There is no need today for a preamble. Let me dive straight at the subject matter.
Given our trajectory and outcomes in the last administration, there was understandably a high expectation from citizens, buoyed by the message of “a renewed hope” agenda, that the new administration, both at the federal and State levels would offer something different and purposeful, mobilising citizens to rebuild their country.
What was strikingly obvious was the question scholars and analysts of our political economy asked loudly – “what is the source of this renewed optimism and what is propelling it – was there something promised beyond a change of government?”
This question was quite apt, for if we were to tap into it; we would address the factual reality that the very basis of these expectations cannot be enforced.
The ‘Right to Good Governance & Effective Service Delivery’ as provided for in chapter II of the CFRN 1999 in sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 under the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of the State Policy of the economic, social and cultural rights otherwise referred to as Policy Directives Rights; are effectively non-justiciable by virtue of section 6 (6) (c) of the same constitution.
An examination of the implications of such non-justiciability show that citizens cannot obtain redress from the courts if denied their socio-economic, developmental and other rights provided for in Chapter 2 of the constitution. It is therefore a formidable impediment to socio-economic development.
Permit me to point out that legal experts have reasoned that Chapter II of the CFRN containing the economic and social rights, as provided for in the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights otherwise called the ECOSOC rights forms part of the international Bill of rights; and as such are part of human rights. Making such rights constitutional provisions make the rights worthy of being challenged in the Courts of Law to encourage good governance and accountability to the citizens as legal obligations.
This rights however, are not made fundamental as provided in chapter IV of the CFRN 1999. It is proper therefore, when establishing a reasonable basis for expectations, for Chapter II of the CFRN 1999 to be guaranteed as fundamental rights just as demonstrated in the South African 1995 and Uganda 1995 Constitutions. It presupposes that questions must be asked on the provisions of chapter II and the Courts must interpret it to meet the justice of any situation.
What is glaring is that most older constitutions, protect only negative rights – rights that take power away from the State by imposing duties on the State not to do certain things: not to torture people; not to restrict the right freedom of speech; not to discriminate against people; and so on.
Instructively, more recent constitutions recognise that these rights don’t mean much if people are starving, have no access to shelter, or have no education. So new constitutions usually also include what are called social and economic rights.
The revised Kenyan Constitution follows suit, and Article 43 of the Bill of Rights protects the rights to: Health care, Housing, Reasonable sanitation, Freedom from hunger and adequate food, Clean and safe water, social security, and Education
It is therefore worrisome that the Nigeria state, in embracing human rights issue maintained a dichotomy between the Civil and Economic/Political rights in the constitution of Nigeria since 1960 under the fundamental human rights provision.
After the 1960 and 1963 Constitution, these rights were provided for in Chapter IV of the 1979 and 1999 justiciable per se in Chapter III.
The economic rights appeared for the first time in the Nigeria constitution in the 1979 under Chapter Ii as Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.
Interestingly, the observation and preservation of these non-justiciable rights form part of the oath of office of person(s) exercising legislative and executive powers. Instructively, both the Oath of Allegiance and the Judicial oath for judges do not contain the preservation clause….
…that I shall strive to preserve the fundamental Objectives and Directives Principles of state policy contained in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
This contradiction effectively strips citizens of their rights to innovative governance and effective service delivery. This can however be rectified by an executive bill that seeks to give chapter 2 its natural intendment; by removing the obstructive provision to good governance.
More important however is that CIVIL SOCIETY has a key role in ensuring that this foundational accountability plank is in place.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
We can and should do better. The problem with Nigerian (and perhaps foreign) politicians is that they see the answers to society’s problems as binary – ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Usually, as pointed out by Patrick Bet-David, answers to socioeconomic problems are a series of sequenced moves to achieve a clear objective. So far, the administration’s objectives have been fuzzy, and this makes the policies, programs, and projects in the economic plans serially compromised; and somewhat lacking of a buy-in from citizens, opening it to being considered inappropriate rather than simply misunderstood (assuming that the plan was driven by a W-O-G approach).
Thank you.
