By Ebere Agozie
Abuja, July 11, 2025 (NAN) A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mohammed Ndarani, SAN has advised the National Assembly to ensure that the current constitution review reflects the views of the people.
Ndarani gave the advice during a press conference on Friday in Abuja.
He noted that developments in the country today justify the complete overhaul and comprehensive amendment to the 1999 constitution, which was only made as an annexure to a military decree.
He said that the current constitution has gone through five amendments and yet, it is generally believed that it could be much better.
“My stand has always been to draft a totally new constitution but if we must continue to tinker with the same document over and over again, it has to be thorough this time around.
“There have been many efforts to knock it into shape, but with very little success.
“The truth, however is that the constitution has to be fundamentally solid and take into account the special characteristics of the entity for which the document is being drafted’’.
He advised that the process must draw from the peculiarities of Nigeria, the demographics, ethnicity, economic structure as well as the many other variables that make up this complex society called Nigeria.
“There is therefore a great need for the National Assembly to make provision for a proper referendum prior to amendments to those critical areas of the constitution.
“This is what will give the said constitution or act the touch of the people, imbue it with much-needed legitimacy and bring the laws closer to the people and vice versa.
“Considering that the Zonal public hearings are already underway, the voice of the people should be heard to ensure a greater relevance and acceptability of the outcome.
“The world over, constitutions are amended to respond to socio-economic, cultural and political changes, so the amendment process must entail the mass participation of the people’’.
The senior lawyer said that no constitution is entirely good or completely bad. It is believed that it all depends on the people who apply and implement the provisions.
“It must be transparent, credible and rigorous enough to ensure that it is done in the interest of the people, and not to protect the personal interests of some individuals.
“In many instances amendments are seen as a means of protecting vested interests as power blocs see the process as a political poker game, rather than a democratic rearrangement to benefit all’’.
Ndarani noted that Nigeria is a state founded on the principles of democracy and social justice, emphasizing that sovereignty belongs to the people.
“It also mandates the participation of the people in their government as enshrined in Chapter II, Section 14 of the Nigerian Constitution.
“It explicitly states that the people of Nigeria hold sovereignty, and the government’s powers and authority are derived from them.
“It equally ensures the participation of the people in their government through various means, as outlined in other sections and chapters’’.
He, therefore, wondered why the National Assembly removed some submissions of the people especially the one calling for a removal of the immunity clause.
“We are talking about fighting corruption at the highest places and they are refusing to allow debate on the removal of the immunity clause.
“Who told them to remove those submissions, was it the people? Removal of the mmunity clause is part of what the people want.
“The people want to be able to hold their leaders accountable and the removal of the immunity clause will help them gather evidence and prosecute erring leaders.
“We need naked justice. So, why did the National Assembly not allow the views of all the people who have submitted memoranda to be considered?”
He called on the National Assembly members to resist the urge to simply go, sit down in their houses and begin to handpick bills and memoranda according to their whims.
“They should allow whatever is the opinion of people on the people’s constitution to prevail.
“The drafters should listen more to the people and ensure that it is a national dialogue indeed, and a participatory constitutional reform process that reflects the aspirations of all Nigerians.
“The review should result in a responsive and efficient constitution that will address structural, fundamental and emerging issues within the Nigerian Federation.
“With the right constitution to guide the Nigerian nation, this country has the wherewithal to be one of the leading nations on earth,’’ he added.
“Let us put our heads and hands together to realize that greatness.”
The learned silk aligned himself with the indigeneship bill tabled by the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu.
Kalu had proposed a bill to grant indigene status to individuals who have resided in a state for 10 years or married a native, which has ignited deep controversy across Nigeria.
“I see it as a progressive move for national unity. Nigerian citizenship is primarily defined in Chapter 3 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
“It outlines three ways to acquire citizenship as long as you meet certain requirement by law, one of which is that a person born in Nigeria is a citizen by birth if either of their parents or any of their grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria.
“Nigeria should be operating along global standards by now.
“For example, in the UK or USA once you are a citizen, you have the right to contest for an elective position in any part of the country where you reside.
“Nobody should be prevented from contesting for a position because his parents were not from a particular city, state or locale. Citizenship should take precedence over other mundane considerations’’.
He reiterated that the preamble to the constitution says that `we are one indivisible nation, once we are citizens of Nigeria.
“That means that you take a position based on citizenship in the state, not on indigeneship. And there should be no discrimination.
“This citizenship provision is saying that Nigeria is one indivisible nation. It is Nigeria first, before individuals.
“That bill is very, very good and I also lend my voice to it, because that should be the ideal situation.
“The constitution should have state citizenship: that is you know where you come from, but once you have your citizenship, like in the UK, nobody will ask you where you are from.
