By Chidi Obineche

Ever since leaving the exalted seat of senate president in 2007, Dr Ken Nnamani has maintained a studied posture on national affairs, intermittently immersing himself in party issues and national commentaries. Emerging from the lacerations and even adulations of the abortion of the third term gambit of ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo, he zoomed straight into a group known as G21 which metamorphosed into the “PDP reform forum”. It earned him a suspension from the party.

His co-travellers like former House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Masari, and former Federal Capital Territory , FCT, Minister. Malam El-Rufai have since found succour in the bosom of All Progressives Congress ,APC. Nnamani speaks with  calculated reluctance. He is wary or being misunderstood or catching the notch of an ever present newsmaker. He would prod consciously to know the last time he granted an interview or made head-lines. When he was told it had clocked two years down the line, he shrugged his shoulders and a tentative date was made.

The interview in Abuja was not to hold as he had to hurry off to his home state of Enugu for some engagements. Not to be swayed, Sunday Sun was hot on his heels to the coal city, where on a bright Sunday morning, we settled in his Amaechi – Awkananaw palatial home to do this interview. There were break-ups as his political associates and friends sauntered in for pleasantries. Howbeit, in three hours, the deed was done.

He relieves his tumultuous tenure over the third term gambit of ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo, daring apologists of the ex-president that no magic would have pulled through the plot under him as senate president. He reminisces on the toll it had on him and the technical fault he latched on to nail it. He sums it up in these words: “I had to be courageous to say, okay we have come to the end of the journey, no matter what it will cost me. It cost me quite a bit. There is a big sacrifice in making such a decision. I know certain  entitlements that I never got. Don’t mind those who are boasting that if they had wanted it to succeed, they would have done it. I don’t know how else they would have made it to succeed. I don’t know the magic they would have done. I was on the saddle.”

He speaks on his struggle against what he termes  “garrison politics in the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, expressing delight that the buzzword in the party today is reform. Nnamani warns defectors from the PDP to the APC to thread softly as they risk losing their seats. Evidently, with the power of hindsight, he declares “From the constitution, the powers of the senate president is enormous in matters like this. If he makes a pronouncement, he is just following the constitution. Even if they go to court, they will not be attending sittings, until the court adjudicates. I don’t think it is proper for them to jeopardize their positions in the National Assembly. He further excoriates legislators who are dabbling into executive functions like empowerment schemes and constituency projects. “Anybody so desirous of making money, I think the legislative arm is the wrong place to go, because the opportunity for huge contracts and big business is not there, and it is understandable why it is so” he intones.

Nnamani also speaks on the proposed National Conference, suggesting that the six geo-political zones should be enshrined in the constitution, as well as fiscal responsibility, which is an ingenious variant of resource control. He votes for a two party system and non-negotiation of the unity of the country at the confab among other burning issues.

Here are excerpts  from the encounter:

 

In a short while, the proposed National Conference will roll off. There are controversies over the mode of selection of delegates and the timing. Opposition to it also flows from the fact that previous ones were never put to use. How do you see it?

I think it is an excellent development. I praise the political courage of Mr. President to constitute the National Conference. Those who are talking about the timing, well, I don’t know when will be the best time. But I think it is appropriate that we do it since people are complaining that they are marginalised. So many people are bitter and it is important that we sit down and use ballot papers instead of bullets. So, I think we should dialogue even if we have gone to war, we will still sit down to talk. For Mr. President to initiate this, I think it is appropriate and  necessary. Rather than complain, let us go find ways to discuss. The conference boils down to dialogue among different groups in Nigeria. I think it is a welcome development. Every person in my view, should give it a chance to succeed.

 

Pessimism on the outcome of the conference is predicated on the fact that previous ones were just mere talk-shops and no bite. Again, this is an election year. Do you not think it is a distraction?

I don’t believe it is a distraction because it is an election year, or a build up  to a general election. In my view, if we have had several conferences that came to almost nothing, it does not mean that we will stop holding dialogue. Because people go to war and get killed does not mean that there will be no wars. What we should do is to think positively that this one will succeed. I said, it is good to use words rather than weapons. It is good to use ballot papers rather than bullets.

