious or thoughtless attack on the burden of putative credibility that the idea of having a national conference is still trying to gather,” Ogunye said.

 -Punch