As I have said before in this column, Nigeria has acquired notoriety as a country whose political leaders do not respect its laws. This is a very worrisome development because any country where laws are not respected or where laws are bent for the convenience of certain individuals or groups of individuals can never ever experience any meaningful development. One typical example is the Presidential Pension Bill which the National Assembly passed into law on November 4, 2010. The Bill is meant to provide remunerations for former presidents, former heads of state and former vice-presidents. According to the Bill, the remunerations will continue even after the death of the recipients.

What is baffling is the sudden volte face of the Senate in restoring the status of former military heads of state as would-be beneficiaries of the presidential pension apparently because of intense pressure piled on members from certain quarters. The Senate did the right thing when it initially excluded the former military rulers and passed the Bill before harmonising it with the House of Representatives’ version. It ought to have stood by it because its position had the backing of the Constitution. Section 1(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which was even promulgated by the General Abdulsalami Abubakar federal military government reads: “The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

Nigeria’s  past con-stitutions had frowned at coups. Therefore, section (2) of the 1999 Consitution is a reaffirmation of that position.

This constitutional provision has no ambiguity and it has no proviso to exempt past military heads of state from the  effects of the law. So, their inclusion as beneficiaries of the presidential pension scheme is inconsistent with the provision of Section 1(2) of the constitution.

Section 1(3) is very clear on what happens when any other law is in conflict with any provision of the constitution. The section states:  “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” As it is, the inconsistent section of the Bill is null and void. It is up to President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution by refusing to give his assent to the Bill which is already technically dead.

For once, Nigerians must insist that this provision of the constitution be respected if it is not amended. The former military heads of state should be left out of the presidential pension scheme because they are already benefiting from an existing military pension scheme. It is even wrong as Ayogu Eze, chairman, Senate Committee on Media, said, to give them the option to choose which of the two schemes they wish  to enjoy. If they are given such option, definitely they will choose the presidential pension scheme which, unlike the military pension scheme, makes provision for their spouses or children to continue to enjoy the pension after their demise. If that happens, we will be sending out wrong signals to young military officers that coups are rewarding rather than punishable in Nigeria if they succeed.

Another sore point in the Bill is the inclusion of former senate presidents, deputy senate presidents, speakers, deputy speakers, House of Representatives, as well as former chief justices of Nigeria as beneficiaries of the presidential pension scheme. This has exposed the real motive of the lawmakers. The Bill is self-serving.

The federal lawmakers seem to carry their exaggerated self-importance a bit too far. Under no circumstance should they, for the purpose of the pension scheme, put the Senate president, the Speaker and their deputies on the same level as the president and the vice-president just because they are heads of the various chambers of the legislature.

They seem to forget that both the Senate president and the Speaker, House of Representatives, have limited electoral constituencies whereas the president and the vice-president have the whole country as their electoral constituency. That means that neither the Senate president nor the Speaker, House of Representatives, is elected by the entire country as is the case with the president and the vice. So, the Senate president or the Speaker cannot claim to be the father of the nation.

Constitutionally, the nation has the responsibility to cater for the president and the vice-president in and out of power. It is not so with the Senate president and the House Speaker who hold their positions as presiding officers at the pleasure of their colleagues. This, invariably means that the Senate president and the Speaker are just first among equals and can be replaced by other members whenever it suits them. Under this circumstance, it is morally wrong for the National Assembly to foist on Nigeria the burden of catering for its former heads and their deputies when they are out of power. I have carried out an extensive research ever since the Senate passed the Bill on November 4. I have not come across any country where the former heads of the legislature and their deputies draw pension after leaving office. The federal lawmakers should stop behaving like spoilt or overfed children who don’t care if the family has any problem in so far as their everyday needs are met. Let them not remind the international community of the earlier mistake we had made that the problem of Nigeria is not money but how to spend it. Nigeria’s problem today is money and that is why the president is seeking the approval of the National Assembly to go for external loans to finance infrastructural development.

Sms: 08023880068