By Richard Odusanya

One of the biggest challenges facing our nation is the deep confusion over the interactions between important values and concepts. Too often, we mix them up, misuse them, or fail to see their true meaning. Consider all the under listed:

1) Schooling vs. Education– Degrees do not always mean wisdom.
2) Piety vs. Mental Agility – Religious devotion should not replace clear thinking.
3) Negativity vs. Criticism – Pointing out faults can be constructive, not destructive.
4) Religion vs. Godliness – Faith practice should lead to righteous living.
5) Decorumvs. Grandstanding – True dignity is quiet, not showy.
6) Honourability vs. Political Power – Leadership requires integrity, not just position.
7) Pride vs. Arrogance – Self-respect should never become contempt for others.
8) Holiness vs. Religions – A pure life transcends denominations.
9) Reason vs. Noise – Volume is not the same as wisdom.
10) Privilege vs. Responsibility – Favour carries duty, not just benefit.
11) Real vs. Fake Persona – Authenticity outlasts pretence.
12) Diligence vs. Cunningness – Hard work should not be replaced with sly manipulation.

Because of these confusions, too many things go wrong. Many of our public figures are not true elites; they are miseducated, self-serving “street chiefs” who enslave others, carry deep inferiority complexes, and thrive on noise. They behave like Greek Idiots and Greek Tribalists.

Sadly, many Nigerians don’t care about the country’s image so long as they are personally comfortable. It’s our own version of “washing dirty linen in public,” but here, it often comes with proudly displaying our ragged underwear for all to see. Until both leaders and followers rediscover decency, altruism, and a true sense of national responsibility, we will keep paying the price for these confusions. The hope is that we learn to set our values right – for ourselves, for our nation, and for generations to come.

In conclusion, bearing in mind the foregoing; it is not only disappointing but unconscionable that our public office holders and private citizens are the major contributors to the INDECENCY and OBSCENITY in our social space, as exemplified by the viral videos currently playing in the public vis-a-vis: “Pekelemesi” “Kwam1,” “Kwam2” and “Kwam3”.

Richard ODUSANYA
Public Affairs Analyst and Good Governance Advocate

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

By Ukpai Ukairo, Esq.

Arguably, one of the greatest challenges of the internet era is the unlimited opportunity for all manner of persons to express opinions on any issue, and spread same across the web through diverse platforms. The distinct disadvantage is that false facts and unfounded opinions are often, easily spread as outcome of in-depth thoughts through several of the channels made available by the internet sphere. In this way people are misled and energy expended in useless pursuits because of improper reliance on false facts and unsupportable views.

No where has the above view point gained immense endorsement in recent times than in the publication by Sonnie Ekwowusi who, having the United Nations insignia as the backdrop of his portrait, wrote an article titled, A   CONFESSION TOO LATE: THE SCANDAL OF NATIONAL HEALTH ACT, (NHA) 2014 published in the on-line edition of LAW AND SOCIETY Magazine and which could be accessed on https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/a-confession-too-late-the-scandal-of-nigerias-national-health-act-2014/.

I want to state, without equivocation, that the exposition in the said article does not represent, at all, the provisions of the NHA Act as will be evident hereunder. In order to amply prove the palpable distortion of the clear provisions of NHA by the author, I shall, in ex-raying the views expressed in the said article, reproduce verbatim each of the Sections of the Act he referred to, and thereafter analyze the views in the accursed article with the ipsissima verba of the law. My sole objective is to ensure that no person is misled by what is a manifest distortion of the NHA.

The author of the said article  claims that he stood against the passage of the Act when the  bill was being considered by the National Assembly because, according to him, he remembers “… the stakeholders present criticized Sections 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, and related provisions of the Bill, which either directly or indirectly endorsed trafficking in human embryos and organs, as well as the sale or trade in human tissues, blood, or blood products from living persons without their informed consent”.

In order to expose the audacious misrepresentations by the author on the effect of the said Sections we shall, as earlier stated, reproduce each of the sections, and then analyze them in seriatim. However, before that, let us situate the historical standing of the NHA. Without doubt, a glossary of the corpus of legislations in Nigeria will show that before the NHA there was no law tackling the very subject addressed by NHA. That subject is captured in the explanatory note to the NHA which is AN ACT TO PROVIDE THE FRAMWORK FOR THE REGULATION, DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF A NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM AND SET STANDARDS FOR RENDERING HEALTH SERVICES IN THE FEDERATION AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS.

The said explanatory note clearly sets out the mischief which the NHA sought to address and that is to establish a legal framework for the regulation of scientific developments that has converted tissue, blood and blood products as transferable products from one person to the other. It is, thus, ennobling that the National Assembly rose to the occasion to address the challenge. The Sonnie Ekwuwosis of this world and their co-travelers had no alternative legal frame work on the table except to scream, albeit falsely, that the then National Assembly was legitimizing the sale of human organ. As we shall prove hereunder that accusation was false, then and now. In the discharge of our goal hereunder, we shall apply the three well known rules of statutory interpretation, which are the Literal Rule, The Golden Rule, and The Mischief Rule which have received judicial imprimatur of approval in several cases, one of which is UMEANO & ORS V. ANAEKWE & ANOR (2022) LPELR-56855(SC).

Having made the above prefatory remarks may we proceed to deal with each of the sections in accordance with our earlier pledge.