 

Then, what is key on your mind, to be addressed at the conference?

For instance, we have six geo-political zones which are not in the Nigerian constitution. That should be taken care of by this type of conference. We should now find a way of entrenching the zonal structure and get equality of zones just like we have equality of states though the South East has five states, one zone has seven, the rest six. Well, there are some states that have fewer local government areas than others. Bayelsa has about eight local governments. It is still a state. Kano has 44 it is still a state. There is equality of states. Therefore, if we can entrench the zonal structure in our constitution, we will have equality of zones. Things should be shared according to that structure. In which case, no zone will feel alienated. If they like they can create more states. Like some states are creating what is called development areas, which is not part of the local government structure recognized by the constitution. The constitution recognizes, 774 local governments. But some states have created what they have intelligently coined to be development areas. So, I think the confab could contribute towards getting the zonal structure entrenched. There are other areas that could be streamlined.

 

Take the spate of defections of politicians, people say it could rock our democracy, if there are not adequate constitutional provisions to checkmate it. Should it also be addressed by the conference?

I don’t think the issue of defections of politicians from one party to another, should occupy the time of the people going to the conference. The Nigerian constitution is very clear on that, as far as I am concerned.

Take for instance, the issue of PDP. The Supreme Court has stated clearly, that there is no division in PDP and INEC has reconfirmed that; although the highest body is the Supreme Court. Where you might think there is a problem is where a party goes into merger, and any member in that section can afford to change because the party has ceased to exist. That section 68 of the constitution that people are talking about is very, very clear. I noticed that a group of senators sent in a letter. But the constitution did not envisage a group defection. It is individuals. If you read it very closely, the word “member” is there. The section did not say ‘members’, which means it is addressing one person and not group. I think all those who have turned in letters of defection as a group, it may be necessary for them to turn in their papers individually.

 

But the court is yet to affirm the position of the defectors. Don’t you think the National Conference could address it conclusively?

I don’t think such subjects should occupy the minds of participants at the conference. It should not. The Nigerian constitution, I insist, is very clear on that. It’s very clear on what constitutes a division, and what warrants a legislator or any person defecting on the floor of the National Assembly. It is very clear. In this particular case, the matter is still in court. I don’t think people should defect when the matter is in court. I think it is fairly a long process. Again, members of PDP that are defecting are risking their seats; because I am not sure that if their seats are declared vacant they can come back to the National Assembly again.

Who has the power to declare their seats vacant?

It is very clear. From the constitution, the powers of the senate president is enormous in matters like this. If he makes a pronouncement, he is just following the constitution. Even if they go to court, they will not be attending sittings, until the court adjudicates. I don’t think it is proper for them to jeopardise their positions in the National Assembly. The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no division in PDP, followed by INEC’s pronouncement. On what basis are they doing collective defections? I am afraid that group defections in that sense cannot stand, There is no provision for group defections. If a group signs a letter, and sends it in, it will not stand. The constitution talks about “a member”, which is singular. I don’t think the constitution envisaged a situation where there will be mass defections as we have today. According to the law, the party PDP has no division. We may have division of opinion, but in terms of party structure being divided, we have only one PDP.

 

Do you think they are not employing the ambiguity in that section of the constitution, to engage in these mass defections?

You remember there used to be something  called new PDP. The Supreme Court gave a ruling on that. The court has taken a position on that. The court has made a pronouncement on that and that has not been challenged.

 

The APC says it will boycott the national conference, citing several reasons. Given their strength now in the National Assembly and even at the state levels, don’t you think the conference is dead on arrival?

