News
Keyamo Lectures Buhari!
……. Says Minister of State Is Constitutional Aberration
The outgoing Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Festus Keyamo, has told President Muhammadu Buhari that the categorisation of some Ministers as Ministers of State is a constitutional aberration.
Keyamo stated this in his valedictory speech on Wednesday at the Council Chambers of the Presidential Villa, Abuja.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria, who pleaded that his position should not be seen as that of someone not grateful to the President for his appointment, said several factors made the designation of an appointee as a Minister of State an aberration and at the same time a figure head in the scheme of things.
He said that he hoped people would not misconstrue his thoughts about the office of minister of state because, according to him, he was given free hands to operate even as a junior minister in Buhari’s cabinet.
He said, “Mr. President, the concept or designation of “Minister of State” is a constitutional aberration and is practically not working for many so appointed. Successive governments have come and gone and many who were appointed as Ministers of State have not spoken out at a forum such as this because of the risk of sounding ungrateful to the Presidents who appointed them. However, like I said earlier, this is not ingratitude.
“As a private citizen, I am on record to have gone to court a number of times to challenge unconstitutional acts of governments for the sake of advancing our constitutional democracy, so it will be out of character for me to have gone through government and be carried away by the pomp of public office and forget my role as a member of the Inner Bar and my self-imposed role over the years as a crusader for democracy and constitutionalism.”
He said, “The Schedules of Duties of Ministers and Ministers of State that intend to cure some of these anomalies hardly help the issues. Firstly, the Schedules of Duties are observed more in breach by the Permanent Secretaries and Directors who really cannot be expected to serve two masters. And in any case, many of the roles of both Ministers are so ambiguous that the bureaucrats would always interpret them to satisfy the ones they see as the “Senior Ministers” or “main Ministers” for fear of being persecuted by them.
“Secondly, parts of the Schedules of Duties seem to suggest that the Ministers can delegate functions to the Ministers of State. This is a constitutional impossibility. It is only Mr. President that can delegate Presidential powers as one cannot delegate what he does not have (delegatus non potest delegare). In any case, how can someone who took the same Oath of Office with another delegate functions to that other?
“Thirdly, the Schedules of Duties leave so many gaping holes that bring conflicts between the Ministers and Ministers of State. In addition, the provision that “Ministers of State” cannot present Memos in Council, except with the permission of the Minister, is another anomaly. It means the discretion of the Minister of State is subsumed in the discretion of the Minister, yet both of them represent different States in Cabinet.
“It also follows that it would be difficult to assess the individual performances of the Ministers of State since their discretion is shackled under the discretion of the Ministers. Original ideas developed by a Minister of State are subject to clearance by another colleague in Cabinet before they can sail through for consideration by Council. The drafters of our Constitution obviously did not intend this.
“As a result, many Ministers of State are largely redundant, with many going to the office for symbolic purpose and just to while away the time. Files are passed to them to treat only at the discretion of the other Minister and the Permanent Secretary. Yet, the Ministers of State will receive either praise or condemnation for the successes or failures of such Ministries.”
The full text:
A HEART FULL OF UNQUANTIFIABLE GRATITUDE TO PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI, GCFR, AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADDRESS THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONUNDRUM OF “MINISTER OF STATE”
BEING VALEDICTORY SPEECH BY FESTUS KEYAMO, SAN AS MINISTER OF STATE FOR LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PRESIDENTIAL VILLA, ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2023.
- Mr. President, you first appointed me as Minister of State in the Ministry Niger Delta Affairs in August, 2019 and you later redeployed me as Minister of State in the Ministry of Labour and Employment.
- Today, I cannot find the words to express the depth of my gratitude to you for finding me worthy, out of over two hundred million Nigerians, to be nominated and subsequently appointed to serve as a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. My curriculum vitae has been greatly enhanced – forever.
- From my very humble beginnings in a small dusty town in Delta State where I was born and raised by my struggling parents, all the way to the Council Chambers at the Presidential Villa where I had the honour and privilege to participate weekly in decision-making for my country in the last four years, it has been like a fairy tale. I give God all the glory.
