On 18th April, 2013, the Hon Emeka Ihedioha-led Constitution Amendment Committee of the Federal House of Representatives presented the collated results of the Peoples’ Public Session on Constitution Review. This great event is a culmination of the Peoples Public Session on Constitution Review which was flagged off in the House of Representatives on Thursday, November 8, 2012. On Saturday, 10th, November, the actual Peoples Public Session (PPS) took place in each of the 360 Federal Constituencies across the country. It was a day the wind of democracy swept through the nooks and crannies of the nation as the constituents in each constituency hobbled together in various venues in order to participate in the making of history- the first time Nigerians were producing a home-grown constitution they can call their own.
The venues were thronged by constituents from all walks of life and the Honourable member from each federal constituency called the shots and directed affair to the admiration of all. In order to ensure that deliberations were properly guided, result oriented and systematic, the agenda of the Peoples’ Public Session was anchored on a 43- item template which reflected the core areas for deliberation. In the spirit of democracy, the template also made provision for discussions on any areas the constituencies in their wisdom felt were relevant in the search for a home-grown constitution.
The various sessions were made up of human rights activists, members of the various professional bodies, the organized private sector (OPS), gender advocacy groups, dons from the academia, student groups and members of town union/market associations, hewers of wood and drawers of water. The Peoples’ Public Session was the veritable leveller which brought all the social classes under one roof for the love of country in a frank and candid search for a constitution which we can proudly describe as our own. It is pertinent to state that since the amalgamation of 1914, our constitution had always been imposed on us by our colonial masters or they were forced down our throats by the jackboots of the various military juntas that shot their ways to power. In spite of this undemocratic method of imposing the constitution on the people, such Constitutions always had the erroneous preamble of “We, the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, having firmly resolved…”
It is in order to extricate ourselves from the clutches and virus of an imposed constitution that the Emeka Ihedioha-led adhoc Constitution Review Committee of the House of Representatives worked assiduously to give Nigeria a constitution that is not tainted by the virus of imposition or militarism. It is against this background that Nigerians must appreciate the herculean task that confronted Hon. Emeka Ihedioha, the Deputy Senate President of the Federal House of Representatives, who also doubles as the Chairman of the House Committee on Constitution Amendment.
In order to enable the citizenry to contribute to the emerging new constitution, the Peoples’ Public Session was anchored on a 43- item template. The template captured a long list of critical topics which were areas of interest to the constituents. Some of these topics include recognition of the six zonal structure, States creation, creation and funding of local government areas, citizenship, Indegenship question, residency, justice, economic and social rights, fiscal provisions, separation of the office of Accountant General of the whole Federation and Accountant General of the Federal Government, Independence of State legislatures, amendments to the Executive list, fiscal federalism, abolition of State electoral Commissions, immunity clause, State police question, zones and power sharing, term of office of governors and presidents, independent candidacy, voting age, Diaspora voting, single National chamber legislature, presidential or parliamentary systems and several others.
One must commend the sincerity of Hon. Emeka Ihedioha when he said that “this process may not be perfect, but I dare say that it is the first time in the history of this country that Nigerians at the grassroots have been made part of the Constitution Review process in a practical and transparent manner”. I concur entirely with this observation and commend the tenacity and sincerity of purpose of the Emeka Ihedioha-led team. Above all, one must also commend the ebullient and indefatigable Speaker of the House,Hon Barrister Aminu Waziri Tambuwal whose managerial acumen and sagacity provided the logistics and enabling environment that facilitated this successful venture.
When this onerous task of producing a new Constitution is successfully executed, the National Assembly (NASS) will have gradually transmuted the country from a period of flag independence to a full blown democratic dispensation. Yes, it is pertinent to emphasize for the umpteenth time that at the end of the joint harmonization with the Senate, Nigeria would have got a constitution which we can be proud to call our own. This is a milestone in our democratic journey to nation State. This development is amazing because If this task is successfully executed, the present National Assembly (NASS) would have achieved a record that is both record setting and record shattering. It is also hoped that the new constitution will guard against the perpetration or perpetuation of injustice on any citizen irrespective of his station in life because in the words of the former United States President, Abraham Lincoln, “No man is good enough to rule another without his consent” and in the same vein it was Martin Luther King Jr who once said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.