Section 48 of the NHA provides thus:

(1)  Subject to the provision of section 53, a person shall not remove tissue, blood or blood product from the body of another living person for any purpose except:

(a) with the informed consent of the person from whom the tissue, blood or blood product is removed granted in the prescribed manner;

(b) that the consent clause may be waived for medical investigations and treatment in emergency cases; and

(c)   In accordance with prescribed   protocols by the appropriate authority.

(2)(a) A person shall not remove tissue which is not replaceable by natural processes from a person younger than 18 years.

(b) A tissue, blood or a blood product shall not be removed from the body of another living person for purpose of merchandise, sale. or commercial purposes.

• a person who contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction in the case of—

• tissue, to a fine of =N=1,000,000 or imprisonment of not less than two years or both; and

(b) blood or blood products, to a fine of =N=I,000,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both.

The words and structure of the above section are very clear and brooks of no equivocation. The said Section prohibits, in clear terms, the removal of “tissue, blood or blood product” for any purpose except in circumstances therein clearly spelt out. The said section therein provides that it can only be done upon the “informed consent of the person”. The literal meaning of the said section is very clear. There cannot be any removal of the items listed without the informed consent of the person. It is, therefore, mind-blogging where the author of the article under review found the authority to assert that “a person may remove tissue, blood or blood from another living person without informed consent for medical investigation and treatment in emergency cases”. 

The term informed consent is a technical word with in-depth connotation because it does not just mean the signature of the person. In all jurisdictions where the same words have been used in similar statute there is the onerous duty on health care administrators to fully explain the details of the pros and cons of the procedure. Without doubt, the need for informed consent is founded on the right to privacy and family life and freedom of conscience and religion. Accordingly, several years before the NHA the Supreme Court had held that no one can undergo a medical procedure which the person objects to:  M.D.P.D.T V. OKONKWO (2001) LPELR-1856(SC). It is the view of this writer that the provision for informed consent in NHA has only strengthened the constitutionally guaranteed rights, which by itself is commendable.

As with some laws there are exceptions to the informed-consent provision. Let us, therefore, explore the exceptions in order to determine if it cancels out the absolute bar in Section 48(1)(a) of the NHA. Section 48(1)(b) of the NHA explicitly provides that consent “may be waived for medical investigations and treatment in emergency cases”.  However, this subsection can only be invoked, according to Section 48(1)(c) of the NHA “in accordance with prescribed   protocols by the appropriate authority”. In Section 64 of the NHA “appropriate authority’” means any other authority apart from the Minister, Commissioner, Executive Secretary, Chairmen of Boards or Agencies”. The author of the article under review did not cite the protocol issued by the appropriate authority that supports his views on the section.

There is yet another anomaly in the unsupportable view of the said author. By rule of statutory interpretation, which is not necessary to go into herein, the said subsection covers two situations:

(1) Medical Investigation in emergency cases, and

(2) Treatment in emergency cases.

 The literal meaning of the above words are clear and the circumstances in medical situations, even, clearer. The legislature, in enacting the NHA, realized the danger posed in the waiver of consent in any of the two situations, and thereby quickly stated that there must be adherence to prescribed protocols by the appropriate authority.

Without doubt, the insistence on the prescribed protocol is directed at ensuring compliance with the overarching provision for informed consent. It is, however, appropriate to underscore the tragic reasoning of the author in the article under review because all he did was to concoct a non-existent scenario in order to arrive at his predetermined conclusion. How did he do this?

Suddenly, the author contends that the two situations stated in Section 48(1)(b) of NHA, when there may be waiver, are not clearly defined. This claim of lack of clarity is difficult to appreciate because medical investigations and treatment in emergency cases have very clear literal meanings. It is puzzling that an author, who is learned in law, will attribute a blurred definition to such clear words. But this is because the author was fixated on arriving at a preconceived conclusion.

The learned author, having claimed that clear English words no longer had meanings was not yet satisfied in his quest to slur the NHA. Not seeing any loophole in the NHA he invites to his platform persons who “…under the pretext of carrying out “medical investigations” or “treatment in emergency cases,” [could] waylay any non-consenting living person and forcefully remove his or her tissue, blood, or blood product”.  The falsity of this assertion cries to high heavens because it is such acts of criminality that the NHA is directed at stopping. Accordingly, by the very provisions of the NHA anyone who operates under the pretext alleged by the author obviously commits a crime under the NHA and any other law.   

The author of the article under review made another terrifying submission regarding Section 48 (2) of the NHA in the following words:

“Section 48(2) of the NHA 2014 states that “a person shall not remove ’tissue’ which is not replaceable by natural processes from a person younger than 18 years.” Clearly, this implies that tissue replaceable by natural processes may be removed from individuals aged 18 and above”.

This assertion, with due respect, demonstrates, an abysmal ignorance of the lexical structure of the NHA. By Section 277 of the Child Rights Act, “child” “means a person under the age of eighteen years”.  Accordingly, the NHA prohibits, absolutely, removal of such parts from a person under 18 years because such a person is a child, and thus, incapable of giving the INFORMED CONSENT provided for in the overarching provision in Section 48(1)(a) of the NHA. The clear literal and purposive rules of interpretation which enjoins that statute be read holistically would have shown that for all those above 18 years informed consent is mandatory. That the author of the above view could express the opinion above is, for me, very troubling because the NHA is clear on the issue.

Section 49(1) of the NHA provides thus:

49. (1) Subject to the provision of section 52 of this Act, a     person shall use tissue removed or blood or a blood product withdrawn from a living person only for such medical or dental purposes as may be prescribed.

