It may perhaps be understandable if Nigeria’s first citizen is a cool-headed fellow. At least, Umar Yar’Adua is living to that billing except that his gentle approach has even generated public criticisms of the pace of governance.
That this relaxed atmosphere in the country is not being appreciated as a remarkable change from the previous eight years of a tension-soaked rampaging administration vividly illustrates our complex nature as a people.
The impression created by critics of Yar’Adua’s careful steps is that the man either does not know how to go about it or even both. Should these critics still believe they are correct in their assessment of Yar’Adua, then nobody should complain the day the man accelerates. Yar’Adua?

The same man who completely removed the entire military leadership twice within 15 months of ruling the country?
The same Yar’Adua, who after the second time of sacking highest–ranking military hierarchy, took off on foreign trip without caring a hoot about whatever consequences or indeed, resistance from the armed forces against the removal (be it sack or retirement) of their bosses? Yar’Adua, who (for yet undisclosed reasons) dropped erstwhile secretary to the government of the federation, Babagana Kingibe?

Was he not the same Yar’Adua who, only six months in office, dismissed ministers and senior civil servants and arraigned (not arranged) them in court for an uncertain criminal trial on flouting his (Yar’Adua’s) presidential directive that all unspent public funds should be returned to the treasury?
You dare Yar’Adua at your peril. This seems the necessary caution the National Assembly, especially the Senate arm, is not yet taking. And like a crafty fox, Yar’Adua is goading the National Assembly on. He once voted a national budget bill and was supported (in this column). But he was threatened with impeachment if he failed to implement the budget provisions.
It was one of those moments of unnecessary compromise moreso as the National Assembly tricked him (Yar’Adua) to save their (National Assembly) face by signing the bill first, to later present an amendment bill. Again, Yar’Adua was advised in this column to take the constitutional issue involved to Nigerian people but he developed cold feet and gave in.

And what was the constitutional issue at stake? The power of National Assembly to legislate and how or on what. If unknown to President Yar’Adua, the very showdown, from which he ran last time, is coming up again rather subtly. And by the time he gives in this time, Yar’Adua would have allowed the National Assembly to amend Nigeria constitution through the backdoor to deprive him (Yar’Adua) the sole constitutional prerogative to appoint ministers of his choice and the power to reshuffle his cabinet the way he pleases.

Yet, the man is not a pushover as he appears or is misunderstood by observers to be. The only problem is that he is misdirecting his energy at a mistaken enemy. For example, last time, following some admittedly rare but expected judicial pronouncements on some of the controversies triggered by the 2007 presidential and governorship elections, Umar Yar’Adua most unusually expressed displeasure at his impression that the judiciary was playing to public gallery.
Was that really so or should he (Yar’Adua) have grumbled publicly at a time the same judiciary was still to determine the legal challenge to his (Yar’Adua’s) election victory of 2007?

It was for specific purpose of non-conflict among the various arms running Nigerian government that the power, functions and limits of each arm – executive, judiciary and legislature – are clearly spelt out in our constitution. So far, Yar’Adua’s complaint against the judiciary allegedly playing to the gallery is baseless. If anything, the judiciary should be faulted for double standard.
Some courts of law perpetually restrained the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission from arresting or interrogating some of Yar’Adua’s ex-governor friends while another court asserted the right of the same EFCC to arrest its former boss, Nuhu Ribadu, known not to be in the governments good books. In short, the judiciary has been pandering more to Yar’Adua than the public.
Still, the judiciary has not strayed from its constitutional power especially limit of interpreting laws of the land.
President Yar’Adua’s real combatant is the National Assembly and the impression so far is that he is so scared of that group even when it pokes its finger in his (Yar’Adua’s) face. Otherwise, why can’t Yar’Adua assert his constitutional authority when challenged or violated by the National Assembly, specifically the Senate?

Ironically, the same President Yar’Adua has been vindicated on his initial face-off with the National Assembly on the 2008 fiscal bill before he compromised. Clearly, President Yar’Adua was, at that time, subdued because the National Assembly dangled its purported power to legislate on fiscal matters and to impeach a president it (National Assembly) may accuse of failing to implement such fiscal act.
Yar’Adua should not have been rattled. The constitutional authority of a president on fiscal matters is superior and more to public good than that of the National Assembly. Better put, only the President of the Federal Republic can make budget proposals to the National Assembly whose main function of legislation is to ratify or reject strictly for public good.

The power of the National Assembly to legislate on fiscal matters is not to legislate Nigeria into bankruptcy. Oil is our main source of revenue and when the price was alarmingly unstable but so high at one hundred and fifty dollars per barrel, Yar’Adua based the 2008 budget on a benchmark of just over fifty dollars.
That budget proposal was reasonable with the idea that our foreign reserve was bogus and Nigeria should save for a rainy day. The total budget as Yar’Adua proposed was just over two trillion naira.

Rather than that, the National Assembly, threatening its so-called power to legislate on fiscal matters, raised the budget benchmark to almost sixty dollars and bloated Yar’Adua’s budget estimates by almost half a trillion naira. And for what purposes? Self-serving increases in the salaries and allowances the same Yar’Adua was too eager to announce sometime ago for National Assembly members, topped by so-called constituency projects.
Now, Yar’Adua is vindicated except that he did not stay to fight the National Assembly instead of allowing himself to be pushed to run Nigeria broke. Is Nigeria broke? That was a seeming correct interpretative report of President Yar’Adua’s address at the inauguration of National Infrastructure Commission carried by a section of the media, The Compass.