In conclusion, there is a need to emphasize that on that appointed day of the presentation of the Peoples’ Public Session Report(18th April,2012), the NASS was taken over by a sea of humanity as the optimists and the pessimists of the PPS scheme jostled for space to witness the making of history. While the optimists came to celebrate Hon. Emeka Ihedioha’s trail blazing feat, the pessimists came to mock his perceived ineptitude and eventual descent into the Hall of Infamy. But at the end of the event, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha cut a niche for himself as a politician who does not belong to the clan of talk- and- talk politicians but rather a classic example of a talk-and-do politician, a dependable and reliable ally and above all a man of massive integrity and reputation who should be considered for higher responsibilities. After all, a popular maxim says: “the only reward for hard work is more work”.
It is pertinent to recall that during his annual Constituency briefing to his constituents in December, 2012, Honourable Emeka Ihedioha had announced to an excited crowd that in the first quarter of 2013, his Committee would present the collated result of the Peoples Public Session to Nigerians. This revelation was greeted with a thunderous applause which shook the venue of the Constituency briefing-his palatial country home- to its foundation. Nonetheless, there were cynics and skeptics who turned their noses up in disbelief because they held the opinion that nothing would come out of the Peoples’ Public Session. To such group, the PPS was merely a jamboree,j an avenue for looting the commonwealth.
his line of thought gained momentum when the presentation of the collated results which was earlier scheduled to hold on Thursday, January 31, 2013 was swiftly postponed indefinitely thus causing the cynics to brag that it was a case of de javu. However, such congenital cynics/pessimists became devastated when Hon. Emeka Ihedioha punctured their balloon when he announced that a new date of Thursday, April 18th, 2013, had been fixed for the presentation of the collated results at the National Assembly, Abuja.
In the case of Hon. Emeka Ihedioha who has acquitted and distinguished himself in the Green Chamber, perhaps, a higher responsibility may he in his continuing to serve in the Green Chamber where he has excelled in order to move up the ladder and take over the driver’s seat as Speaker. Of course, he may also decide to look in the direction of the Red chamber in order to actualize his political ambition. In the politics of Nigeria, the Green chamber is synonymous with the House of Representatives while the Red Chamber is composed of the Senate, the Governorship, and the Presidency. As 2015 beckons, it is left for Hon. Emeka Ihedioha to pick his choice and we pray that Providence guides his steps aright. In order for Providence to guide him aright, we enjoin Hon. Emeka Ihedioha to strive to sustain his attachment to transparency, diligence, and compassion and total loyalty to his immediate boss, the irrepressible and indomitable Speaker of the House of Representatives, Barrister Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, in his official engagements because this is the only way he can appropriate the Biblical injunction: “the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord”
JOHN I.MGBE
 |
|
Shettima at UNGA: Africa Demands a Seat at the Global Table
Nigeria has taken its campaign for a bigger African voice in global affairs to the heart of the United Nations, with Vice President Kashim Shettima demanding sweeping reform of the UN Security Council and permanent representation for Africa.
Delivering President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s address at the **81st United Nations General Assembly** in New York on Thursday, Shettima said the international system created after World War II could no longer adequately reflect the realities of the modern world.
Nigeria called for **at least two permanent seats for Africa**, with the full rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including veto rights for as long as the veto remains part of the Security Council, alongside **five non-permanent African seats**.
The demand puts Africa's long-standing campaign for greater representation at the centre of Nigeria's message to world leaders.
1945 cannot define 2026’
The Nigerian delegation argued that the distribution of power established in 1945 has left Africa under-represented in the institution responsible for some of the world's most consequential decisions on peace and security.
For Abuja, the issue is not simply about seats at the UN. It is about giving African countries a greater role in decisions that directly affect the continent.
Nigeria anchored its position on the **Ezulwini Consensus**, the African Union's common position on Security Council reform.
CONFLICTS: NIGERIA CALLS FOR DIPLOMACY
Shettima's address also turned to the conflicts confronting the international community.
Nigeria called for stronger diplomacy, respect for international law and protection of civilians, while urging greater international efforts to resolve conflicts, including the crisis in Sudan.
The Nigerian position was that lasting peace cannot be secured solely through military action and that diplomacy, dialogue and negotiated settlements remain essential tools for resolving conflicts.
TERRORISM: ‘NO COUNTRY CAN FIGHT ALONE’
With Nigeria continuing to confront terrorism and other forms of transnational crime, the address placed international security cooperation high on the agenda.
Nigeria called for stronger intelligence-sharing, action against terrorist financing and greater cooperation to prevent illicit weapons from crossing borders.
But Abuja also linked security to development, pointing to education, economic opportunity, accountable governance and protection of citizens** as important elements of long-term stability.
