Why new states and LGs can’t be created (4), By Eric Teniola.

Why new states and LGs can’t be created (4), By Eric Teniola. 

From last week continues the speech by Justice Udo Udoma, Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, averring during his ruling on June 1, 1978 that it would be meaningless to consider proposals for the creation of over 40 new states

THIS is a difficult matter of considerable historical importance which cannot be dismissed summarily. Realising the sensitive nature of the matter and the depth of feelings of some honourable members on the issue of the creation of new states, I felt impelled to allow the debate on the matter to be opened. In the ordinary course of events I should have refused the Amendments to be listed, and, if listed, to have them struck off as not only out of order but disorderly. 

“The debate has been interesting but somewhat noisy. Members have conducted them with decorum and restraint. Honourable Members without dubiety appreciate that the creation of state is a matter of high governmental policy, which at once involves and calls into play two important arms of government, namely: the Legislature and the Executive. In the present circumstances, this Assembly is a legislature of a specialised kind with very restricted powers. It lacks executive authority. At present executive authority is vested in the Federal Military Government which, incidentally, also functions as the legislature. 

“Since the Assembly has no executive authority, if the House should write into the Constitution a decision to create new states, it would in effect be interpreted as a command directed to the Federal Military Government to create the states before handing over power to civilian government. The result of such a course of action would surely lead to a direct confrontation with the Federal Military Government having regard to its policy.

Such a course of action is undesirable. The Federal Military Government has committed itself to a decision never to create any new state before handing over power in 1979. That decision, it seems to me, is irrevocable. It is rigid and compels respect. It is only right that this Assembly should respect that decision especially as it was made long before the Assembly was set up. It is common knowledge that the Federal Military Government has resolved firmly to push forward with its programme towards handing over power and nothing would deflect it from that course of action.

It is my duty to advise the House to desist from any course of action likely to result in a direct confrontation with the Federal Military Government in the interest of progress, peace and stability before transfer of power, which would restore to our country in the eyes of the world its self-respect as a giant democracy and potential world power. 

“Then, there is the legal aspect of these Amendments. As honourable members know, the Assembly was set up for a specific purpose. It is governed and regulated by both the Decree No. 50 of 1977 and the Standing Orders made there-under. Under the Decree and the Standing Orders, this Assembly is empowered to deliberate upon the Bill and enact the same into law. In exercise of its power, the Assembly under Section 100 of the Constitution has made adequate provisions for the creation of new states.

When those provisions were evolved, there was no reservation which would now entitle the Assembly to venture into the field of the creation of new states. It should be observed that the boundaries of some of these states remain nebulous and undefined so that it would be impossible to even determine their physical features and location. It is my considered view that the present proposals for the creation of new states are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 100 of the Constitution.

It is also my considered view that the under the Decree establishing this Assembly, this House has no legal power to create new states. Indeed, the Assembly would be acting ultra vires its power to do so: and both the Federal Military Government and any incoming governments would be entitled to treat any state so created by mere resolution with contempt.

“These proposed amendments have nothing to commend themselves. They are disorderly. They have all been brought under the wrong section of the Bill, the appropriate section which deals with the creation of new states being Section 100. The amendments are therefore struck out as disorderly”. 

In spite of the ruling by Justice Udo Udoma, those who wanted new states created never relented. At the resumed seating of the Assembly on June 5, Monday, there was pandemonium. Justice Udo Udoma was forced to adjourn the Assembly, sine die. The Assembly did not sit again. When the Constitution was announced by the military, a few months later, section 8 which was never discussed or adopted by the Constituent Assembly formed part of the Constitution. Of the 242 members, including nominated members, I think only four are still around today. Chief Bisi Akande, Mr. Mvenda Jibo, Senator Iya Abubakar and Chief Abiola Ogundokun are still around. They are living witnesses. 

#Aina Stephen