President Goodluck Jonathan’s refusal to assent to the State of the Nation Address Bill passed recently by the Senate and transmitted to him deserves a careful attention to substance and symbolism. The Senate had in May passed the State of the Nation Bill into law, which sought to mandate the president to address a joint sitting of the National Assembly on the general state of the nation once in a year. But the President rejected the bill as unconstitutional, saying it amounts to a duplication of Section 67 of the Constitution; insisting that until certain sections of the bill were altered, he will not assent to it. This is not a problem to which there is no solution. It will therefore be a huge disservice to Nigeria if the House fails to get an amended version of the bill back to Mr President.
This is not an opportunity for empty grandstanding. Obviously, Nigerians deserve better and more regular forums to hear directly from their president how their country is faring. It would therefore not be out of place to ask House members to put aside their usual self-seeking and unpatriotic ego-tripping and address the constitutional issues raised by Mr. President in order to get the bill signed into law. The merits of the president’s arguments are grounded in law and logic and should not be obviated by the regular display of immaturity and arrogance by this domineering and burdensome legislature, hell-bent on running the executive arm of government against the spirit and letters of the constitution.
It may be coming a little late, but the State of the Nation Address Law represents a major step forward in Nigeria’s search for sustainable good governance. The law basically seeks to promote transparency and accountability in governance, by compelling any sitting President of Nigeria to deliver a State of the Nation Address to Nigerians at a time specified by the law. A keynote of the law is that such an address will be presented yearly by the president before a joint session of the National Assembly on the first legislative day of July every year, while the president will be given a 60-day notice. According to the Senate, the law is in line with “making the president accountable to the Nigerian people as represented by the National Assembly by rendering account of his stewardship to the nation.” It is also aimed at allowing input from members of the National Assembly towards good governance of the nation.
These are indeed lofty ideals that can hardly be faulted. Up till now, the president only addresses the joint session of the National Assembly when he presents the annual budget. The absence of such a practice in Nigeria, as has been the case in such democracies as Britain and America, is a pointer to the low regard, even contempt, to which Nigerian leaders subject their fellow citizens. By failing to furnish their citizens with adequate information about critical issues of governance and development, Nigerian leaders are guilty of taking Nigerians for granted. Regular exchange of information between the leaders and the led has been, and will continue to be, one of the fundamental features of stable political economies the world over. So any nation that chooses to ignore this important issue, like Nigeria, until the passage of this law, does so at its own peril.
It is against this background that Nigerians should appreciate the State of the Nation address law. Such an address is an opportunity not only for self-evaluation by the president, but also to present anew, his future developmental roadmaps. It is against such roadmaps that the president can be judged every year and at the expiration of his tenure. In the absence of such roadmaps, the president may be exposed to all forms of subjective evaluations and unwarranted criticisms. Better still, such a State of the Nation address also has the potential to mobilize and galvanize citizens into a higher level of participation in the development processes of their country.
As innovative and progressive as the law appears, however, there is need for cautious optimism among Nigerians. The problem with the country has never been the absence of good laws. Rather, it has been poor implementation, underscoring the fact that the law in theory is different from the law in practice. Obviously, the president neither approved of the terminology of the bill, nor the sentiment behind some of its caveats, especially that which empowers the National Assembly; in the event of “failure, neglect or refusal” to compel the president to honor the responsibility to render his stewardship. With no love lost between the National Assembly and the Presidency, the operational import of the Reps’ stance on this issue of compelling the president to render account of his stewardship; is to emasculate the executive and make it a spineless stooge. This need not be so.
Legislative powers in all civilized democracy are meant to be used for the good of the nation and its citizens. They are not deployed to gratify the ego and whims of the legislature or its members. It is becoming too frequent for House Reps to pick on anyone who takes it to task even when there is justification for doing so. The president’s refusal to assent to the bill in its present form is an unmistaken challenge to this overbearing attitude of the legislators and a symbolic way of checking their excesses. The National Assembly should therefore purge itself of its characteristic arbitrariness and brazen display of megalomania and do what is in the public interest: correct the bill and send it back to the president, because the country needs the law.
A law such as the state of the nation address, which seeks to promote transparency and accountability in governance, should not be targeted at the presidency alone. Other agencies of government, most especially the offices of the Auditor General and Attorney General of the Federation ought to have platforms on which to explain issues to the public. Such laws should also be replicated at the state and local government levels, compelling chief executive officers to also give account of their stewardship to the people on whose behalf they claim to be acting.
Above all, Nigerians must learn to begin asking questions about their own affairs. An informed citizenry is an important perquisite for any health democratic dispensation. Such inquisitive citizens will not only compel responsible leadership by asking questions and holding their leaders accountable, it is central to the building of a truly democratic country. This is what the future of Nigeria is all about.
