Jonathan Explains Why He Didn’t Sign Amended Constitution

President Goodluck Jonathan has given reasons why he refused to pen his signature to the constitution amendment bill forwarded to him by the National Assembly, yesterday April 15.

President Goodluck Jonathan has given reasons why he refused to pen his signature to the constitution amendment bill forwarded to him by the National Assembly, yesterday April 15.



According to Vanguard, Goodluck Jonathan in a letter entitled: “Re: Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Fourth Alteration Act, 2015”, raised 13 grounds why he refused to assent to the bill


Among his reasons for rejecting the bill was the power the National Assembly has to arrogate to itself the power to pass any constitution amendment without the assent of the president.

He faulted the bill for allowing the National Judicial Council to appoint the attorney general of the federation, for separating the office of the accountant general of the federation from that of the federal government, for limiting the period when expenditure can be authorized in default of appropriation from six months to three months, and for whittling down the power of the president, among other criticisms.

Jonathan explained that there were a number of provisions in the Act that altogether constitute flagrant violations of the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the 1999 Constitution, and unjustifiably whittle down the executive powers of the federation vested in the president by virtue of Section 5 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

He noted that the right of the president to withhold his assent to bills passed by the National Assembly was part of the checks and balances contained in the constitution.

He said: “The provision appears not to have taken cognizance of the afore-mentioned variables, the vagaries inherent in the legislative process and the wisdom in requiring two-thirds majority to override the President’s veto.

“In the light of the above, I am of the view that the failure to signify assent by the President within the prescribed period of 30 days should rather be treated as dissent, which would require two-thirds majority to override.”



He also faulted Section 84a that created the new office of the Accountant General of the Federation distinct from the Accountant General of the Federal Government, saying it did not address the funding requirements for establishment of the office.

On the controversy between Jonathan and the National assembly, some eminent lawyers backed the president’s decision not to sign the amended bill, but advised that some of the sections he rejected would be of benefit to the country if applied.