(2)  A person who contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of this section commits an offence and liable on conviction in the case of—

(a)  tissue, a fine of if  =N=1,000,000 or imprisonment of not less than two years or both; and

(b)  blood or blood products, a fine of =N=100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both.

The above section is also very clear in its intent and purport. In Section 48(1) of NHA we have the words “…remove tissue, blood or blood product…”. In Section 49 the words are “tissue removed or blood or a blood product”.  In order to understand the intent and purport of a legislation the Superior Courts have urged for a holistic reading as was done in NWOBIKE V. FRN (2021) LPELR-56670(SC)

Accordingly, a holistic reading of both Sections 48(1) and 49 reveals that the items listed in Section 48(1) of the NHA can only be used for the “purposes as may be prescribed”. This Section, therefore, prohibits the use of the items for any other purposes outside the ones for taking it from a person. The author of the article in focus claims that “the terms “tissue” and “medical or dental purposes” are not defined in the interpretation section of the Act. This means that anyone could remove any human part under the guise of fulfilling some undefined “medical or dental purpose.”. Again, this is another attempt at obfuscation of clear terms of a statute in order to arrive at a pre-conceived conclusion. This is because no person, schooled in English language, can truthfully, in the context of the NHA claim that terms like “tissue” and “medical and dental purposes” are ambiguous.

 Still further, the said author invites criminal conduct as a ploy to justify his conclusions. He refers to persons who operate, under the guise of operating under the NHA and commit crimes. This brings up the question of what was the law before the enactment of the NHA because such act of deceit is pointedly one of the actions criminalized by the NHA. This is because once there is no informed consent a crime is committed and accordingly anyone who operates under the guise in a subject of criminal prosecution under the NHA.

Section 51 of the NHA provides thus:

51(1) A person shall not remove tissue from a living person for transplantation in another living person or carry out the transplantation of such tissue except—

• in a hospital authorised for that purpose; and

    (b) on the written authority of—

(i)the medical practitioner in charge of clinical services in that hospital or any other medical practitioner authorised by him or her; or

(ii) in the case where there is no medical practitioner in charge of the clinical services at that hospital, a medical practitioner authorised by the person in charge of the hospital.

• The medical practitioner subsection(1)(b) of this section shall not be the lead participant in a transplant for which he has granted authorization under that subsection.
  • For the purpose of transplantation, there shall be an independent transplantation committee within any health establishment that engages in the act and practice of transplantation as prescribed.

In reaction to the above section the author of the article under review made the assertion thus:

“Section 51 permits the removal of tissue or organs from a living person for transplantation into another living person, without any consent clause”. 

It is my humble view that Section 48(1) of the NHA applies fully to the situation in Section 51 of the NHA. The assertion that Section 51 of the NHA obliterates the informed consent provision has no support in law at all under any rules of interpretation.

The word TISSUE in Sections 48 and 51 of the NHA is directly referrable to the same item of the body. The complementarity of both sections is very clear because the informed consent provision can only be given in a hospital. All that Section 51 provides for is the institutional structure and frame work to carry out the exercise consented to. There is no way any person, schooled in the use of English Language and rules of interpretation of statute, could make the above false assertion except there is an ill-motive.

Section 52(1) of NHA provides thus:

52—( 1) Only a registered medical practitioner or dentist may remove any tissue from a living person, use tissue so removed for any of the purposes stated in this Act or transplant tissue so removed into another living person.

(2) Only a registered medical practitioner or dentist, or a person acting under the supervision or on the instructions of a medical practitioner or dentist, may administer blood or a blood product to, or prescribe blood or a blood product for, a living person.

This Section is, again, very clear and direct. A medical practitioner can only remove tissue for the purposes stated in the NHA. Accordingly, this Section only strengthens the previous provisions which have, used the word “prescribed” which in Section 64 of the Act means prescribed by regulation made under section 59 of this Act.

 Section 53(1) of NHA provides thus:

• (1)  It is an offence for a person—

(a) who has donated tissue, blood or a blood product to receive any form of financial or other reward for such donation, except for the reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by him or her to provide such donation; and

(b) to sell or trade in tissue, blood, blood products except for reasonable payments made in appropriate health establishment for the procurement of tissues, blood or blood products.

(2) A person who contravenes under sub-section (1) of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of =N=100,000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to both.

The above section, once more is very clear, but again the author of the article under review chose to claim the contrary not minding the express provisions. The author of the article stated, thus, of the above section:

Section 53 permits the sale or trade of human tissues such as female egg cells, sperm, and corneas, provided that the payments made are considered “reasonable” and are conducted within an appropriate health establishment.

A literal reading of the Section shows that there is nothing in Section 53(1) that permits the sale or trade of human parts as opined by the author.  Indeed, there is an absolute bar to it.  The provision is a complete opposite of this contention. This tendency to misrepresent clear words of statute is a tragic of flaw that flows throughout the entire article. The words sale and trade, used by the author clearly imports the negotiation of a price, which a consideration, and the payment of same as the only conditions. A reading of Section 51 of the NHA shows that such merchandising of human parts is clearly prohibited by the NHA.