I don’t think it is dead on arrival, because I think members of APC, quite a number of them are respectable gentlemen and democrats. By the way, I am one of those supporting the idea of two strong parties in Nigeria who will check impunity on either side. So, I favour the idea that there should be two strong competing parties. Politics is about competition. We don’t want to have  one lop-sided party that will be lording it over people. So, I totally support the existence of APC, and of course my own party, PDP. I keep saying let us use words, let us hold debates. Any group that has a superior idea, we follow it. It is the same country. There should be no bitterness. We are friends, and not only that, we are from the same country. We don’t have another country. Dialogue is what people have been preaching. People have been asking for it. Now that the national conference is around the corner why are we backing out of it?

 

But do you believe the government  is sincere with it?

I see a lot of sincerity in it.  Remember, low expectation implies low performance and high expectations will normally be accompanied by high performance. We should have high expectations. We should not be pessimistic. The concept of dead on arrival does not arise at all. There is no need for pessimism. We should be positive about our country. Let us hold debates. The conference is like holding debates. Nobody claims monopoly of ideas. PDP may be wrong if it says it has the best ideas. APC may be wrong if it says their own ideas are just the best. I think we should discuss, weigh and balance it. Which ever way the conference comes up with good ideas, the country should use them.

 

The president said  the decisions of the conference will be sent to the National Assembly. Is it right? Why not a plebiscite?

If we are to subject its decisions to the National Assembly, then we should have allowed the National Assembly to do the conference in the first place. It’s  the highest representative body in the country. I am not sure it will meet the acid test of what the majority of the people are talking about. If everything agreed at the conference is subjected to the whims and caprices of the National Assembly, then the argument will be let the National Assembly  do it. Again, definitely, if we draft the bill that will be reflected in the constitution of the country, you still have to go through the National Assembly before  it becomes law.

So, somehow it amounts to subjecting the outcome to the National Assembly’s scrutiny.

 

A group led by Prof. Ben Nwabueze insists that representation should be based on ethnic nationalities. What do you think?

I am not too sure I followed that debate closely. I am only worried that it may become unwieldy. The 490 members the government pegged it at, are they not going to come from a mixture of the zones and ethnic nationalities? Every one belongs to one ethnic group or the other. So, the 490 people are drawn automatically from different ethnic groups. But if we want to get down to the specifics, that this person is coming based on ethnic nationality, I think it is already covered by that.

 

Are you comfortable with the idea of no go areas in the conference? Government said the unity of Nigeria should not be discussed.

I am comfortable with the fact that if anyone is dreaming of disintegration and he wants to exploit  the national confab to incite people, that is not proper.It is not proper at this time. I remember a certain time in our history, a group- the South East – opted for self determination and the rest of the country said no, we are one, we are destined to remain one. What has changed between that time and now that any person will start to preach that we go our different ways? I think it will be proper that we all stay together. The important thing is let us have a level playing field. Let there be a fair competition. Give every person a level playing field so that everyone will achieve his God given destiny.

 

The level playing field, is it through confederacy  or true federalism? What can make this country achieve its goals of stability and unity?

That is one of the essence of the national confab. Let us reach a consensus on what will constitute level playing field. I think the confab should also come out with a reasonable and understandable means. I am not saying that a particular group must win. But let every group show that they have equal opportunity of winning. That is my understanding of justice. Justice does not mean you must win a particular case. But to me, justice implies that you have a fair chance of winning. Let every section  compete  whether ethnic nationalities or other groups. Let there be  fair competition and opportunity of succeeding. Throw the door open and let every body compete.

 

What is your view on confederacy? Would you cast your lot on it?

Yes; a very weak centre and strong states.

Let states harness their resources and pay tax to the centre?

I think you are already alluding to the issue I raised. I said let their be equal opportunities. Let every state or zone compete and work hard. If every person works hard, and you are talking about fiscal responsibility, these states have internally generated revenue to service their states. Those that are not able to maintain their own states will fizzle out. If what you are asking is to have a weak centre and strong states or zones, I recognize that what is inherent is in the concept of competition.  Inherent in the sense that if all the states are competing and producing, the clamour to create more states will go down. Today, states go to Abuja and share money every month. When we talk about fiscal responsibility and we mean that the states generate a bigger percentage of what they spend, every state will ask itself a question. Are we in a position to compete and have money? I believe  all sections of Nigeria, have natural endowments. There are those  producing food, some oil, and no section has a monopoly of qualified people. Some may have more than others, but  it doesn’t mean that qualified people don’t exist in some states. They exist everywhere. So fiscal responsibility is the issue. Let there be openness. Let states struggle, work hard, harness their own resources and apply them..

