What is wrong with the legislature in Nigeria?

It surely sounds radical to say that the legislature is not there yet in the Fourth Republic democracy. And this is not implying that the legislature was impactful in the first and second republics. The defence for the low performance of the legislature is that it had always been a casualty at each turn of coups and counter-coups, denying it the strength of cumulative growth and experience. However, after twenty-five years of unbroken democracy since 1999, this exoneration can no longer hold. Sadly, today, the situation has not changed. The average Nigerian barely knows that the Parliament exists. And this is not necessarily about being literate and informed. Even among educated Nigerians, there’s little consciousness about the contributions of the institution to the democratic order. Nigeria’s democracy struggles on, not because of the legislature, but in spite of the legislature. Has the legislature, as an elected arm of government, added value to governance in Nigeria? What return does Nigeria get for the fortune it spends on the federal and state parliaments? When our legislative houses go on their quarterly recesses, do Nigerians miss them? What can Nigerians do to make the legislature responsive? Or will reforms give the institution the required push? What kind of reforms?

Read also: How faulty political system is aiding few individuals to personalise Nigeria – Clark

In the core area of parliamentary mandate, we see the third arm of government lagging behind on crucial issues of state. Yes, the federal and state legislatures have passed some bills and amended some laws within their jurisdictions. But how important were these enactments? Besides the routine appropriation and supplementary appropriation acts, could the bulk of the legislation be adjudged essential or appropriate for people-orientated development? This is a democratic dispensation—a long, hard-fought gain. An assessment of contributions of the legislature should centre around our democratic fortunes. And for the added reason that this arm of government is considered the sanctuary of democratic culture. But as we all know, the grundnorm of this process, in this case the 1999 Constitution (amended), is a product of military coercion. The provisions of the Constitution were arbitrarily determined by a few dozen Nigerians, and the ensuing document was never subjected to a referendum. In the face of this faulty foundation, the legislature was expected, as a matter of priority, to embark on remedial measures to produce a legitimate and popular Constitution.

Even as we concede that birthing a new Constitution in the prevailing circumstance is an arduous task, the next manageable alternative, namely piecemeal amendment, has so far been disappointing. The constitution review has left fundamental issues of the Nigerian federation for peripheral matters of administration. Of the 16 bills in the fifth alteration series, only two, which granted states the power to operate railways and electricity systems, had strong political and socio-economic significance. The third addition to the concurrent list, States’ control of prisons, is of no real value. As it were, states are choking under a revenue-sharing formula that gives the federal government fifty-two percent as against twenty-four percent to states. This revenue-sharing law was inherited from the years of military rule. So, what kind of democratisation has taken place in twenty-five years of elected government when an iron law of unitary rule is still in force? How could the legislature not recognise that the supremacy law that governed military rule was antithetical to the organic equality of democracy?

Read the complete story on our website…