From all I have written above, it my considered view that the article in focus is a complete distortion of the provisions of the NHA. Regrettably, it appears that the author set out to clothe the article with a false authoritative aura. As evident, part of the get-up of the write-up shows the author standing in front of the United Nations Logo. The picturesque message is directed at manipulating the reader to have a thinking that an expert with a global viewpoint is writing on the subject matter. But this is false and deceitful because the author is neither an official of United Nations nor any of its numerous agencies. To deploy the status of the United Nations in such a manner is an ignoble act and further attenuates the hollowness of the article.

Having demonstrated that the author misrepresented the provisions of the NHA it is appropriate to demand the pulling down of the article. On this note one is compelled to demand that the platform on which the article was published should develop the practice of fact-checking assertions. In that way it will raise the platform as a channel   for informed discourse.

From the foregoing it is obvious that the contention by the author that NHA is directed at regulating the decriminalization of the sale of body parts is clear hocus pocus. There is certainly nothing in the  NHA to support the view. As we have demonstrated above the NHA criminalizes the sale of human parts.

Finally, it is, thus, clear that the NHA does not offend any section of the fundamental rights provisions of the 1999 Constitution. Such contention is false in the extreme. However, if the author believes in his contention he ought, without much ado, institute a public interest suit to challenge the NHA. This is the path of honour rather than engaging in false narrative.

Ukpai Ukairo, Esq., Ukpai Ukairo & Associates, Nde Udo Chambers, ULUE IFE, B16 Pound Road, Aba, Abia State, Nigeria.

08033382685/[email protected]

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

INTRODUCTION
On Sunday, July 27, 2025, respected columnist, Simon Kolawole, published an opinion piece in ThisDay titled, “Back to the 1999 Constitution – Again?” In the said piece, Kolawole sought to downplay or outrightly discredit the persistent and growing calls for the restructuring of Nigeria’s constitutional framework. He targeted, in particular, the longstanding position advanced by patriotic intellectuals and elder statesmen under the collective known as The Patriots, portraying them as revisionists of Nigeria’s constitutional history.

But Kolawole’s interpretation not only misrepresents the actual arguments being advanced by The Patriots, it also rests on selective history, unverified assumptions, and a concerning disregard for legal scholarship and political truth. He claimed, among other things, that The Patriots had falsely asserted that the 1999 Constitution was authored by the military and that their stance was either uninformed or deliberately misleading. (See Simon Kolawole, “Let’s Tell Ourselves the Truth about the Constitution,” ThisDay, July 28, 2024.)

PURPOSE OF THIS INTERVENTION
This rejoinder seeks to correct these misrepresentations and restate – clearly and accurately-the long-held position of The Patriots on the 1999 Constitution. It will also address broader issues surrounding the unsuitability of Nigeria’s overcentralized federal structure in a pluralistic society, and highlight areas of the Constitution, particularly the Exclusive Legislative List, that require urgent reform if Nigeria is to remain a just, united, and functional federation.

CLARIFYING THE PATRIOTS’ POSITION ON THE 1999 CONSTITUTION

Simon Kolawole alleges that The Patriots have repeatedly claimed that the 1999 Constitution was “written by the military” and that such a claim is false because “it was drafted by a committee of legal experts and approved by the Provisional Ruling Council.” He suggests that this position lacks intellectual rigor and should be dismissed by well-meaning Nigerians.

However, this is a complete mischaracterization of the Patriots’ position. The Patriots have never claimed that soldiers sat down with pens and drafted the Constitution in a vacuum. No.What they have consistently stated is that the 1999 Constitution is a product of military imposition, lacking the democratic legitimacy that should accompany any foundational legal document in a pluralistic society such as Nigeria.

In a public statement by Professor Ben Nwabueze, SAN – renowned constitutional law scholar and founding member (later Chairman) of The Patriots-it was clearly argued that:
“The 1999 Constitution was imposed by a military regime without a referendum, without public debate, and without the participation of the Nigerian people. It cannot therefore be considered a people’s Constitution.”

Similarly, in a 2001 press briefing, Chief FRA Williams, SAN, another founding member and pioneer chairman of The Patriots, described the 1999 Constitution as:
“A document that merely adapted the 1979 Constitution and was handed down to us by a departing military junta.”

The use of the term “military Constitution” by The Patriots refers therefore not to its literal authorship by soldiers, but to the flawed process of imposition and the absence of participatory legitimacy through a people’s referendum. It is this absence of democratic authorship and validation that underpins The Patriots’ sustained call for a truly autochthonous Constitution-one emerging from the will and deliberation of the Nigerian people.

To suggest otherwise, as Kolawole did, is to either misunderstand the semantics of constitutional discourse or to deliberately distort the message.I prefer to believe that the former is the case. The consequence of such distortion is dangerous: it undermines the gravity and urgency of constitutional reforms by reducing it to a mere semantic disagreement rather than the existential democratic concern that it actually is.

CRITIQUE OF NIGERIA’S OVERCENTRALIZATION
The evolution of Nigeria’s federal structure is marked by a troubling contradiction: although it is constitutionally designated a federation, the actual distribution of power closely resembles that of a unitary state. This paradox can be traced back to the 1966 military coup and the subsequent unification of the country under a single military command structure. The military, inherently centralist in its command hierarchy, dismantled the regional autonomy that had defined Nigeria’s First Republic (1960–1966). (See Olumide Akanbi, “The Evolution of Nigeria’s Federalism and the Military Factor,” Journal of African Federalism, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2018, p. 45.). What some Northern soldiers considered to be the original sin of General J.T.U. Aguiyi-Ironsi, (the then Head of State who seized power during the chaos and crises that ensued during the 15th January, 1966 military coup),was his promulgation of Decree No. 34 pf 1967 which abrogated the federal stricture in favour of a unitary one.

