The House of Representatives, yesterday, set the nation’s polity agog with some signature constitutional amendment proposals, including a bill seeking to shift the country from a presidential democracy to the parliamentary system of government.
The bill, which passed second reading at the House of Representatives on Thursday, received mixed reactions from groups and political stakeholders, as it comes at a time when the same lower federal legislature stepped back from its earlier endorsement of the proposed withdrawal of immunity clause from the vice president and state governors.
The House of Representatives rescinded its decision on a bill seeking to remove the constitutional immunity granted to the Vice President, state governors, and their deputies. The reversal came barely 24 hours after the bill passed second reading without debate.
The proposed legislation—A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to Qualify the Immunity Conferred on the President, Remove the Immunity Conferred on the Vice President, the Governors and their Deputies, in Order to Curb Corruption, Eradicate Impunity and Enhance Accountability in Public Office and for Related Matters (HB.1664)—was sponsored by Hon. Solomon Bob, who represents Ahoada East/ Abua/Odual Federal Constituency of Rivers State.
During plenary, members voted to withdraw the bill’s passage for second reading after a motion moved by majority leader, Julius Ihonvbere, at the behest of the deputy speaker, who presided over the plenary session.
While taking the same decision on the bill seeking to alter the Constitution and revise the penalties for certain capital offences in line with international codes, Kalu stated that a further debate on the bills was necessary before the House could take a definitive stance.
Bob had earlier argued that the absolute immunity granted to political officeholders not only encouraged corruption and impunity but also shielded them from accountability. He stressed, however, that “the bill did not seek to remove the president’s immunity entirely, but rather to limit it to matters strictly related to official duties.”
On the bill proposing a change from a presidential to parliamentary system, the lawmakers suggested the establishment of the office of Prime Minister as Head of Government with the President as Head of State.
The bill, which marks a total return to the pre-1979 system of government, was among the 31 constitutional amendment bills passed by lawmakers during yesterday’s plenary session presided over by Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu.
The proposed legislation, sponsored by minority leader Kingsley Chinda and 59 others, seeks to alter the 1999 Constitution to introduce a parliamentary framework that will shift executive authority from the President to a Prime Minister elected by the legislature.
Titled: “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to provide for the Office of the Prime Minister as Head of Government and the Office of President as Head of State and to provide for a Framework for the Mode of Election to the said Offices and for Related Matters,” the bill was a rehash of the 1963 republican constitution.
Recall that Nigeria previously operated a parliamentary system in the First Republic, during which Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa served as Prime Minister, while Rt. Hon. Nnamdi Azikiwe occupied the office of a ceremonial President.
The system, which lasted from 1960 through the 1966 military coup, allowed for executive authority to reside in the Prime Minister, who was chosen from the majority party in parliament, while the President served as the Head of State.
Nigerians divided on system change
However, no sooner than the bill for the proposed reversal to the parliamentary system was passed by the lower chamber of the National Assembly, Nigerians began to express divergent opinions on the propriety of such a change.
The Convener of Movement for National Reform (MNR), Da Jonathan Sunday Akuns, told The Guardian that nothing short of the total return of the country to the 1963 Republican Constitution will do, stressing that the proposed arrangement by the lawmakers could end up as a political master stroke of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC).
Akuns, an Economist, said, “October 1, 1960, was the commencement of decolonisation transition period towards self-rule that began on 1st October 1963; the three-year transition period was devoted to managing the strains of independence, including the furore about census results, new constitution, crisis in the western regional government.”
He said that the present proposal has not addressed the issues of the minority, pointing out that indigenous communities would be well represented to endorse a transition to a parliamentary system.
“If the APC-dominated National Assembly is allowed to adopt this transition on the strength of their majority, it would amount to changing the goal post in the middle of a football match. It is obvious to all discerning adults that this hurried review is to confer electoral advantage and make 2027 a walkover,” Akuns stated.
But, a founding member of Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Alhaji Tanko Yakasai, commended members of the House of Representatives for the proposed bill to return Nigeria to parliamentary system, even as his counterpart in Arewa Youth Consultative Forum (AYCF), backed the idea, saying that has always been his desire for Nigeria.
However, their views were countered by Bernard Mikko, a former representative of Khana/Gokana constituency Federal Constituency (1999-2003) from Rivers State, who said it is not the system of government that matters but the operators.
Also commending the House, a former Minority Leader in the Senate, Olorunnimbe Mamora, noted that the lawmakers in the lower chamber have shown some level of seriousness towards redesigning Nigeria if most of the proposed bills eventually become law.
Although he said some aspects of those bills would still have to be addressed for amendment. For instance, Mamora said it was a demonstration of bravery on the part of the lower chamber to quickly reverse itself on the proposed removal of the immunity clause from the vice president, governors and others while retaining that of the president. He said if the bill is passed into law the way it was initially proposed, “Nigeria would have simply made a tyrant out of anyone that occupies the seat of power. ”
He, however, urged the lawmakers to be precise as regards the need for any elected officer, who intends to, or defected from his party to another, to automatically lose his or her seat.
“I don’t agree with the condition that such a defector must resign from his original party first. A defector must also lose his or her seat immediately they defected.”
He also said a parliamentary system would give the people sovereign powers to make policies, unlike now, where such power is vested in only Mr. President, who only makes policies for the people. Adding that democratic system and practice would be thoroughly enhanced under a parliamentary style of governance.
Shettima, on his part, said what Nigeria has today as parliament is filled with politicians with little or no feelings for the interest of those that they were representing. He commended the House of Representatives, just as he urged the Senate to look in a similar direction.
In their contribution, the Think Yoruba First Organisation has urged the National Assembly (NASS) to reject the proposed federal bill that seeks to grant indigenous rights to Nigerians based on residency or marriage.
According to the organisation, the bill, which was proposed by a member of the House of Representatives (HoR), Kalu Okezie, would erode the cultural and historical foundations of indigenous peoples across Nigeria, leading to ethnic tensions, conflicts, and long-term instability.
This was contained in a statement yesterday signed by the president of the group, Bolarinwa Oladimeji and secretary, Bukola Adeniji. The organization argued that the bill is contrary to global precedents, where indigenous identity is tied to ancestry, cultural heritage, and historical connection to the land, not just residency or marriage.
The group cited examples from the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, where indigenous rights are protected to prevent cultural erasure and ensure historical continuity .
Think Yoruba First Organization warned that legalising the erasure of indigenous identity would exacerbate ethnic conflicts in Nigeria, citing historical examples such as the Rwandan genocide and the Balkan Wars.
They noted that Nigeria itself has witnessed countless ethnic conflicts due to territorial and indigenous disputes, including the crises in Jos, Southern Kaduna, Ife-Modakeke, Aguleri-Umuleri, and the clashes between herders and farmers across the Middle Belt.
The organisation, therefore, called on the National Assembly to reject the proposed bill and instead focus on demanding the Ethnolinguistic Restructuring of Nigeria for peace, as advocated by Chief Obafemi Awolowo.
This, they believe, is the only way to promote peaceful coexistence, economic empowerment, and equitable development for all Nigerians without tampering with the historical and cultural integrity of indigenous peoples.
First hint of parliamentary return
The first hint that plans for a return to a parliamentary system afoot emerged in February 2024, when some 60 members of the House of Representatives sought amendments to the 1999 Constitution for the transition.
Led by a lawmaker representing Lagos State under the All Progressives Congress, Wale Raji, the lawmakers identified the need to reduce the cost of governance and robust policy debates, among others, as some of the reasons for demanding a return to the parliamentary system.
The lawmakers drawn from different party affiliations anchored their positions on the need to adopt a parliamentary system at the Federal, State and Local Government levels.
Similarly, another major legislation that scaled second reading was a bill seeking to replace the current simple majority system with an absolute majority requirement for presidential election.
Leading the debate on the bill, Abiante argued that Nigeria’s first-past-the-post system is no longer suitable for a multi-party democracy, as it allows candidates to emerge as winners without securing more than half of the total votes cast.
He recalled the 2023 presidential election results, where President Bola Tinubu secured only 36.61 per cent of the votes, leaving a combined 63.39 per cent shared among other candidates.
Age limit threat to Tinubu’s second term
FURTHERMORE, the 2027 presidential ambitions of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, and former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi may suffer setbacks if the bill imposing a 60-year age limit for presidential and governorship candidates passed by the House becomes law.
Sponsored by Hon. Ikeagwuonu Onyinye Ugochinyere, the bill is titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to Review the Requirements that Qualifies a Person to be Elected as President and Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Governors and Deputy Governor of a State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and for Related Matters (HB.202).
It also scaled the second reading at the Green Chamber in a plenary session on Thursday. The proposed legislation introduces two key changes to the constitution.
One is that candidates must have at least a university degree in their chosen field, while candidates for President or Governor must not be older than 60 years at the time of contesting.
If the bill becomes law, it will disqualify several prominent politicians, including Tinubu 72, Atiku (78), and Obi (63), from contesting. The president will turn 73 on Saturday, March 29, 2025.
Also, the house approved the bill that seeks to reserve specific legislative seats for women in the National and State Assemblies. Sponsored by the chairperson of the Committee on Women Affairs, Kafilat Ogbara, the proposed legislation will address gender imbalance in governance.
Super Thursday
At yesterday’s plenary, the lawmakers also passed for second reading a bill seeking to empower the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly to summon the President and Governors on matters of national security and governance.
The proposed legislation sponsored by Hon. Ikeagwuonu Onyinye Ugochinyere is titled:” A Bill for an Act to Alter the Provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to Grant to the two Chambers of the National Assembly and States’ Houses of Assembly, Powers to Summon the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Governors of States respectively, to Answer Questions on Issues of National Security or Any Matters Whatsoever, over which the National Assembly and States’ Houses of Assembly, have Powers to make Laws and for Related Matters”.
If passed into law, the bill will mandate the President and Governors to appear before the legislature to answer questions on issues within the purview of lawmakers.
This is not the first time the issue of empowering the national assembly with the power to summon the president is being debated on the floor of the House.
For instance, in 2021, during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, the House of Representatives that time summoned the President to brief them on Nigeria’s security situation. But the then minister of justice and attorney-general of the federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, claimed that the lawmakers do not have such powers.