It may be charitable to concede some credit to Yar’Adua for his caution on the 2008 budget but for failing to stand firm, his otherwise merit is vitiated by his vicarious responsibility with the National Assembly for the present state of Nigeria’s finances. As warned in this column at that time, suddenly oil prices slumped from one hundred and fifty dollars per barrel to just about a third such that the National Assembly may now reduce its own (not Nigeria’s budget) allocation by about half.

This same National Assembly has now returned to its correct position of legislation on fiscal matters, which is strictly to guard our national purse by curbing the excesses of a free spending reckless president. At least, such constitutional power of the National Assembly does not extend to ripping open the treasury for uncontrolled expenditure.
Now, with this background of bitter lesson, there is this on-coming legislative excess if not ignorance of the National Assembly and against which President Yar’Adua has no choice but to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court for correct interpretation. At best, he can prevent the showdown by making Aso Rock stand public in unambiguous terms.

Not long ago, Yar’Adua sent to the Senate a list of prospective ministers for necessary screening as required under the constitution. The pace of the screaming was so slow and scrappy that questions were being raised by the public and the press.
To assuage the public, some senators explained the delay to the fact that portfolios were not attached to the names of the ministerial nominees. Never since the introduction of presidential system of government in 1979 had the portfolios of potential ministers been attached to their names. And such demand or excuse is a clearly against the provisions of Nigerian constitution.

Indeed, assignment of portfolios of ministers appointed by the sole prerogative of the president. It therefore seems our national and state assembly members are operating a system they do not understand. What then have they been gaining from various retreats at home and learning trips abroad?
For the avoidance of doubt, the Nigerian constitution does not require the president to assign portfolios to ministerial nominees being screened. Second, the president enjoys the constitutional freedom to reshuffle his cabinet as and when he may deem fit. If therefore, there is to be a change in these provisions, that is a monumental amendment to the constitution, the procedure of which are well set out in the constitution.
However, imagine this. Senator Mamora (Lagos) prides himself as having introduced The Tenure of Office Bill which has passed the first reading. The provisions of the bill are so laughable because they are entirely shadow-chasing.

Among others, the bill will compel the president to sack any minister or appointed official of the Federal Government whose nomination was confirmed by the Senate upon the receipt of a resolution by a two-third majority of lawmakers (clearly in the National Assembly) that such an official/appointee be removed.
Who do these senators think they are? We are in a democracy and senators want to acquire the power to appoint, query, and remove public appointees at their (senators) whim and caprices?

Hear him, Senator Mamora: “I am coming out with that bill. I believe that we should compel Mr President to attach portfolios to the nominees because the whole essence is to determine the suitability of that individual for that office and how do you determine the suitability of that person if you don’t know what capacity that person would be serving.
“We need to take a step further so that we can achieve that good governance. Look at Obama in the United States. Already, he is attaching portfolios such as secretary of state or Attorney-General.”

Mamora excitedly added that it is not within the contemplation of the constitution to just say that we confirm. Once it is not within the contemplation of the constitution for any present discomforting situation, no ordinary bill can change that situation. My change requires amendment to the constitution to be spell out in clear terms the intent of the provision(s) of the constitution concerned.
In our particular situation, appointment of ministers is deliberately in the constitution predicated on ordinary screaming, moreson considering the destabilising character of Nigerias, many of whom nobody ever bargained would ever find their way to our federal and state parliaments.

Take the impeachment clause for example. Through senseless misuse of that constitutional power, almost all speakers of the 36 states have been impeached, including the first speaker of House of Representatives. At least three Senate Presidents have been impeached at the instigation of Obasanjo presidency. These same senators. To now confer them with the power to compel the president to sack a public office holder or to withhold the clearance of any nominee?
In the absence of any major personal record, any nominee for any particularly is the sole prerogative of the president. And when the president’s cabinet takes off why should he lose the right to reshuffle his cabinet or must the president submit his cabinet reshuffle proposals to the Senate again for approval?
Who assesses the capabilities of senators or their performance. A great number of them have not made a single notable contribution to debates, since the life of this senate. These are the non-entities. The real entities are not many and were not rigged in.

The proposed Tenure Bill has wide-ranging implications, some of them with potential for constitutional crisis. The president will have to submit the list of ministers to be involved in any impending reshuffle for Senate re-screening. The President will then become a figure-head a the mercy of overbearing senators. The President knows the capabilities of his ministers and must have his freedom to move them around abridged in any form, not even by any amendment of the constitution not talk of an unconstitutional bill.

Currently, the sing-song is to cite Barrack Obama in the United States. What our senators or politicians of all the parties fail to add is that Nigeria could never and will never produce an Obama mainly owing to their lack of understanding of democracy especially by the state governors.
Nigerian constitution is not American constitution and the political environment of the two countries is as different as their climates. Our senators could not have allowed Obama to emerge on his personal merit and that is why these senators must be day-dreaming with their bill for the power to compel a Nigerian president to indicate whatever portfolio a ministerial nominee would hold.

We can pre-empt them in that fixatious that a journalist can’t be cleared as works minister. Well, Lateef Jakande was not only a works minister but chairman of economic council. Our senators, if empowered would turn down a lawyer/journalist as a potential health or communications minister. Ladoke Akintola held both ministries at federal level comfortably. The senators would query the suitability of an educationist as minister of finance. Late J.A. Odebiyi was a successful Minister of Finance in the West.