×

Lawyers Have Confused Nigerians On National Conference – Adegbulu

An Associate Professor of Diplomatic History at the Redeemer’s University, Femi Adegbulu, on Friday stated that lawyers, who have contributed to the debate on the … Continue reading Lawyers Have Confused Nigerians On National Conference – Adegbulu


An Associate Professor of Diplomatic History at the Redeemer’s University, Femi Adegbulu, on Friday stated that lawyers, who have contributed to the debate on the need for a National Dialogue, have confused the general populace by what he termed ‘intellectual dishonesty’.

Speaking on Sunrise Daily, Adegbulu gave his perspective on the on-going debate revolving around the proposed National Conference. Lawyers, according to him, “have problematised the whole issue to the extent that many Nigerians are now confused as to what intention of the President is,” he said.

Although stakeholders agree that the Conference should be sovereign, lawyers who have aired their views on Sunrise Daily have given different definitions as to what sovereignty is.

According to Adegbulu, “there are two basic types of sovereignty.”

Popular sovereignty resides with the people and these people confer sovereignty to those they elect including the president, governors and the law makers.

The president, governors and lawmakers enjoy legal sovereignty “but we the people still retain the popular sovereignty which is superior to legal sovereignty,” he said.

He continued by saying the people can withdraw the sovereignty they bestowed on elected officers which is why there is a ‘recall’ in the constitution.

On President Goodluck Jonathan’s order that the recommendations on the conference would be subjected to the authorisation of the National Assembly, Mr Adegbulu opined that it became evident that the whole procedure would be another ‘jamboree.’

He also submitted that the recommendations on the National Conference should only be handed over to the NASS for inclusion into the constitution and not for debate.

People are clamouring for the Conference because they have been shortchanged and those elected into power are not functioning as they should and if the proposed National Conference is not sovereign, “it would remove the subliminal content and the sacrosanctity of the people’s will”.

The call for the Conference is a call for a people oriented constitution, he said.