 

For instance, Bayelsa state has oil. The state will explore it and pay tax to the federal government. Is that what you are saying?

I am not sure that is exactly what I am saying. You see, there used to be a time Nigeria depended on groundnuts. There was a time when coal was a whole lot. If we now say let the states control their resources, then the danger is that, those who we used their resources in the past, and exhausted them, will cause a lot of agitation. All we have to find are things that will make us work harder and as a country unite, because where there is no peace, there will not be much progress. I would rather say that we can increase the revenue allocation, our revenue sharing should also be altered significantly in some areas because of   degradation. People there are suffering. Some of them cannot farm, I am talking about the oil producing areas. We have to be considerate. In those states, there should be comfort, because if you see oil bearing states in other parts of the world, for instance in Canada, the roads in the oil producing states are done with granite, even the pedestrian walkway. There must be a difference between oil producing areas and those that are not producing. That will cushion the effect of the environmental degradation and other harsh effects of oil exploration. I support that idea. Government should be able to take care of them and make it possible for them to enjoy their natural endowments.

 

Representation at the national conference is normally for the big boys. If your people send you to represent them, what would be uppermost in your mind?

A whole lot of things. My own ethnic nationality has submitted a paper. That is Ohanaeze Ndigbo. Although there are some sub-groups, but the umbrella body is Ohanaeze. I was at the meeting in  Enugu when the committee came around. Since Ohaneze has taken a stand, I will not deviate from that.

 

In 2006, you entered the hall of fame when you presided over a senate that roundly stopped the third term agenda of former president Obasanjo. Now, looking back at the events of that year, the role you played, and what is currently playing out in the polity, are you satisfied with the decision of the senate then, presided over by you?

I am happy that most of the things that we stood for in the senate are being upheld. I am pretty happy about that. The National Assembly on many occasions has rallied round to save embarrassing situations in the country; and that is showing political courage. The senate, and by extension, the House of Representatives have rallied round to save the country from imminent catastrophe. Take for instance, the time we had the problem of succession, when our late president had some health challenge, they followed strictly chapter I of the constitution which implies the doctrine of strict compliance. That you must comply with everything in the constitution. Much of what happened in that case was all about the constitution – what happens if anything of that nature occurs. It requires much political wisdom. But there are some developments I am not very comfortable with, which I am afraid may not be sustainable over a period of time. I have observed on a number of occasion  some legislators make available cars, motorcycles and other equipment to their constituencies. I am not particularly sure it is sustainable because a legislature is not an executive branch. The whole concept of generation of money  and distribution of wealth cannot be sustained, given the paucity of the budget and personal income of a senator and House of Representatives member.

 

I thought it is inserted into the budget  and christened constituency projects?

Constituency projects are not expected, and I don’t believe they should be done or executed by members of the legislature. It is still an executive function to carry out such projects. What the legislators do is to try to impress upon the government through the appropriation, the legitimate projects that are really needed in various constituencies. But it is not for the legislators to execute such projects. And I say this with all sense of sincerity, because, there is a function called “oversight function”. It belongs to the legislators. If the legislators were the ones to execute constituency projects, who carries out the oversight? That is the danger there. The executive branch of government, executes such projects. So a legislator may be lucky if he ,or she knows the constituency projects. It may be, for instance that you are helping me to site it in my own constituency. But you may not know the contractor and that  is the way it should be. For you to execute it yourself is totally an aberration .

 

There is calm after the storm in your party, the PDP. Will it last?

