The recent Council of State meeting on August 13, 2024, raises a number of questions about governance in Nigeria, which, after the economy, has become the most important concern among Nigerians from diverse walks of life. The Council of State is a statutory organ of governance in Nigeria, enshrined in the 3rd Schedule, Part 1, Sections 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution. Membership of the Council comprises the President, who is the Chairman; the Vice President, Deputy Chairman; all former Presidents of the Federation and all former Heads of the Government of the Federation; all former Chief Justices of Nigeria; the President of the Senate; the Speaker of the House of Representatives; all the Governors of the states of the Federation; and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The Constitution states the duty of the National Council of State as having (a) “power to advise the President in the exercise of his power with respect to: (i) national population census and compilation, publication and keeping of records and other information concerning the same; (ii) prerogative of mercy; (iii) award of national honours; (iv) the Independent National Electoral Commission (including the appointment of members of that Commission); (v) the National Judicial Council (including the appointment of the members, other than ex-officio members of that Council); and (vi) the National Population Commission (including the appointment of members of that Commission); and (b) advise the President whenever requested to do so on the maintenance of public order within the Federation or any part thereof and on such other matters as the President may direct.
“However, the economic hardships the reforms have necessarily generated have been burdensome, especially on the poor and vulnerable groups and on the lower middle class as well.”
It is evident that it was in the exercise of its power in part (b) above that the Council passed a vote of confidence on the President on his handling of the economy so far. That vote of confidence was vindicated as the National Bureau of Statistics announced two days later that headline inflation declined from 34.19 percent to 33.40 percent, a drop of 0.8 percent, which was relatively significant. The commendation for the management of the economy, especially the strenuous effort to stabilise the foreign exchange market, navigate the nation’s public finances away from the precipice, and stabilise inflation, is justifiable. This is against the backdrop of the orchestrated campaign of political opponents to discredit the economic policies and performance of the President and his team.
Read also: Protests, economy top agenda, as Council of State meets
However, as I sought to establish in this column last week, the key issue of the #EndBadGovernance protest had moved beyond the economy to place a great emphasis on bad governance. Yes, the economic reforms have been tenaciously managed to the point where they have begun to show signs of an economic turnaround. However, the economic hardships the reforms have necessarily generated have been burdensome, especially on the poor and vulnerable groups and on the lower middle class as well. This uneven burden has so far not been addressed, which is the basis of the ‘end bad governance’ outrage. The meeting of the Council of State ought to have been able to address the governance issues with a clear commitment on the part of the President and state governors.
But of greater concern are governance issues about the National Council of State itself. The Constitution is silent on when or how often the Council can meet in a year or in the lifespan of an administration. The meeting of August 13, 2024, was the first time the Council was meeting since the inception of the Tinubu administration. Secondly, it is clear that the President, as the Chairman of the Council, is at liberty to convene the meeting of the organ entirely at his discretion, which the President did two weeks ago when he felt he needed the support of the Council most. Thirdly, some of the matters on which the Council is constitutionally empowered to advise the President, including the appointment of national commissioners for the Independent National Electoral Commission, the National Population Commission, and sensitive election and population matters, among other matters, are far-reaching and extra-legislative in nature. For example, in February 2018, the National Council of State was reported to have approved or advised then-President Muhammadu Buhari on US$1 billion in funding for agriculture and livestock.
Evidently, the incumbent President as the Chairman of the National Council of State determines the agenda of its meeting and uses the Council to secure advice or, in practical terms, approval on key decisions that bypass legislative scrutiny. This, no doubt, is one of the controversial provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which further extends and entrenches the powers of one of the most powerful presidents in the world in a civilian pluralistic political, supposedly democratic dispensation.
We are of course aware of the military mindset behind the making of the 1999 Constitution by military officers who wanted to return to power in a civilian dispensation and rule without the strictures and checks and balances of a truly democratic national constitution. The National Council of State was one of the organs of governance they instituted to achieve that desire.
I have tremendous respect for the members of the National Council of State, but I doubt if there is any major democracy elsewhere in the world where such a parallel legislative or governance organ exists. Fusing the heads of the executive and legislative arms into one additional layer of governance decision-making strengthens the powers of the executive arm of government disproportionately, weakens the legislature, and presents a formidable challenge to the promotion and entrenchment of good governance in our body politic.
Mr Igbinoba is Team Lead/CEO at ProServe Options Consulting, Lagos.
