Osinbajo and Fashola were right, and Dogara wrong, on constituency projects
The philosophy of separation of powers has been a seductive part of the presidential system since French thinker Montesquieu advanced it about two centuries ago. But Nigeria has, in its sometimes obsessive penchant to tweak the sacred, crossed the lines between legislative, judicial and executive functions. The executive exercises impunity when it executes orders without seeking the blessing of a court judge to clarify the law.
The judiciary, under the veneer of the National Judicial Council (NJC), sometimes appropriates the law as though it is made for the elite of the judiciary and not for society. The legislature, especially at the centre, has fallen under the charge of blackmail, allegedly using its “good offices” to extort money out of its colleagues across the presidential aisle.
One of such issues took centre stage recently when Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and the Minister of Works, Power and Housing, Babatunde Fashola (SAN) jousted with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara. It pertained to the much-ballyhooed question of constituency projects.
Osinbajo and Fashola staked out the points for institutional integrity, reiterating the familiar truth that the work of the National Assembly is to make laws. They say that it is wrong for the lawmakers to execute projects. That is the province of the executive branch.
Paradoxically, the debate took place at a one-day Summit On Political Representation and Constitutional and Zonal Intervention Services organised by the House of Representatives and Conference of Speakers in collaboration with the National Institute for Legislative Studies.
The vice president was represented by his Special Adviser on Political Affairs, Babafemi Ojudu. Osinbajo noted that the job of the law maker has been misconstrued over the years, urging the legislators to define their primary responsibility to the constitution, “so that constituents will not conceive lawmakers’ primary role as building roads, providing water, and providing electricity. Most of those roles belong to the executive but it is often misconstrued.”
Noting the perversion and parsing in the viewpoints of the lawmakers’ defence, Fashola said those who advance the role of lawmakers to include executing projects rely on what he termed “conventions.” This is a sapient way of referring to lawmakers’ Jesuitical manipulation of the concept of law makers as representatives of the people.
In defence of the lawmakers, the speaker said constituency projects were in line with the constitution, and that the resort to it arose out of the yearning across constituencies in the country for equitable distribution of what many call “dividends of democracy.” He cited what he saw as relevant sections of the constitution, including sections 14 (3), 15 (4), 16(1) and (2), and section 13 (1) of the 1999 constitution.
He said that, “at least in the last three budget cycles, Mr. President has always included projects in the appropriation Bills sent to the house, including that of 2016.” He however confirmed Fashola’s reference to convention when he noted that the executive initiates the projects under section 81 of the constitution with the “tacit understanding” of the legislature. But he did not also help his case when he noted that “the Appropriation Act is a law of the federation that contains the constituency projects, which are domiciled in the respective MDAs. These MDAs process for tender and bidding by contractors like any other project and are awarded to qualified contractors in fulfillment of the Public Procurement Act, 2007.”
It is this mischief of logic that compelled the vice president to say that “the primary role of the legislator is to make laws, but for most constituents, this to them does not matter. No matter the fine points of law raised, no matter the bills and motions you raise in all your deliberations, the constituents believe that you provide them with boreholes, until you provide them with generators or transformers and until you build roads, you have not achieved much. That is nothing.”
The vice president points to the cynicism in our political attitude that sees accountability in not what is legislated but what is done. That accounts for craving by lawmakers to point at roads or school building or bore holes as what they did in order to justify reelection or to identify as legacy when they are seeking other offices.
Such excuses cannot justify distorting the constitution. The lawmakers help in constituency projects not as an executor but as an evangelist. His or her job is to “persuade” the executive branch to execute projects in their constituency. The lawmakers can do that by way of lobbying or making robust arguments. That is where their work ends.
What we see here is the mania for lawmakers to become contractors. This is not only wrong, it is corrupt. They become bargainers and lose their integrity as lawmakers. In fact, some of the lawmakers have been accused of using their positions to browbeat the executive to yield to these projects or have their executive projects stymied or frustrated.
That accounts for the conventions Fashola highlighted. The presidency has bowed serially to this perversion in this republic. That does not make it right or lawful. It is a monetisation of a sacred law by anointing an unholy alliance.