Yes it is not only calm, there is  rising morale now in the party. A visit to the party’s headquarters – Wadata Plaza, shows how enthusiastic people are. One nice thing about PDP is the ability to rediscover itself. At a point you may think that the giant is being diminished. The giant emerges almost stronger than before. I think there is an in-built mechanism, which I believe is what is happening now. Having gone through what you may call baptism of fire, with all kinds of random  movements in the party, those of us who were preaching reforms for which some of us were suspended, I am delighted now, that the buzzword in PDP is reform. Everybody talks about reform, internal democracy. If you remember, we were G21, and later we metamorphosed into “PDP reform forum”. Some of us had to go on suspension; because we were speaking against certain happenings in the party. It was not that we hated the party. We didn’t quit. But we said, let us do the right thing. We were opposed to “garrison politics” in particular. It didn’t make sense that time at all. It does not make sense now. The present watchword in PDP now is reform. Everybody wants to go through a party that is disciplined. A party that will obey its own constitution, a party that accommodates every person.  I see some good developments coming up.

Do you have faith in the man on the driving seat now, (i.e. the new National Chairman) to carry out the reforms?

I have implicit confidence in the new chairman Muazu. I am not only confident, I have a high expectation, and I believe he is going to give high performance. He has already started. You can see how he is moving. I am very, very optimistic that he will do well, There is a new lease of life. People are beginning now to see that the giant is coming alive one more time. We are hopeful.

 

Is it not too late in the day for this turn around, given the imminence of elections next year. Can it confront the APC?

As I said, it is important that we have the opportunity of having alternatives. Even death has an alternative. If a person can afford to live, why should the person choose to die? It is good for us to have two strong parties because it is going to throw up the best through competitions. Remember my concept of level playing field. Through competition, the best will emerge. It is not that America does not have money to have hundreds of parties. But there are only two major parties that are competing – the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. If we have two parties now, it can only make for progress in this our country. I keep saying let us use words and not weapons. Let there be healthy debates. So many friends are in PDP and APC. It is the same country. We will go for the best for the country. Anything that can make the country prosper, should be the ideal thing to motivate us.

 

I want to come to your home state  of Enugu. There are some wranglings between groups belonging to the state governor, Sullivan Chime and the Deputy Senate President. Would you not intervene to bring about peace?

No,  my Enugu is essentially a PDP state. I don’t believe that there are groups. We are in one line up. There is a misnomer that talks about party leadership in our constitution (PDP constitution) there is no section that talks about a leader. We just coined that phrase for want of good words. At the national level, if the party’s leader is the president, are we saying that parties that didn’t produce president have no leader? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. But that is not the issue here. The critical thing is that I don’t think that there is any other group. I have not seen any significant faction in the state.

You have been in politics for long now. Can you remember any striking, memorable day in your sojourn?

The turning point, the defning moment to me was May 16, 2006. That was the day the constitution amendment collapsed in the senate. I presided over it. Many people who misunderstood that day, thought that I threw away the baby and the bath water. That was their understanding. The truth of the matter was that we had one bill we were deliberating on – one single bill. And if you had a legislative defect, there is no other way I could do it. We had not gotten to the level where we would distil chaff from real wheat, or distinguish between men and boys. We had not gotten to that point when the thing developed a technical fault. And technically, we were still at the second reading. And that second reading is not the point where we go through clause by clause and select what is good and what is not. So people did not understand this process. They thought Nnamani had thrown away everything. Some even said oh, the South East would have gotten an additional state. We had not reached the point. That was what  happened and this point keeps coming up. The issue of tenure elongation was wrapped with other very nice points. It was coated with sugar. But there was a very bitter pill inside the whole package. And that bitter pill  was the issue of tenure elongation.

The fact that we had not reached a point where we would differentiate what is acceptable and what is not, the whole bill collapsed at the second reading. All that was required of me was the political courage to pronounce it dead. That was what I did. That to me was the most defining moment of my tenure  at the National Assembly. I couldn’t have jumped to start going clause by clause when we hadn’t finished. In a democracy, we say that the process is more important than the outcome. I was following the process. Let anybody who knows what I could have done differently say it. I have no other way of explaining to people. And by the way, before that thing collapsed, some of us had the opportunity of suggesting that the bill should be split so that we may have executive bill, legislative bill, judicial bill and so on.