Before the 1966 military intervention, Nigeria’s federalism allowed each of the three (later four) regions (with the creation of the Midwest Region on 10th August, 1963, from Western Region by popular referendum of the people) to exercise substantial control over local affairs. These regions had their own Constitutions, public services, and developmental priorities. However, from General Yakubu Gowon’s Decree No. 8 of 1967, which effectively abolished regional governments in favor of 12 militarily-administered states, to the eventual promulgation of the 1999 Constitution by General Abdulsalami Abubakar’s regime, Nigeria has grown increasingly centralized.

Thus, there has never been any conscious effort by successive governments – colonial, civil or military, since Nigeria’s Lugardian amalgamation on January 1, 1914 – to have a buy-in of the people through a referendum. None from the 1922 Clifford Constitution; 1946 Richards Constitution; 1951 Macpherson Constitution; 1954 Lyttleton Constitution; 1960 Independent Constitution; 1963 Republican Constitution; 1979 Constitution; 1989 Constitution; and up to the 1999 Constitution.

This over-centralization of powers at the centre poses severe governance challenges in a country as ethnically,culturally, religiously and linguistically diverse as Nigeria. With about 374 ethnic groups (Prof Onigu Otite), at least 500 spoken languages and strong regional identities, a one-size-fits-all approach to governance is both ineffective and inflammatory. As Rotimi Suberu notes, “centralized federalism in Nigeria breeds disaffection, weakens accountability, and fuels centrifugal tensions.” (Rotimi Suberu, Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Nigeria, United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001, p. 112.)

For example, the same educational policy enforced in Zamfara State may be culturally, religiously or economically inappropriate in Bayelsa State. The federal government’s directives on land use, resource control, or school curriculum rarely accommodate local realities. Similarly, national security priorities are often applied uniformly without sensitivity to regional insecurity dynamics such as the age-long farmer-herder clashes in the Middle Belt, or self-determination agitations in the South East.

Another critical example is the administration of religion. While the federal Constitution of 1999 claims secularism (section 10), certain states enforce Sharia law, while others either remain secular, practise traditional religion,or remain Christian-dominated. Yet, national laws, judicial and other public structures fail to reflect these peculiar realities, often resulting in policy flip-flops and conflict or discrimination claims. This dissonance between forced constitutional uniformity and lived practical plurality experiences is an enduring source of national instability.

Nigeria’s flawed federalism also impedes development. Federating states are heavily dependent on federally allocated funds (under section 162 of the 1999 Constitution). This disincentivizes local innovation or internally generated revenue (IGR) strategies. Because federal allocation is distributed by formula rather than performance or resource ownership, states have limited autonomy to plan large-scale infrastructure, education, or healthcare interventions independent of Abuja. This also breeds discrimination and resentment. Oil-rich Bayelsa State, for example, shares from the Federation Account less than may non-oil producing communities notwithstanding the attendant oil and gas–related environmental degradation and prevalent poverty.

OVERHAULING THE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE LIST
The Exclusive Legislative List in the 1999 Constitution (as amended) contains 68 whole items which only the federal government has power to legislate upon. (See Part I, Second Schedule, Constitution of the 1999 Constitution. This list is excessive and counter-productive in a federal system we pretend to operate in our pluralistic society. It takes away vital areas of governance from the reach of states and local governments, despite their proximity to the people. Among the most problematic items are police and security, prisons, railways, mineral resources, electricity generation and transmission, labour and trade unions, education (particularly tertiary), taxation of certain commodities, matrimonial matters, licensing, etc.

This dominant central control over crucial sectors greatly undermines Nigeria’s federal claim and limits each state’s ability to respond to its unique developmental needs.
Take policing, for example. In the United States and India ( both federal democracies with complex diversities), subnational units maintain their own police forces with full jurisdictional authority. Yet in Nigeria, only the federal government is constitutionally empowered to create or control the police force under sections 214 and 215 of the 1999 Constitution. The implication is that state governors, though constitutionally described as “chief security officers” of their states, can not control security within their borders. (See Yusuf Olaolu Ali, SAN, Federalism and the Nigerian Constitution: A Legal Perspective, Spectrum Law Review, 2016, p. 78.)

This unitarinsm has proven disastrous. States facing terrorist insurgency, mass kidnapping and ethnic violence are unable to develop local policing models or equip forces that understand the terrain and speak local languages or respond to such vices as they occur. The result is a reactive and overstretched federal police, further alienating citizens from security providers.

Similarly, prison administration is fully centralized; yet most of the crimes prosecuted in Nigeria occur under state criminal laws, not federal laws. This mismatch causes logistical and financial burdens on the federal system while delaying justice. A state-based correctional system, aligned with state judicial authority, would be more efficient and localized to deal with local offences.

In the education sector, control over accreditation, curriculum, and policy located at the federal level stifles local creativity and ignores peculiar local needs. States such as Lagos and Rivers, which have made giant strides in digital learning and school reforms, are constantly required to comply with federal laws that may not reflect their educational needs, local priorities or resources.

Another major area of great concern is resource control and mining. Under the 1999 Constitution, all mineral resources are owned by the federal government, with states entitled only to derivation funds. This has perpetuated sustained injustice leading to the conflict in the Niger Delta. It has created a retrogrssive culture of dependence where resource-rich states remain poor due to limited control over their God-given assets while non-oil-producing states live fat on such poor states. An unjust and obnoxious system of sharing the cake without contributing to its baking has thus emerged.

Globally, federations assign such matters to local authorities. In Canada, provinces control natural resources and generate revenue from them. In India, states co-legislate on police, education and public health under a Concurrent List. In the U.S., the Tenth Amendment reserves unenumerated powers to the states. Nigeria’s failure to adopt similar devolution of powers has painfully hindered innovation, democratic accountability and balanced development.

What is therefore needed is a restructuring of the Exclusive Legislative List, pruning it to only essential national matters such as defence, foreign affairs, banking and currency, while moving most socio-economic functions to the Concurrent or Residual Lists. This would not only align with global federalist principles but also reflect Nigeria’s diverse socio-political realities. Only a brand new Constitution emanating from the people’s will after a Constituent Assembly and referendum can bring about such a revolutionary outcome,not piecemeal amendment of the present 1999 Constitution.

ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IN CONSTITUTION-MAKING:
THE LEGISLATURE AS ENABLER, NOT ORIGINATOR
It is axiomatic that under constitutional democracy, sovereignty resides in the people. The legislature, while clothed with enormous powers of lawmaking, is not the primary source or originator of the people’s will. Rather, it is a conduit-a servant and enabler-of that will. Nigeria’s National Assembly, as presently constituted, draws its powers from the 1999 Constitution which is itself a product of military fiat, not of popular affirmation of the people. This reality raises a fundamental legal-philosophical contradiction: can a creature of a flawed document presume to re-birth it? Can a child reconfigure its own paternity? The National Assembly, being a product of a schedule attached to Decree No. 24 of 1999, cannot, ab initio, claim any right to author a new grundnorm that overrides its own existential basis. All it can do is to amend, amend and amend the flawed Constitution under section 9 thereof. The reason is that being the tail (representative agent), it cannot wag the dog (the people that own the will).

The National Assembly’s attempts at constitutional amendment-however noble-have therefore largely been elitist and parliamentary, not popular or plebiscitary. Several constitutional alteration bills have been passed (up to 5 already); yet none has bridged the democratic gap of a sovereign national consensus. None has dared to make Chapter 2 justiciable (the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy). They would never! The people thus watch from the sidelines as professional politicians hold sway over what should be their social contract. That is akin to medical doctors prescribing medication to patients they have not examined. The people’s voice is conspicuously absent in the very document that governs their lives. The legislative arm must therefore reposition itself-not as the progenitor of a new Constitution, but as the facilitator of a new constitutional order birthed by the people themselves through a referendum.
[See Mike Ozekhome, “The Illegality and Illegitimacy of the 1999 Constitution,” ThisDay, April 22, 2024].

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM VS. CONSTITUTIONAL REWRITING
There exists a grave conceptual and legal dissonance in conflating constitutional reform with constitutional rewriting. Reform is cosmetic; rewriting is foundational. The former merely plasters the gaping cracks of a collapsing edifice. The latter reconstructs its very foundation. Nigeria’s current approach has been that of tentative and timid reforms. Reforms through amendments involve mere tinkering with clauses, altering sections, inserting or deleting subsections-all within the same defective legal framework. This is akin to merely repainting a termite-ridden house while ignoring the need to first fumigate and wholly rebuild; or merely cutting off the branches of a tree threatening the foundations of a house, rather than uprooting it completely.

Rewriting on the other hand is a revolutionary act-peaceful, yet radical. It is negotiated. It requires a complete break from the past;a tabula rasa; a fresh convening of the people; and a new social contract that reflects the genuine aspirations of today’s Nigerians; not those of 1998 military oligarch. Countries like South Africa, Kenya and some others have walked this noble path through convocation of Constituent Assemblies and participation in national referenda. Why not Nigeria?

To continue operating the 1999 Constitution is to perpetuate a fraud-a self-deceit that we live under democracy when in fact we are governed by relics of khaki rule. The National Assembly must embrace its transitional role and work with civil society, the judiciary, the executive and all Nigerian stakeholders to midwife-not manufacture-a new constitutional dawn.
[See Jibrin Ibrahim, “Why Nigeria Needs a New Constitution, Not Another Amendment,” Premium Times, March 4, 2021].

NEW REFERENDUM-BASED CONSTITUTIONS: GLOBAL TESTAMENT TO POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE
The world is replete with nations that emerged from constitutional darkness into the light of participatory democracy and popular governance. Some examples will suffice here to advance this point. Kenya, in 2010, rose from the ashes of electoral violence to birth a new people-oriented Constitution through a referendum. The Kenyan model was not merely legal-it was moral. It sought to heal, not just to rule. South Africa’s 1996 Constitution is another golden standard: a document forged through exhaustive public consultations, grassroots submissions, and national soul-searching, culminating in a powerful symbol of unity post-apartheid.

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution also passed through a national referendum, marking the country’s rebirth after years of military interregnum. In 2022, Chile attempted a similar feat by proposing a new Constitution through a popularly elected Constituent Assembly. Although that version was rejected in a referendum, the process itself showcased the democratic principle: the people must be heard, not herded; their will must prevail, not discarded.

In Iran, a new Islamic Republic Constitution was birthed in 1979 after a 99.5% referendum of the Iranian people. A people’s referendum in Bangladesh in 1991reintroduced a parliamentary system of government, abolished the office of the Vice President and provided that the President must be elected by the Parliament. Morocco held a referendum on 1st July, 2011, for constitutional reforms in response to wide-spread protests. Egypt subjected its new Constitution to a referendum in 2012.