AFRICA’S WEALTH: FROM RAW MATERIALS TO INDUSTRIAL POWER
The Nigerian message went beyond politics and security.Tinubu's address, delivered by Shettima, called for Africa to transform its vast natural resources into industrial and economic opportunities by expanding **local processing, manufacturing, technology and value-added production**.
Nigeria also highlighted the African Continental Free Trade Area as an opportunity to expand intra-African trade and build stronger regional supply chains.
The message was clear: Africa's resources should generate greater value, jobs and investment within the continent rather than being exported largely in raw form.
CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT
Nigeria also reaffirmed its commitment to climate action, including its 2060 net-zero target, while stressing the need for financing, technology transfer and international support for developing countries.
Abuja argued that climate action and economic development should be pursued together, particularly in countries still struggling to provide reliable energy and economic opportunities for rapidly growing populations.
THE NIGERIAN MESSAGE
From the UN podium in New York, Shettima delivered a message that combined Nigeria's foreign-policy priorities with its wider vision for Africa: **greater representation, stronger security cooperation, economic transformation and a more inclusive international system.**
For Nigeria, the Security Council reform campaign remains a central part of that agenda.
The demand from Abuja is straightforward: **Africa should have a permanent voice in the room when decisions affecting international peace, security and global governance are made. And Nigeria says it intends to keep making that case.
News
CBN Slashes Interest Rate to 23% in Major Policy Adjustment
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has reduced its benchmark interest rate from 26.5 per cent to 23 per cent, marking a significant shift in its monetary policy direction.
CBN Governor, Olayemi Cardoso, announced the decision on Tuesday following the conclusion of the Monetary Policy Committee’s (MPC) 307th meeting in Abuja.
According to Cardoso, the committee reviewed developments in both the global and domestic economies, assessed emerging risks and considered their potential implications for monetary policy before reaching its decision.
“The Committee decided as follows: reset the monetary policy rate at 23 per cent,” the governor said.
The latest move represents a 350-basis-point reduction in the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR). It follows two consecutive MPC meetings at which the rate was left unchanged, after the committee lowered it by 50 basis points in February 2026.
In addition to cutting the MPR, the committee adjusted the standing facility corridor to +50 and -300 basis points around the new benchmark rate.
However, the CBN retained existing Cash Reserve Requirement (CRR) levels at 45 per cent for deposit money banks, 16 per cent for merchant banks and 75 per cent for non-TSA public-sector deposits.
Cardoso explained that the changes were designed to improve the effectiveness of monetary policy by strengthening the transmission of policy decisions through the financial system.
He said the adjustment was also part of efforts to restore the MPR as the primary signal of the CBN’s monetary policy and improve the operation of the monetary policy framework.
According to the governor, the MPC viewed the recalibration as an operational adjustment rather than a fundamental shift in the bank’s monetary policy stance.
“The Committee emphasized that the duration of the corridor does not constitute a change in the current monetary policy stance, but rather an operational reset to enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy and support the transition to an inflation targeting framework,” he said.
The committee also noted ongoing efforts by the CBN to strengthen its monetary policy implementation framework. Cardoso said transaction-based operational benchmarks had improved the transparency of money-market operations.
The MPC consequently concluded that resetting the MPR and adjusting the policy corridor would bring the monetary policy framework more closely in line with prevailing market conditions.
The committee said the changes are expected to improve policy transmission and reinforce the MPR’s role as the central benchmark for monetary policy.
Members further maintained that the latest adjustments should be viewed primarily as an operational realignment of the framework and not, in themselves, as a change in the underlying monetary policy stance.
Business
In The Spotlight
Editorial:Trump @ UNGA: Power Is Not a Substitute for Strategy
President Donald Trump came before the United Nations this week with a message that has defined much of his second presidency: The United States is powerful, it intends to use that power, and it will not permit international institutions to place limits on American sovereignty.
There was little ambiguity in the message. Trump celebrated military strength, demanded greater control over America’s borders, challenged international institutions and portrayed American technological leadership as a strategic necessity. On Iran, Gaza, immigration, the International Criminal Court and artificial intelligence, the president returned repeatedly to the same principle: Nations must defend their own interests, and the United States must remain free to act.
That is a coherent philosophy. But coherence is not the same as effectiveness.
The question raised by this speech is not whether America should be strong. No serious foreign policy can begin from the premise that American power is irrelevant. The question is what that power is for — and whether it is being used in ways that make the United States more secure over the long term.
Trump's remarks on Iran illustrated the dilemma.
He reaffirmed that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and paired the possibility of diplomacy with warnings of devastating military consequences.
Deterrence has always depended partly on credibility. But credibility is not measured only by the willingness to threaten force. It is also measured by the ability to achieve a political outcome once force has been used.
Wars can begin with clear objectives and end with consequences no government anticipated. The history of American foreign policy offers ample evidence that military superiority does not automatically translate into political control.
That is why diplomacy cannot simply be regarded as the alternative to strength. At its best, diplomacy is one of the instruments through which strength is converted into durable agreements.
The same distinction matters in Trump's approach to the United Nations.
The president has argued that international institutions have become too costly, too bureaucratic and too willing to intrude upon national sovereignty. His administration has pursued reductions in America's financial and institutional commitments to the United Nations.
There is nothing inherently wrong with demanding accountability from an international organization. The United Nations deserves scrutiny. Its bureaucracy can be inefficient, its member states often disagree and its institutions can fail to prevent the very conflicts they were created to address.
But the choice is not simply between an ineffective United Nations and an unconstrained America.
International institutions exist in part because some problems cannot be solved effectively by individual nations acting alone. Nuclear proliferation is one. Global pandemics are another. Artificial intelligence increasingly belongs on that list.
Trump's comments about AI therefore deserve particular attention. He emphasized American technological leadership and warned against international regulation that could restrain innovation.
The United States has obvious reasons to remain at the forefront of AI development. But technological leadership and international coordination are not necessarily opposing objectives. The challenge is to develop rules that protect security without freezing innovation.
That requires American leadership, not American isolation.
The president's immigration argument followed the same pattern. He presented control of the border as an essential expression of national sovereignty and rejected the notion that international norms should prevent governments from determining who may enter their territory.
A sovereign nation plainly has an interest in controlling its borders. But sovereignty also carries responsibilities. The United States, like other countries, must reconcile border enforcement with its legal and humanitarian obligations.
The difficult work of governing begins where slogans end.
That is ultimately what was missing from the most sweeping parts of Trump's speech: not conviction, but attention to the institutional machinery required to turn conviction into lasting results.
America can impose costs on adversaries. It can withdraw from agreements. It can reduce contributions to international organizations. It can threaten overwhelming force. It can use its enormous economic and technological advantages.
But power has a second dimension that is easier to overlook: the ability to persuade allies, maintain coalitions, preserve diplomatic channels and build institutions capable of surviving changes in leadership.
The United States did not become the world's leading power merely because it possessed the world's strongest military. It built alliances. It established institutions. It cultivated economic relationships. It persuaded other countries that American leadership could serve interests beyond America's own.
Trump's speech represents a different emphasis.
It places sovereignty before institutions, pressure before accommodation and national interest before international consensus.
There is a legitimate debate to be had over whether the postwar international system has become too cumbersome, too expensive or insufficiently accountable. But reforming that system and weakening it are not the same thing.
The distinction will matter greatly in the years ahead.
A stronger America is not necessarily an America that stands alone. Nor is international cooperation synonymous with surrendering sovereignty.
The enduring challenge of American foreign policy is to combine power with restraint, independence with alliances and national interest with the recognition that American security is inseparable from the wider world.
Trump's speech made clear which side of that debate he occupies.The more consequential question is what happens next.
History will not ultimately judge the speech by its applause lines, its threats or its declarations of American strength. It will judge the policy that follows — and whether that policy produces a world in which the United States is not merely more powerful, but more secure.
Power matters. But power, by itself, is not a strategy.
In The Spotlight
Who Is in Charge? Tinubu Is in Paris, Shettima Is in New York
By now, Nigerians deserve more than explanations. They deserve clarity. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is in Paris. Vice President Kashim Shettima is in New York.
And Nigeria is in Abuja, Lagos, Kano, Port Harcourt, Maiduguri and everywhere else Nigerians are dealing with the daily business of surviving, working and waiting for government to deliver. So, a simple question is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid:Who is in charge?
Before anyone dismisses that question as opposition politics, let us establish the facts. Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for what the Presidency described as a working vacation. He subsequently moved from London to Paris and, on September 21, the Presidency announced that he had extended his stay by a few days and would return at the weekend.
Shettima left Nigeria on September 20 for New York, where he is representing the President and leading Nigeria's delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly.
The government says there is no vacuum. It says Tinubu remains in contact with officials at home and continues to direct the affairs of government. It also says Shettima has been given the President's mandate to represent Nigeria at the UN.
Fine. But that does not make the question disappear.It makes the question more important.
A country cannot run on “trust us”
Government is not supposed to operate on whispers, assumptions or political reassurance.It operates through institutions.
It operates through constitutional authority. It operates through clearly defined responsibilities. And when the President is abroad for an extended period while the Vice President is also outside the country, Nigerians have every right to ask where executive authority is located and who is exercising it.
This is particularly relevant because Nigeria's Constitution provides a specific mechanism for a President who is proceeding on vacation or otherwise unable to discharge the functions of office.
That mechanism exists for a reason.It is designed to prevent uncertainty.It is designed to prevent a vacuum.It is designed toensure that, at every moment, Nigerians know who is constitutionally responsible for the presidency.
So why should Nigerians have to debate the issue?
The Presidency says everything is fine
The government insists that there is no disruption to governance.The Presidency says Tinubu has remained engaged from abroad. It points to decisions taken by the President while away and says the Vice President's trip to New York is an official assignment.
There is nothing inherently unusual about a Nigerian president travelling abroad.There is nothing unusual about a vice president representing the country at the United Nations.
The problem is the combination.The President is away. The Vice President is away. And the country is being told that everything is perfectly normal.
Perhaps it is.But if it is, then proving it should be easy.Tell Nigerians clearly who is exercising presidential authority.
Tell Nigerians whether the constitutional procedure has been followed.Tell Nigerians who is accountable for presidential decisions while both men are outside the country.This should not be difficult.
Leadership is also about presence
There is a difference between saying government is functioning and demonstrating that leadership is present.Nigeria is not short of challenges.
The cost of living remains a major concern. Security remains a national issue. Unemployment and economic hardship continue to affect households. Nigerians are demanding better public services and greater accountability.
At such a moment, leadership cannot be reduced to whether instructions can be transmitted from one continent to another.
Leadership is also about visibility. It is about being present when the country needs reassurance. It is about being accessible when difficult questions arise. It is about giving citizens confidence that somebody is firmly in control. A president does not have to sit permanently in Aso Rock to govern Nigeria. But Nigerians should never be left wondering whether anyone is sitting firmly at the controls.
Paris is not Abuja
There is another uncomfortable truth.Nigeria's political class has become remarkably comfortable governing from airports, hotel suites, foreign capitals and conference rooms.The rest of the country does not have that luxury.
The Nigerian worker cannot take a working vacation from inflation.The small business owner cannot take annual leave from electricity costs.The parent struggling with school fees cannot postpone the bills until the President returns. The young graduate without a job cannot simply wait for the government to reconnect with reality.
For ordinary Nigerians, the country does not go on vacation.That is why the optics matter.While the President is in Paris and the Vice President is in New York, millions of Nigerians remain at home confronting the consequences of government policy every day.
This is bigger than Tinubu
The danger is that this debate becomes another partisan shouting match. Supporters will say the President is working.
Opponents will say the government has abandoned its responsibilities. Both sides can shout themselves hoarse.
But the Constitution does not work by volume. The question is not whether Tinubu's supporters are satisfied.The question is not whether his opponents are outraged.The question is whether the constitutional chain of executive authority is clear. That is an institutional question, not a party question. And the National Assembly has a role to play in ensuring that Nigerians are not left guessing.
Nigeria deserves an answer
There is something deeply unhealthy about a democracy in which citizens have to ask social media, political parties and television commentators who is exercising presidential power.
The answer should be official.It should be constitutional.It should be unambiguous.If Tinubu is fully exercising the powers of President from Paris, say so.If Shettima is exercising presidential functions under the constitutional provisions governing presidential absence, say so.If there is no constitutional problem, explain precisely why.
But please, stop treating a legitimate question as an attack on the government.A government confident in its constitutional position should welcome clarity.
Who is in charge?
This is ultimately not about Paris.It is not about New York.It is not even primarily about Tinubu or Shettima. It is about the Nigerian presidency. A republic of more than 200 million people should not have an invisible question mark hanging over its executive authority.
Tinubu can travel.Shettima can travel.Government can continue. But constitutional responsibility must remain visible.
Because when both the President and Vice President are outside the country, Nigerians should not have to look at a map to figure out where their government is.
They should be able to look at the Constitution.And the answer should be unmistakable.Who is in charge? Nigeria deserves to know.
By Emmanuel Emeke Asiwe, Publisher/Editor-in-Chief