So that anyone that is faulty falls on its own. But everything was lumped together, very nice things, like, creation of states, removal of sections 308, immunity clause, and so many others. I had to be courageous to say, okay we have come to the end of the journey no matter what it will cost me. It cost me quite a bit. There is a big sacrifice in making such a decision. I know certain entitlements that I never got. Don’t mind those who are boasting that if they had wanted it to succeed they would have done it. I don’t know how else they could have made it to succeed. I don’t know the magic they could have done. I was on the saddle.

Maybe through intimidation and blackmail?

We had enough of that. We went through that, but it did not change the final outcome. And we made sure we followed the process. This thing keeps coming up.

 

Legislators are now awarding contracts. What is your view?

I don’t think that legislators are in a position to award contracts regardless of the issue of constituency projects for the simple fact that one of the key functions of members of National Assembly is that of oversight. It is not only covered by the constitution, but inherent in the practice of parliamentary democracy. Constituency projects negate their purpose or are contaminated if they’re  handled by legislators. They  will be devoid of oversight. By this, I mean  the legislature  actually carries out the functions of appropriation for the  good governance of the country. An appropriation bill, when it is passed and signed by the president becomes a law. The responsibility again falls on the National Assembly members to carry out oversight functions to ensure that the budget is executed. Why should the same people that carry out oversight functions be the same people executing the project.? What is the role of the executive branch? Yes, National Assembly members do attract tasty projects that are needed by their constituencies, but I am not too sure they are in a position to execute the projects. Where that happens, it is an aberration. We look at the American concept from where our constitution is drawn from largely. Most people that go to the senate in the United States are mostly accomplished people from the business sector, from academia. Senate in particular is supposed to be a council of elders. So they are accomplished and they bring that sense, the experience to bear on the making of the law for the good governance of their country. At times, people tend to miscontrue this, thinking that there is no tenure in the National Assembly. I agree with that. A legislator can spend as many years as possible if his people are willing to continue to vote for him. There is a periodic evaluation period called elections. However, the difference here is that most people who enter into politics in our country, quite a number of them are not businessmen and not professionals as such. But, the reverse is the case in the United States. You get so many people who are accomplished in the private  sector moving into the congress. Those people can afford to spend as many years as possible because they have come there to make laws, and carry out oversight functions. That is the difference here. Our own is that we move from politics to private sector. In America, they move from private sector to politics. So, I think the idea that people are thinking that legislators are gradually becoming executive legislators is not a fact.

Anybody so desirous of making money, I think the legislative arm is the wrong place to go, because the opportunity for huge contracts and big businesses is not there and it is understandable why it is so. If there are people who are still fighting to get money to buy their first car, to marry or to build a house, they should not go there. That is why they can afford to spend so many years in the senate. They do not spend their time running around ministers, or departments as they call it there , trying to land one contract or the other. No, they have a rich past. They are busy talking of the state. They call them statesmen. Here, people are beginning to see  that going to the National Assembly is a way of solving the issue of poverty. It will create curiosity in the minds of people and everybody will like to go there now. So staying there repeatedly is going to be challenged, very vigorously. Now that media reports show that they are dashing out vehicles, machines, as a way of empowering people in their constituencies, I don’t think that is what they are supposed to be doing. It is not sustainable. It raises the question of where is this thing coming from? What is the salary of an average House of Representative member? It is my constituency and I am concerned. We don’t expose ourselves to  unsustainable expectations. I lived long in the United States. I know some senators who put up to 20 – 30 years in the senate. I am not saying they should not help their people.

But we must be careful. Our own legislative arm in Nigeria cannot be different from other successful ones all over the world.

Posted by admin on Feb 15 2014. Filed under Legislature, Senate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry