Executive-Legislative Relations in Nigeria: the Presidency and the National Assembly, 1999 - 2006
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NJSS VoL 4, No.1, 2007,p. 187- 210 Executive-legislative Relations in Nigeria: the Presidency and the National Assembly, 1999 - 2006 Peter Mbah Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka [email protected] Abstract This study examines the rancorous relationship between Obasanjo's Presidency and the National Assembly from 1999 to 2006. It argues that recent attention to executive-legislative relations has tended to focus on the perceived adverse impact of conflict between the executive and the legislature. A variety of viewpoints have also been expressed both about conflict and cooperation. The extant literature has been suggesting that one or the other dominates, and benefits or liabilities result from either. Writers see conflict between the two branches as the unavoidable teething problems of the nascent democracy. The article contends that the rancorous relationship between the Executive and the National Assembly were based on personal interest and personality clashes and constitutional ambiguities in the 1999 constitution concerning the powers of the two organs. The article also examines the theoretical insight to this problem and comes to the conclusion that since Nigerian state came into existence albeit as peripheral variant of monopoly capitalism, this state shows all the interventionist character in addition to its unique form especially its underdevelopment and dependence, its authoritarianism and its low autonomy. These situations have made the relationship between the two leading branches of government conflictive in nature. Introduction Nigeria is a new nation, a heterogeneous and multi-ethnic society beset by numerous cleavages and centrifugal tendencies. It is usually difficult to achieve and maintain cordial relationship between the executive and the legislature in stable democracies and even more so in a post-colonial, plural and emergent democratic system like Nigeria. This is because deep social divisions tend to be over politicised and easily support instability. As a colonial state the structure left behind by the British colonial power proved incapable of welding the multi-ethnic society into virile nation. Thus Nigeria was born, bearing the trappings of a republican style of civilian administration but lacking the socio-cultural and political nexus necessary for its sustainability. The long association between Nigeria and Britain meant that in transition from colonial status to independence, the pattern of government was built 187 188 NJSS Vol. 4, No.1, 2001 on the outlines of "West Minster Model" - a system, similar to that operative in the United Kingdom. The fate of government as well as executive-legislative relations under the parliamentary system hinges on the management of relationships among the parties, as well as on the government's ability to muster and hold together a reliable majority of supportive votes. The executive-legislative conflict that ensure when the supportive votes ofNCNC were withdrawn and the tragic end of the first Republic reflected the very worst of what could happen under the parliamentary system. A cynical manipulation of parliamentary votes, could keep a government in power with indifference to the democratic yearnings and needs of the people. The decision to abandon the West Minster model constitution for the more , radical' Washington model' was taken in the hope that it would usher in a clean political life in the second Republic. Nigerians greeted the presidential system at inception in October, 1979 with euphoria. But the second Republic (1979-1983) may be described as the most callous so far in Nigeria's history. It was an opportunity for politicians to exhibit the experience they had acquired during the thirteen years of military rule. But as it turned out, the political class then, in brazen departure from the expectations of Nigerians, lost sight of their responsibility to their people and constituencies. Instead, the business of governance was turned into a frenzied orgy of inglorious plundering and looting of public treasury (Agi, 1985: 23) . Executive -legislative relations was far from being cordial. The National Assembly during this period (1979-1983) tended to destroy what it could not create. While attempting to make the executive uncomfortable, they at the same time tried to make themselves as comfortable as possible, sometimes at the expense of the executive and the masses (Nigerian Economist, 1993: 12). The Third Republic is a bit more difficult to define in terms of date and the relationship between the executive and the legislature at the federal level. During this period (1985-1993), civilian governance had been instituted at local government and state levels, yet a military dictator was heading the federal government. The National Assembly had also been functioning but it was apparently difficult to explain the relationship between the elected members of legislature and the military dictator in the person of general Babangida who then still held the position of a president. th On May 29 , 1999 Nigeria completed its transition programme that enthroned democracy after sixteen years of military rule. The presidential system was retained. Today, the political terrain is however difficult because of many years of military neglect and mismanagement of the Nigerian economy. The present National Assembly is dominated by politicians from the president's party; Peoples Democratic Party (POP). We have a president with strong views, a penchant for straight talk and impatience to get on with the job. It is an explosive mixture (Ukwu, 2001: 6). However, the conflicts between the executive and legislature have been noted more for intrigues of interests and personality clashes than -conflicts-of ,. "'- .. -- ." .. PeterMba 189 principles and programmes. The moribund political structures consequent on military rule, have become problematic today. The relationship between the executive and the legislature has been fraught with series of crisis in the last three years. There have been sharp conflicts in the 1999,2000,2001,and 2002 appropriation bills between the National Assembly and President Obasanjo over the passage of the bill. There were also disagreement between the National Assembly and the President over skewed ambassadorial appointment, National Assembly pay details, the May 29 public holiday issue in 2000 among others, have constituted serious areas of conflict between the two leading institutions of government since 1999 in Nigeria. Understanding Executive-Legislative Relations Recent attention to executive-legislative relations in Nigeria have tended to focus on the passive adverse impact of conflicts between the executive and legislature. A wide variety of view points have been expressed, both about conflicts and co-operations, where one or the other dominates, and whether benefits or liabilities result from either. Journalists, scholars and other observers, (for instance, see conflict between the executive and the legislature in Nigeria as necessary and beneficial precondition to limiting and controlling the government). Others view it as constituting a gridlock in major public policy decisions, thus making government ineffective. Struggling in climate of partisanship and distrust in the National Assembly and the Executive branch often appear paralysed and locked in a permanent political standoff. More often, they relate with each other as adversaries, not as responsible partners in governing. One of the most open secrets of the present civilian government in Nigeria is the crisis between President Obasanjo and the National Assembly. Within two years, two senate presidents have been impeached, one speaker of the House of representative have been disgraced out of office, his replacement has come close to impeachment at least twice and there have been financial scandals/probes in both the senate and the house of representatives. Many legislators see the proverbial "hand of Esau and voice of Jacob" in these events. Consequently, many allegations have been made. Accusing fingers have been pointing at President Obasanjo of bribing some legislators to destabilize the National Assembly. On one occasion, sacks of money supposedly returned by conscience-stricken legislators were tended in evidence. On its part, the House of Representatives have censured the executive. Severally, the Senate have probed financial transaction in at least one ministry and article of impeachment have been raised against the President. These events are related directly and indirectly to the increasingly strained relations between the executive and kgislature, and they undermine democratic consolidation (Ibcanu, 190 N.JSS VoL 4, No.1, 2007 2002: 7). Additionally, there exist a plethora of questions on issues pertaining to these conflicts between the executive and the legislature in Nigeria since 1999. The 1999 elections made People's Democratic Party (PDP) pivotal in the National Assembly. Nigerians expected that acting upon their strengthened bargaining position in the National Assembly that the President's bills would sail through with minimum difficulties. It was assumed that a party with a majority in the legislature and controls the executive will then be able to carry out its platform. This has not been the case. Commentators have predominantly explained the conflictive relations between the National Assembly and the Presidency in two related ways. According to Ibeanu, some see them as the unavoidable teething problems of the recent democracy. Consequently,