- What I am about to say, therefore, is not and should not be construed as an indication of ingratitude. Far from it. What I am about to say is just my own little contribution to our constitutional development as a relatively young democracy and to aid future governments to optimize the performance of those they appoint as Ministers.
- Mr. President, the concept or designation of “Minister of State” is a constitutional aberration and is practically not working for many so appointed. Successive governments have come and gone and many who were appointed as Ministers of State have not spoken out at a forum such as this because of the risk of sounding ungrateful to the Presidents who appointed them. However, like I said earlier, this is not ingratitude.
- As a private citizen, I am on record to have gone to court a number of times to challenge unconstitutional acts of governments for the sake of advancing our constitutional democracy, so it will be out of character for me to have gone through government and be carried away by the pomp of public office and forget my role as a member of the Inner Bar and my self-imposed role over the years as a crusader for democracy and constitutionalism.
- Mr. President, I crave your indulgence to explain this constitutional conundrum of “Minister of State”. Sections 147 and 148 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), deal with the appointments and responsibilities of Ministers of the Federation. The said sections state as follows:
Section 147
“(1) There shall be such offices of Ministers of the Government of the Federation as may be established by the President.
(2) Any appointment to the office of Minister of the Government of the Federation shall, if the nomination of any person to such office is confirmed by the Senate, be made by the President.
(3) Any appointment under subsection (2) of this section by the President shall be in conformity with the provisions of section 14(3) of this Constitution:- provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the President shall appoint at least one Minister from each State, who shall be an indigene of such State.”
Section 148
“(1) The President may, in his discretion, assign to the Vice-President or any Minister of the Government of the Federation responsibility for any business of the Government of the Federation, including the administration of any department of government.”
- Furthermore, the 7th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides for the Oath of Office to which each Minister must subscribe. There are no different Oaths for “Minister” and “Ministers of State”. They all take the same Oath of Office.
- In addition to the above, the Ministers-designate appear before the Senate and are grilled and cleared AS MINISTERS, not as Ministers in some instances and Ministers of State in some other instances. It is at the point of assignment of portfolios that successive Presidents then reclassified some as “Ministers of State”.
- Some may want to justify this by saying the President is given the discretion by the Constitution to assign whatever responsibility(ies) he likes to Ministers. Yes, I concede Mr. President can do that, but not by a designation different from that prescribed by the Constitution. Simply put, it is akin to the President assigning responsibilities to the office of the Vice-President and re-designating that office as “Deputy President” under our present Constitution. That is clearly impossible. Why then should that of the Ministers be different?
- What is more, Ministers are appointed pursuant to Section 147(3) of the 1999 Constitution to represent each State of the Federation. Therefore, Ministers sit in Cabinet as the eye of Mr. President in each State of the Federation. It is therefore against the intendment of the drafters of our Constitution for a representative of a State to be reclassified as against another representative of another State.
- The Schedules of Duties of Ministers and Ministers of State that intend to cure some of these anomalies hardly help the issues. Firstly, the Schedules of Duties are observed more in breach by the Permanent Secretaries and Directors who really cannot be expected to serve two masters. And in any case, many of the roles of both Ministers are so ambiguous that the bureaucrats would always interpret them to satisfy the ones they see as the “Senior Ministers” or “main Ministers” for fear of being persecuted by them.
- Secondly, parts of the Schedules of Duties seem to suggest that the Ministers can delegate functions to the Ministers of State. This is a constitutional impossibility. It is only Mr. President that can delegate Presidential powers as one cannot delegate what he does not have (delegatus non potest delegare). In any case, how can someone who took the same Oath of Office with another delegate functions to that other?
- Thirdly, the Schedules of Duties leave so many gaping holes that bring conflicts between the Ministers and Ministers of State. In addition, the provision that “Ministers of State” cannot present Memos in Council, except with the permission of the Minister, is another anomaly. It means the discretion of the Minister of State is subsumed in the discretion of the Minister, yet both of them represent different States in Cabinet.
- It also follows that it would be difficult to assess the individual performances of the Ministers of State since their discretion is shackled under the discretion of the Ministers. Original ideas developed by a Minister of State are subject to clearance by another colleague in Cabinet before they can sail through for consideration by Council. The drafters of our Constitution obviously did not intend this.
- As a result, many Ministers of State are largely redundant, with many going to the office for symbolic purpose and just to while away the time. Files are passed to them to treat only at the discretion of the other Minister and the Permanent Secretary. Yet, the Ministers of State will receive either praise or condemnation for the successes or failures of such Ministries.
- I understand that when this practice first surfaced in the First Republic, it was used as a contraption to give a semblance of “Government of National Unity”, when in actual fact no “real power” was ceded to the opposition members co-opted into government who were mostly designated as the Ministers of State, so as to keep them in check under the leadership of the ruling Party’s Ministers. But, over time the custom has come to stay and now it has been established as a norm, even regarding Ministers from the same ruling Party. In fact, one political absurdity that has emerged from this is that some Ministers of State won more votes from their States for the party in power than the “main Minister”.
THE WAY FORWARD
- Many Ministerial Retreats have been held to try and resolve the issues between Ministers and Ministers of State. President Obasanjo held four of such Retreats, with the last one holding at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos, from 23rd to 25th February, 2001. Yet, the problems persisted.
- Mr. President, unknown to many successive Presidents and the general public, these conflicts gravely affect the optimal performance of Governments. What is the way forward?
- Obviously, the argument that two Ministers are cramped into some Ministries in order not to unnecessarily proliferate Ministries and therefore save Government’s money is no longer tenable. This is because Government does not need any extra infrastructure or more money to maintain all Senior 36 Ministers or even a bit more appointed as is now the custom. This is because the present Ministers and Ministers of State have their separate offices, cars, security personnel and personal aides. So, what is the point?
- There are enough Permanent Secretaries within the system to be assigned to each Minister, or in the least, one Permanent Secretary can serve two Ministers. Since the Schedules of Duties of both Ministers already reflect the broad Mandates of the Ministries, the Ministers can be named in line with those Schedules of Duties, instead of continuing with this unconstitutional arrangement. For instance, there is no reason why we cannot have a Minister of Labour and another Minister of Employment.
- In my case, whilst the Schedule of my colleague had to do more with Labour and Productivity, mine had to do more with Employment. The Directorates in my Ministry that were under my office would then be fully under the Minister of Employment, without any double loyalty to the Minister of Labour and Productivity.
- We can also have a Minister of Trade and another Minister of Investment. We can have a Minister of Education (Tertiary) and another Minister of Education (Primary and Secondary); we can have a Minister of Mines and another Minister of Steel; we can have a Minister of Works and another Minister of Housing and so on and so forth.
- In all of these, no extra infrastructure is needed to sustain this suggested arrangement. The present infrastructure and present personnel in the Ministries can very well sustain it. It will be at no extra cost to government. This is preferable than successive governments continuing with this present unconstitutional arrangement.
- Finally, I want to place it on record again that Mr. Present gave me maximum support as his Minister to function optimally. So, this treatise is not a personal complaint. This is just a respectful recommendation for record purposes and for the sake of posterity. It is also intended to correct an anomaly that has existed for ages.
Thank you, Mr. President.
By Kassim Omomia
The House of Representatives Committee on Steel has assured that it will effectively oversight all subsidiaries, agencies, especially research and development centres conneted to Ajaoukuta steel company and Steel development in the country, in order fulfil the long dream of making Nigeria a global steel producer
Chairman of the House Steel Sub- Committee on National Metallurgical Development Centre, NMDC , Hon Abdulmaleek Danga, stated in Jos during an oversight and investigation of petitions of contracts allegedlly awarded, paid- for, but not completed
He stated that the current Committee on Steel in the National Assembly was committed to ensuring proper oversight of steel devevelopment related agencies and research institutions so as to make Ajaokuta work this time around
Hon Danga told staff and top management cadre led by the Director General of the National Metallurgiical Develoomemt Centre, Professor Linus Asuquo, that the Committee was at the Centre in Jos, to carry out a thorough oversight and investigation , following a petition
He reminded the management , staff and Unions of the NMCD of the importance of the establishment of the Centre as a critical support base to sustain Ajaokuta Steel company
“We are here. We will do a thorough job here to sustain Ajaojuta and make it work. This place, (NMDC) must work first before we go to Ajaokuta”
Adressing the petition, Hon Danga pointed that with the avalanche of petitions against the NMDC, the place cannot work
He noted that petitions without facts and figures are retrogresive and create backwardness and stunt growth of any organisation
He noted that even though petitions have become the order of the day in our public life, they are undesirable, create backwardness ,stunt growth and as well create impressions that government agencies are wasting resources, especially when the petitions are without facts and figures
He added that the House was set to ensure the sustenance of NMCD and other ancillary steel agencies. so that Ajaokuta which is so dear to the current government can come on full stream
The subcomittee oversighting NMCD,Jos, which also included Honourable Ayuba Danba, Hon Domimic Okafor,embarked on a facility tour of the massive centre after a thorough session with management, top Staff, contractors, visiting the various departments, laboratories and workshops and projects executed by contractors especially those disputed in the petitions currently investigated by the sub-committee.
The Committee also addressed some aggrieved union leaders, who laid siege on the committee members in one of the sections of the Centre to express their grievances and alleged mismanagement of the Institute by the Prof Asuquo management
Hon Danga, however, appealed to both sides to work harmoniuosly , so that the current efforts of reviving Ajaokuta are achieved by the House of Representatives Committee on Steel and the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration.
According to the lawmaker, there is a noticeable lack of communication between the management and some critical stakeholders in the institute, which can result to misunderstanding, misconception about the Centre ,and thus, the avalanche of petitions
“Please work together, so that the current administration can revive Ajaokuta and make Nigeria a steel producing country, which is a dream long sought” he, advised
About 1000 Civil Society Organizations, CSOs, under the auspices of Coalition Of Civil Society Organisations, CCSOs, on Saturday Faults President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Economic Team and called for immediate reconstitution.
Expressing deep concern and worry over the state of the economy and escalating fuel prices compounding the hardship of Nigerians despite the recent protest, the groups said Tinubu must act now to avert disintegration.
The groups said the current situation across the country has cast doubt on the competence of the Tinubu economic team and called for urgent review.
The CCSOs in a statement signed by its National Coordinator, Mallam Ibrahim Mohammed, pointed out that the plight of Nigerians is sinking low and their patience is wearing off following the deteriorating economy.
The statement reads in part, “The Coalition of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) is deeply concerned about the deteriorating state of the Nigerian economy, which is becoming increasingly unbearable for millions of citizens.
“It is evident that the recent hike in fuel prices and the unstable exchange rate are the direct results of economic mismanagement by those responsible for overseeing our nation’s financial policies. The ripple effects of these failures are being felt in every household across the country, worsening poverty and crippling economic activity.
“The floating of the Naira, which was initially sold to Nigerians as a means of stabilizing our currency, has done little to prevent the continued devaluation of the Naira. In fact, the exchange rate disparity has widened significantly, with the Naira losing value daily, impacting the cost of living, basic commodities, and inflation.
“While this policy was expected to ease foreign exchange pressure, it has instead deepened economic challenges due to poor implementation and lack of strategic foresight.”
The coalition also expressed concern over what it described as death trap of indebtedness of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, NNPCL, which also they claimed had slowed down importation of Premium Motor Spirit, PMS, hence the current shortage of PMS across the country.
“Of equal concern is the precarious position of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), which finds itself in a debt trap, with global suppliers of petroleum products losing confidence in Nigeria’s ability to honour its obligations.
“Reports have shown that NNPCL has accrued debts totalling over $6 billion, causing petrol supply shortages. International suppliers are now reluctant to continue providing fuel on credit, exacerbating supply chain issues and pushing up the price of petrol at the pump”, they claimed.
The CSOs also asserted that, “We hold the managers of the Nigerian economy responsible for these disturbing developments. Their inability to provide sound policies and long-term solutions has left the nation in this predicament.
“It is clear that there is no cohesive strategy to address the rising debt, the growing imbalance in the foreign exchange market, or the country’s heavy reliance on importation for petrol supply. The recent hike in fuel prices reflects the collapse of responsible economic management and accountability.
“Nigerians are left to bear the brunt of these failures. Businesses are shutting down, transportation costs have skyrocketed, and citizens are spending an increasingly larger percentage of their income on basic necessities. This state of affairs is unacceptable.”
The group therefore placed some demands; Immediate intervention from the government: There needs to be a comprehensive and transparent plan to stabilize the Naira, restore confidence in the petroleum supply chain, and negotiate a restructuring of NNPC’s debts to ensure continuous fuel supply.
“Accountability for economic mismanagement: Those responsible for the reckless management of our foreign exchange policies and NNPC’s debts must be held accountable. The government must also disclose its plan to mitigate the rising fuel costs and economic burden on Nigerians.
“A return to sound financial policy: The floating of the Naira has proven ineffective under current conditions. We call for a re-evaluation of monetary and fiscal policies to stabilize the economy, reduce inflation, and attract foreign investment.
“In conclusion, the Coalition of Civil Society Organisations reiterates that without immediate corrective measures, the economic situation will continue to deteriorate, leading to further hardship for the average Nigerian. The government must act decisively and responsibly to reverse this downward spiral”, they added.
…..Says They ‘re Bunch of Hypocrites,
By Sim Omo
A group known as Patriots of Nigerian Democracy has lambasted the 2023 Governorship Candidate of the Labour Party in Lagos State, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour and other leaders of the party for saying they will take over Lagos State in 2027.
It will be recalled that Rhodes-Vivour while speaking to journalists in Umuahia, Abia State capital at the end of LP’s extended stakeholders’ meeting on Wednesday said that they will take over Lagos.
“LP is now well structured, not just to win but to take power in 2027. What we have come to do here in Umuahia is to bring everybody on the same page. We are set for new victories in 2027.
“I believe Labour Party will win Lagos State more convincingly in 2027. Since after the 2023 elections, work has not stopped; we have not gone quiet. Every day, we are getting stronger and stronger.
“So, we are not just going to win but stand up and take power”, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour had said in Umuahia.
Reacting to the statement, the group said that LP leaders are a bunch of hypocrites who pretend to be on the side of the people but neck deep in their selfish interests.
The statement jointly signed by the President of the group, Comrade Olaolu Esan and the Secretary, Engr. Abdullahi Rabiu recalled that LP and its supporters recently attacked the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu for urging the Abia State Governor, Dr. Alex Otti to rejoin the All Progressives Congress (APC), vowing that the ruling party will win the State in 2027 in a viral video.
“All hell was let loose recently when the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu in a video that went viral called on the Governor of his own Abia State, Dr. Alex Otti to rejoin APC.
“Kalu came under heavy criticism and attacks by LP and its supporters. They criticized him for speaking his mind. They made Nigerians to see him in bad light as if what he said was a taboo.
“But here we are. Just about one or two weeks afterwards, the same LP leaders assembled in Umuahia, the Abia State capital to issue a quit notice to APC in Lagos.
“So, where is their nobility? Where is their shame? They abandoned governance for politics of 2027. How does that make them the “Saints” of the Nigerian politics? Are they for the people or against the people?
“We had thought that the LP leaders gathered in Umuahia to discuss the biting economy and the solution. We had thought they gathered to tell Nigerians how they will entrench good governance in Abia State but didn’t know their meeting was about strategies to take over Lagos, an APC controlled State. We have waited for Abia Governor, Dr. Alex Otti to call Rhodes-Vivour to order or to at least tell him, it is not yet time for politics but more than 24 hours, none of the LP’s leaders has done that.
“We want to say that this is very unfortunate. It simply means that politicians irrespective of their political parties and leanings are all one and same. They always think about the next election and not about good governance. They are always after their personal agenda and selfish interests.
“If this will be tolerated, it simply means that the Deputy Speaker, Rt. Hon. Kalu is vindicated. Labour Party supporters owe the Deputy Speaker a collective apology for attacking what he said and saying what they attacked. This is hypocrisy.
“Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour’s comment indicates and gives a feeling that the media attacks on Kalu were actually sponsored even though it was highly unnecessary. LP leaders can’t be a bunch of hypocrites.
“Our concerns are good governance and the welfare of the Nigerian people. While we are not saying that politicians should not “battle” themselves over 2027, they must ensure that Nigerians get the dividends of democracy. Good governance should not be sacrificed on the altar of politics. Nigerians should not be shortchanged in anyway rather their lives should be improved by every means possible. That is our position”, the statement stated.