The Eritrean people in 1994 carried out a referendum which gave the people a “sense of ownership of the Constitution”. Tunisia, following a revolution and months of protests, set up a Constituent Assembly that drafted a new Constitution on 26th January, 2014, after a people’s referendum. Iraq, on October 15, 2005, carried out a referendum to adopt her new Constitution.

The United States of America (after whom Nigeria’s Constitution is modelled) held a constitutional convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, between May 25 and September 17, 1787, to birth a new Constitution and have a “more perfect union”. Of the 55 Delegates that attended the Convention presided over by George Washington (who later became the first American President), 39 delegates signed a new Constitution after a people’s referendum. Broad outlines of a new Constitution were proposed, debated and agreed upon by these delegates that represented the autonomous confederates. It was this initiative that brought about America’s federal system of government; Executive Presidency; Republicanism, Separation of Powers (a doctrine earlier popularized in 1748 by Baron de Montesquieu, a great French philosopher); and judicial review.

It witnesses inclusive inputs by great Federalists such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, John Adams and John Marshal. Since 1789, when the Constitution birthed ( 236 whole years ago), has just 7,591 words with only 27 amendments. The reason it has withstood its stability and acceptability is because it emanated directly from the will of the people and so enjoys their legitimacy and respectability.Why not Nigeria,I ask? (See Mike Ozekhome: Constitutional Autochthony and a Referendum for a New People’s Constitution: A Comparison with the 1999 Constitution; February, 2025, Mikeozekhomeschambers.com).

What unites the above examples is one common thread-referendum. This is the power of the people expressed directly; not elected, selected or appointed through legislative surrogates. The people must see their fingerprint on the agreed charter that governs them. That is the essence of legitimacy through a yes-or-no referendum on the people’s grundnorm. Referendum makes a Constitution autochthonous, homegrown,people-owned.
[See Yash Ghai, “Kenya’s Constitution: An Instrument for Change,” Open Society Foundations, August 2011]
[See Christina Murray and Heinz Klug, “Constitution-Making in South Africa: A Model for the World?” Review of Constitutional Studies, 1997].

LESSONS FOR NIGERIA FROM THESE COUNTRIES
Nigeria must jettison the illusion that piecemeal amendments can yield a legitimate, people’s Constitution. We must learn from America, our African and Latin American siblings, that the legitimacy of a Constitution lies not in its legal grammar but in its popular genesis. A new Nigerian Constitution must be drafted by a Constituent Assembly comprising of Representatives of the people elected on a non political or partisan basis-civil society, labour, youth, men and women’s groups, professionals, students, traditional institutions, faith-based organizations, persons living with disabilities and other stakeholders. It must then be subjected to a national referendum where every citizen, from the creeks of Yenagoa to the plains of Sokoto, from the savannah to the mangrove swamps, etc, casts a vote.

This process is not just a legal imperative-it is a national therapy. A referendum-based Constitution would erase the ghost of military rule and birth a fresh beginning and identity for Nigeria. It would convert cynical citizens into patriotic stakeholders. It would replace imposed obedience with inspired allegiance.

The time has come. Let the eagle soar again-not on colonial graves; not on military Decrees and diktats, but on the wings of popular consent of the people.
[See Clement Nwankwo, “Towards a People’s Constitution for Nigeria,” Cleen Foundation Policy Paper, 2021].

THE PATRIOTS’ PATRIOTIC BLUEPRINT FOR A PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTION
A Constitution must not only be written-it must be born. And like all legitimate births, it must pass through the womb of collective consent. The Patriots, a formidable assembly of distinguished elder statesmen and women, jurists, constitutional scholars, professionals, traditional and religious leaders and public intellectuals, have for years championed the cause of a People’s Constitution, not by revolution but by resolution; not with bayonets but with ballots; not by Decrees but through dialogue and democratic deliberation.

Their thesis is clear: no nation can build peace on the foundation of falsehood or silence, and no union can last where one part feels conscripted rather than convened. In the interest of national salvation-not sentiments-they propose a blueprint for constitutional rebirth anchored on Nigeria’s plurality.

PRACTICAL STEPS FOR NIGERIA’S CONSTITUTION-MAKING PROCESS
Step 1: Enactment of Enabling Legislation:
• Executive Bill Pathway: The President submits an Executive Bill to the National Assembly, requesting promulgation of a law to enable INEC to conduct elections into a Constituent Assembly on a non-partisan basis. This will comprise 110 members made up of three representatives from each Senatorial zone of the 36 states of Nigeria and the FCT, Abuja (one per senatorial district). Such candidates are to campaign and run on their personal merit based on their own manifestos, not on political party platforms. This approach follows global best practice, as seen in Uganda (1989) and South Africa (1996).
• Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC):

Step 2: The elected Constituent Assembly sits publicly for the sole
purpose of drafting a new people’s Constitution. In this historic task, the Constituent Assembly shall consult widely across all segments of the society. They shall also draw inputs from:
• The 1960 Independence and 1963 Republican Constitution;
• The 2014 National Conference Report (over 600 consensus-based recommendations);
•Relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution;
• Relevant reports from Senate and House Committees on their Constitutional Review exercise;
• Nationwide submissions from ethnic nationalities, civil society, the military, Police, media, business, private sector, persons living with disabilities, academia, student leadership, labour, diaspora, traditional and religious leaders, elder statesmen and women, market men and women, and more.
Deliberations at the Constituent Assembly must be open to the public, transparent, and all-inclusive; modeled after the 1996 South African process, which received over two million citizen submissions.

