Political representation enables the people of a democratic nation to choose, usually by election, some of their number to act on their behalf at a council of state, for it will be cumbersome for all to come in person to deliberate on matters of state, as obtained in the Greek city states.
Despite a representative National Assembly, Nigeria’s Constitution provides that the Federal Cabinet must have a minister from each of the states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, presumably to allow everyone a leg in where decisions about the realm are made.
It reminds one of Article V of The Articles of Confederation of the Original 13 American Colonies, which provides that “For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed…”
This is the way Section 14(3) of Nigeria’s Constitution puts it: “The composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria…”
This provision is a result of the practice of Nigeria’s unelected military governments, that operated sans legislative arm, and therefore felt the need to appoint ministers to represent the states at the centre and, possibly, to present the petitions of the states.
It must be that the ministers are expected to be in a position to articulate and present the prayers of their states to the President, who is the head of the Executive Branch that has responsibility to allocate Nigeria’s resources.
Section 148(2,a) of the Constitution provides that “The President shall hold regular meetings with the Vice President and all the Ministers of the Government of the Federation for the purposes of determining the general direction of domestic and foreign policies of the Government of the Federation.”
Section 14(b) of Nigeria’s Constitution provides that “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” To put it in the inelegant language of former Èkìtì State Governor, Ayo Fayose, government has the responsibility to provide “stomach infrastructure” for the people.
That the ministers have an implicit responsibility to explain government’s policies to the people is obvious in the errand that the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd), sent his ministers, each to their state, to explain government’s position on the #EndSARS protests of October 2020.
It also explains why the Federal Government, in addition to sending the ministers out, set up a delegation, led by the President’s Chief of Staff, Prof Ibrahim Gambari, to sound out the leadership of Nigeria’s six geo-political zones on matters affecting Nigerians.
But it appears that practically anyone who has been a minister from the beginning of the Fourth Republic in 1999 does not seem to know they have responsibilities of representation to the people of their respective states.
That, if you like to know, underscores the extent to which the state, and state actors, are alienated from the people of Nigeria. Ministers appear as if they are beholden only to those who appointed or nominated them for office.
To overcome that gap in governance, maybe ministers should be elected by the people of their states, and the nominations should not be left to the whims of the President, governors, or some political grandees of the states.
Also, maybe ministers should have weekly sessions like British Parliament’s Question Time in the National Assermbly to answer questions about their stewardship. This could be a way to hold ministers accountable to the people of their states, as prescribed by Section 22 of Nigeria’s Constitution.
Ministers would then be able to report what they are doing on behalf of their people while still in office. This is necessary because Nigerian Presidents are imperial, conceited, and are treated like God, who is infallible, even if they fail the people.
The NASS, with oversight responsibilities for the ministries, seemingly demands their stewardship report, not so much to ensure that the ministries, or ministers, work in the interest of the people, but to sniff what personal gains they can wrest therefrom.
There is a great concern that members of Nigeria’s legislative arm in the current dispensation neither represent anyone, nor present the prayers of the people for consideration and necessary action.
And it is increasingly looking as if only the media sets political agenda for Nigeria, almost solely presenting the people’s case to state actors who do not seem to know what their responsibilities are to the people of their states.
And, to be sure, you will observe that Section 47 of Nigeria’s Constitution that provides, “There shall be a National Assembly which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,” does not require members to be indigenes of the states they represent. Section 65(1,a) only requires them to be citizens of Nigeria.
But Section 147(1and3) specifically requires that “The President shall appoint at least one Minister from each state, who shall be an indigene of such State.” And for whatever it is worth, an “indigene,” in the opinion of Chambers English Dictionary, is an aboriginal or native.”
On the other hand, a “citizen,” according to the dictionary, is no more than an inhabitant of a city, a member of a state, a freeman, townsman or plain civilian,” a rootless quantity that the Yoruba will not regard as a “shon of the shoil.”
What this boils down to is that indigenes must now hold firmly to the ministers that represent their states in the federal cabinet and not the senators and members of the House of Representatives who represent their soulless states.
Traditionally, members (especially of the lower chamber) of the British Parliament represented the people. Some of their members also formed the cabinet in order to directly articulate policies and invoke the legislative authority needed to meet the needs of their constituents.
It is not so with the House of Representatives, the lower chamber, of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic parliament. It is also unlike the House of Representatives of Nigeria’s First Republic, out of which ministers of government were chosen.
Members of the lower chambers of the British Parliament and of the First Republic Parliament of Nigeria, had constituency offices which were real collection and collation centres of the prayers of the people. Most constituency offices these days are manned by incompetents who have no idea of what is expected of them.
Maybe that is why today’s representatives, realising that their relevance to their constituents is almost nil, invented constituency projects that have unfortunately turned out to be resource haemorrhaging devices.
Indeed, constituency projects, with budget padding, have become another word for diversion of the people’s commonwealth to individual purposes. It is called corruption or plain stealing in some circles.
Nigerians should “borrow themselves sense,” acknowledge the new reality, and focus their attention on the ministers that represent them. The Yoruba would advise one to forsake high viscosity “ogbono,” and prepare the more syrupy okra, soup.
Ministers should be encouraged to perform the responsilities bestowed upon them by the Nigerian Constitution, and leave alone the Ephraim legislators who are wedded to their idol of lethargy.
The people seem to have a better chance to consummate their social contract with the ministers than with the legislators.
Ministers should be encouraged to perform the responsilities bestowed upon them by the Nigerian Constitution, and leave alone the Ephraim legislators who are wedded to their idol of lethargy.
The people seem to have a better chance to consummate their social contract with the ministers than with the legislators.
