In sound and established democracies, any action even by the very law makers of that democratic entity that goes contrary to the constitution is rendered null and void.  To remedy any problem that doing so may cause, that particular constitutional point  has to be revisited, addressed, passed, and adopted, again subject to whatever rule of passage and adoption that is subject to the rule-of-law.  Getting or dancing around the constitution/rule-of-law, or evading it never substitutes.

 

Going by the above quote of the honorable Houston NCR, it does not matter whether 100% of Affiliates and Chapters voted for this legislation/proposal, that the constitution has an expressed position that impacts on this Council legislative action trumps even that 100% vote and passage.  When this is discovered, the honorable thing to do is to acknowledge the oversight and, in good faith, show a uniting leadership, rally all, and build the necessary support to correct it--"legally."  To invent loopholes or assert a-one-shot deal, with no proof, is self-defeating.  I have also read that the driving point of this debate is to pull down our national executive.  It would be very unfortunate if this is the case.   As one whose position on Ngwa unity here and at home should be known by now, I happen also to be firm on abiding by the constitution and the rule-of-law, hence my insistence here on that.  As for our national executive falling, one thing that may cause that is inability to face up to mistakes and address it accordingly, and not actions to support and sustain our constitution, therefore our institutions.

 

 Many of us arguing on different sides to this issue were witness , in recent years, to democracy in action, where the U. S.  Congress must have spent millions of dollars deliberating on and prosecuting a popular President, William Jefferson Clinton, for alleged perjury--lying under oath--about oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.   On thing that stood out of that is that this also economic-obsessed nation does not mind the cost-benefit analysis when it comes to upholding the rule of law, for it apparently does not want to attach a monetary value to that.

 

It tends to surprise me that the basic tenet of constitutional government seems to elude us, even though many of us for years live in a society and culture, though not perfect, that exemplifies adherence to constitution and rule-of-law.   On a reflective pause, it tends not to surprise me, after all we are Nigerians, a potentially great country, where political shenanigans substituting for constitutional governance and adherence to the rule-of-law has rubbished the once looked-up-to country.   Running a democracy, as we should know by now, is never easy.  Divergent perspectives have to be accommodated and  resolved through very intense and involving process, many times by majority vote rule or some other agreed-to formula.  This is  the reason that those who do not have the temperament, skill,  or the intent for fairness quickly resort to dictatorship.  This, in addition to insisting on running modern nation states of different people, cultures, and values like a monolith ethnic or tribal  societies where chiefs, kings, and class hold sway, is  why our home governments have withered.

 

I can admit that some NCO members may have some sentimental reasons behind this issue.  Yet, the stance that NCO has taken it, as articulated by our NCR and I, are on constitutional grounds, and not on this so-called inability to persuade, as has been argued here.  Let me restate, this argument would be won or lost on constitutional grounds and not on name-calling or on the allegation or assumption of other motives, as far as NCO that is currently represented by myself and our NCR is concerned.

 

People cite a vote by 18 Affiliates and Chapters (majority) and run with it as an only notion of democracy, while they lose sight of the major ingredient of democracy---the constitution that even established the rule of majority vote or some other formula.

 

The honorable NNANNY NCR has stated that although him and his wife could not and did not attend the Philly convention, that they do may pay $100.00  for both of them.  If he so opts, that's really fine.  Others may choose to follow his lead and do the same, bearing in mind that it is still an option and their prerogative.   As for others who may still take the undisputable constitutional position on this, allow them their right to so comply without undue attack or being chestized.

 

It is still not the will of one or a few, but the rule-of-law!

 

Brown Ogwuma,

NCO.