Step 3: Public Engagement and Harmonization
Once the initial draft is produced:
• The document must be translated into major local languages and subjected to town hall meetings, digital consultations, and public critique across the six geopolitical zones and the diaspora.
• The drafters shall revise and harmonize the draft based on inputs received.
This step ensures that the Constitution reflects lived realities, promotes civic ownership, and withstands democratic scrutiny.

Step 4: National Referendum
The harmonized final draft is subjected to a national referendum—a democratic mechanism for the people to either accept or reject the new Constitution.
The Constituent Assembly may in its wisdom, adopt one of two suggested formats:
• Single Yes/No Vote on the entire draft Constitution (as done in Kenya in 2010 and Bangladesh in 1991).
• Clause-by-Clause Referendum, where citizens vote section-by-section, enabling granular endorsement or rejection. This format mirrors the 1963 Midwestern Referendum of 10th August, 1963.
A minimum voter turnout threshold shall be set to ensure democratic validity.

Step 5: Presidential Proclamation and Entry into Force
Once the referendum is concluded and the draft is approved,it is submitted to the President for assent.
• The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, acting under section 5 of the Constitution and in line with the powers vested in him as head of the Executive, shall sign and proclaim the new Constitution into law, thus bringing about its enforcement.
It is only then that Nigeria can truly affirm the genuine foundational democratic statement:
“We the people of Nigeria… do hereby give to ourselves this Constitution.”
This process is not about undermining state institutions—it is about restoring them to legitimacy. It blends legality (via executive and legislative action) with legitimacy (via citizen participation and referendum). It affirms that sovereignty indeed resides with the people, not a political class; not an elitist group.
This roadmap ensures that Nigeria’s next Constitution is not a product of Decree, convenience, or elite consensus, but of collective national will, built through openness, participation, and inclusion.

CONCLUSION
A CALL TO NATIONAL ACTION
Nigeria stands today, not merely at a constitutional crossroads, but at a moral precipice. The air is thick with constitutional fatigue, the soil weary of authoritarian roots masked by democratic branches, and the soul of the nation suffocates under the weight of imposed structures (foreign and military) that neither resemble nor respect its people’s will.
It is no longer a question of whether the 1999 Constitution is flawed. That is settled. It is a graveyard of imposed ideas, a mausoleum of military fiat dressed in borrowed democratic robes. What is now urgent, pressing and constitutionally obligatory is what we, the Nigerian people, must do to salvage her soul.

We must not tinker any longer with palliative amendments. The process of constitutional reform cannot merely be an elite sport, played behind closed doors in committee rooms in Abuja, choreographed by a political class more interested in electoral advantage than nation-building. No. It must begin and end with the people.

The people, in their villages and towns, their religious centres and schools, their marketplaces and offices-they are the sovereigns. Not military Decrees of yesteryears. Not the colonially inherited scaffolds of exclusion. Not the self-serving silence of our complicit elites.
As argued above, the role of the National Assembly under sections 4 and 9 of the 1999 Constitution is not to wear the toga of originators. It is not their prerogative to determine in isolation the next chapter of our nationhood. Rather, they must become enablers, facilitators of a people-driven process rooted in popular sovereignty.

The Patriots, in their timeless wisdom, hug this national moment. Their peaceful blueprint for constitutional renewal, laid out with clarity and democratic precision, calls for a step-by-step people’s conference, one divorced from state capture, one driven by inclusivity, and culminating in a national referendum.

This process is not a romantic idealism. It is a national necessity. It is legal realism. It is historical debt owed to a citizenry long ignored and despised.
Furthermore, at a time where the sword increasingly overshadows the scale, when guns echo louder than reason, the law must reassert itself-not in violence, not in Decrees, but in institutional dialogue. We are not a banana republic.

We are a sovereign Republic founded on law and justice. And it is time we returned to that foundation with humility and courage.

Now therefore, dear Nigerians-activists and artisans, farmers, professors and pensioners, youth and students, academia, diaspora, market men and women, military and police, and elderstatesmen and women, religious and traditional leaders- we call upon you. Let this be the hour of national reawakening and rebirth. Let this be the season when democracy is not just recited but rewritten. Let it not be said that in our moment of reckoning, we chose silence over courage, cynicism over hope, and apathy over action.

Let the President, National Assembly initiate an enabling Executive Bill; Let the NASS pass it into law. Let the process commence towards a truly people-led constitutional process. Let the Constituent Assembly deliberate and agree on a draft new Constitution. Let the NASS, in its new law mandate INEC to organsise a people’s referendum. Let civil society and other stakeholders mobilize town halls, public debates grassroots dialogues to aid the Constituent Assembly. Let the courts be courageous in defending the people’s right to re-found their nation. Let the press amplify, not suppress. Let the young rise and the old lead by example and with conscience.

Let it be said of this generation: They inherited a broken Constitution. They rebuilt it and gave us a new one.

Let Nigeria rise anew, not on the crumbling scaffolds of imposed legality, but on the sacred shoulders of popular legitimacy. This is the lens I recommend to Kolawole and others to appreciate the Patriots’ patriotic position. God bless Nigeria.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine