National Conference - The Pervasiveness Of "Sovereignty" 

By

Bernard Doro

bernard.doro@gmail.com

To say that Nigerians are vibrant debaters is to say the least. As expected the recent inauguration of an advisory committee on national dialogue by president Jonathan has engendered debates and lots of discourse in the Nigerian political space. The naysayers have painted gloomy picture and have adduced many reasons as to why the proposal will fail - some have gone to the extend of questioning the motive behind the entire proposal and have cited failed past attempts to buttress their position. I can understand such scepticism as our current political actors have not done much to built trust between leaders and citizenry. Ironically though some Nigerians who had been staunch proponents of a national dialogue before now have beaten a retreat for reasons best known to them.

 

However, supporters of such a dialogue have taken to the media to congratulate the president on this bold move and requested that the president be given the benefit of doubt as to the genuineness of his intention. Different ethnic nationalities have also made their positions known - for or against the conference.

The terms of reference for the committee is instructive. And of particular importance to this piece is the discourse around the powers/nomenclature of the proposed conference - whether it should be sovereign or not. I can understand the passion surrounding this issue as the power given to the conference would determine the future direction of our dear Nation. Obviously there will be winners and losers either way - and to any keen watcher, the position advocated by the different interest groups gives an idea of who the hits and misses are likely to be. My personal opinion is that Nigeria and Nigerians should be the ultimate winners should the conference proceed eventually.

I have followed with Interest comments from eminent Nigerians arguing why the conference should not be be sovereign. The main argument is that sovereignty is already vested on our elected representatives - the National Assembly. As such, opining that there cannot be two sovereignties in a country at any one time. My initial reaction is that of surprise and amazement. What is worrying is the fact that such position is openly canvassed by several politicians and even some 'learned' lawyers who should know better. I find this position less convincing because it is a perverse representation of 'sovereignty'. Even if such a position was tenable, why is there no mention of the President and his Vice, the Governors and their Deputies, and the State Assemblies - are they also sovereign or not. In a constitutional democracy like that practice in Nigeria, no single arm of government is self-sufficient - the court here can strike down acts of the National Assembly that is not in sync with the constitution. How then can we ascribe sovereignty to one of three arms of government?

While I appreciate that there is no universal agreement on the definition of sovereignty - for example, political scientists will look at it in terms of the source of political power within a state; legal theorists and constitutional lawyers focus on the ultimate source of legal power within a state while international lawyers approach sovereignty differently. For the purpose of this discussion, I will concentrate on the Politico-legal view of sovereignty. Political sovereignty signifies the ultimate political authority within a state, legal sovereignty refers to the supreme legal authority within a state. Where else will the ultimate and supreme authority be if not from the people? Elected representatives at the different levels of our political configuration hold power(legislative or executive) in trust for the people where sovereignty lies. The political representatives are but an agent of the people who serve collectively as the principal and they acquire legitimacy only when the people voluntarily surrender their authority in a social contract.