There is a huge disparity between what is said behind closed doors and the public arena regarding the ignominious roles of our lawmakers in the ‘new’ dispensation. But first, let us take some historical voyage whether we may find some reasons to ‘understand’ the current situation.
At independence, Nigeria practiced a parliamentary system of government, which is an admixture of legislative and executive functions in the ruling political parties. The Prime Minister and other ministers are both performing the functions of legislating and implementing government policies as executive members. Even the opposition party also had its shadow cabinet that research and observe the issues in the particular ministry or government department, and on that basis, offered support or constructive criticisms to the substantive minister. Of course, the legislature has the power of checks and balances in passing votes of no confidence in the underperforming minister or even the prime minister. As at then, taken a cue from colonialists’ model (I detest the coinage colonial masters), there was a ceremonial president, which itself was a mere symbol of constitutional monarchy. Late Azikiwe was thus a ceremonial president at independence due to the coalition of NPC (Northern People Congress) and NCNC (originally National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons, but later changed to National Council of Nigerian Citizens).
In 1963, we became a Republic, which strengthened the regions further for self-development and some measure of decentralization. The parliamentary system was still upheld when we became republican.
Then 1966 was ushered in, and the course of history was revised for the worst. Following the tradition of the military or some sectional and individual ambition, or both, the Constitution was changed from federal to unitary Constitution. The regions were collapsed, and much later the ‘balkanization ‘of the country began. It was during Gowon, the eventual ‘beneficiaries’ of the 1966 coups (they occurred in series) that started with twelve states, and it became 36 or 37 depending on the proper categorization of Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
In 1979, the second ‘republic’ was ushered in, and the military decided to move in the direction of the presidential system of government, perhaps imitating the United States of America (the self-acclaimed custodian of modern democracy). The new arrangement was not based on distinctive three arms of government, the Executive, Legislature, and the Judiciary. Though the ruling party forms the core of the Executive branch with the President at the apex of its organogram, all other parties participated in the Legislative arm, based on the strength of their elected members. One of the reasons canvassed for the new arrangement was that it enhances the separation of powers as intended by the excellent expose of Montesquieu, the renowned ‘father’ of separation of powers.
Despite the beauty of the new arrangement, the political parties wielded a strong and powerful influence in their area of controls during the second ‘republic.’ Though there were some forms of distinctiveness between the executive and legislative arms, the overriding influence of the political parties (though not too obvious to many) almost made it looked as we were still practicing parliamentary system. Though also, the President and his cabinet were not inundated with legislative functions as was in the first and the only real republic we have ever had.
Yet that regime was overthrown by the military at the close hours of December 31st, 1983. The main justification for the military putsch was the slam of corruption and corrupt practices by the ruling elites. No doubt, there was corruption then. It was alleged that government officials, including politicians, usually demanded, and gotten ten percent of all contracts awarded. In that regime, our politicians then were perhaps the ‘descendants’ of the biblical Levites as they ignominiously collected their ten percent. In fact, they were nicknamed ten percenters. The military shoved them aside.
Afterward, one military regime after the other, and the scope of corrupt practices kept expanding. It is ironic, though, that the very thing the military complained about became ‘institutionalized’ during those periods of military rule. It was from the ruins of that time that the ‘legendary ancestral ATM’ had emerged. The story of late General Abacha lootings or ‘assets’ (if you on the side of Malami) is well known and may be well documented for the future.
I must admit I was of the school of thought who spoke against military incursion into our politics and rightly blamed them taken us several steps backward. Yet, this is not without basis or justification. Two major enablers of corruption today are impunity and lack of accountability. Both can arguably be regarded as a military legacy to our body polity.
Then ushered in the fourth republic, which has spanned 21 solid years, but ravenous crops of politicians who are not ashamed to milk her dry.
It was during the Obasanjo regime that the concept of monetization entered the national lexicon. It intended to curb lack of maintenance and its attendant wastage of government properties, by converting those ‘privileges’ into cash. It was assumed that if a director got money to buy his/her own car, it would be better maintained than given an official vehicle to such director. Has it worked well? I leave the proper interrogation of that to scholars inclined to carry out a post-implementation evaluation for appropriate assessments.
It was perhaps the beauty of the monetization that made the National Assembly numerous committees to turn their legitimate oversight functions to cash cow ventures. The other day, I listened to Professor Jega, the erstwhile Chairman of ‘Independent’ National Electoral Commission (INEC) telling us perhaps what most of us have heard behind closed doors, away from the whispering of the birds. Truth be told, the whole uproar of budget padding emanated from this idea of monetization of the oversight functions.
The ugly side of the practice is the subtle threat and coercion, emboldened by the ingrained impunity in the system. It behooves reasons that even in the era of sophisticated surveillance and easy gadgets for capturing voice and videos, these ungodly practices have gone almost unchallenged. The few times people have been bold enough to challenge the practices, as in the case of Arunma Oteh in public ‘probes’ was something that could have gingered us to get to the ‘root’ of the matters. But what happened. Ms. Arunma was ‘sacrificed’ for speaking the truth about the powerful ‘oversighters.’
For some time now, we have watched dramas, actually melodramas of such ‘probes’ and many words that were said, rather than reacting critically to them, our ‘creative’ youths turned them into comedy skits. They moved on to watch what seems more important to them, the BBNaija, or whatever it is called.
Beyond impunity and lack of accountability, the general apathy of the public has further strengthened the hands of our legislators who are more interested in performing executive functions. To give it even some kind of legitimacy, they enacted and passed into law what they call constituency projects, perhaps to counter the executives, as they ‘enjoy’ the unaccounted-for security votes.
With the current arrangement, by which the legislators, turning what could have a legitimate means of checks and balances into extortion, sometimes arm-twisting of policy implementers through corrupt practices of contract awarding, the whole essence of the presidential system has suffered incurable damages. Quite unfortunate, too many leaders of government agencies only grumble behind the scenes and keep ‘complying’ with the monetization philosophy of the so-called oversight functions.
As it stands now, there is no difference between an average police checkpoint known for extortion and the various committees who have to turn their oversight to mere checkpoints for contract and budget padding. The only difference is one wears uniform.
Will the situation have been different if we had stuck to our parliamentary system, especially if 1966 had not happened? Are there means of remedying the broad day robbery by the lawmakers using the instruments of law to coerce and steal our commonwealth dry? Can the Judiciary rise to the occasion without being bogged down by technicalities to put the nation on a great pathway? Are the executives strong enough to confront the rots known to many, but openly admitted by few, to rescue us from the looming collapse of the system? For the simple sake of asking questions, what has the oversight functions achieved for the nation? Are there means to measure, what benefits, if there is any, that the country obtained from the so-called oversight functions?
Monetization might be well-intended, but the reality today is that it has opened new vistas full of cans filled worms, that many pretend do not exist, but is gradually destroying our collective vineyards. Who will deliver us from the ‘little foxes’ in the name of oversights destroying our vineyards?
It is still your ©TheVillageBoy