Nigeria — The Search for Autochthonous Constitution

The issue of a Sovereign National Conference has always been a burning issue in the Nigerian media and in the public discourse. The arguments of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Ebele Jonathan as well as former members of the National Assembly as to why a Sovereign National Conference is not attainable in the present democratic Nigeria are far from reality. This work x-rays the history of Nigerian constitutions making and the resultant consequence of her inability to evolve an autochthonous Constitution. It argues that the power of the sovereign people of Nigeria to make a Constitution by themselves through a constituent assembly elected for the purpose, subject to a referendum by the people could not have been taken away by the provisions in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria for parliamentary constitutional amendments. It opines that the mandate given to the President and the Legislators to amend the Constitution is a limited mandate and is not meant to substitute the people as the repository of constituent power; it concludes that only an autochthonous constitution can salvage the country from her present political, ethnic and economic quagmire.


Introduction
A constitution in the abstract sense may be defined as a system of laws, customs and conventions, which defined the composition of organs of the state and regulate the relations of the various state organs to one another and to the private citizens. It may further regulate relations among citizens. The Nigerian Supreme Court has defined constitution to mean the grundnorm and the fundamental law of the land from which all other legislations in the land take their hierarchy and How to cite this paper: Amah, E. I. (2017) A constitution is therefore the supreme law of the land, which distributes power between different organs of government and determines their functions and relationship between themselves and the citizens. It is the organic law of a state and may be written or unwritten establishing the character and conceptualization of the government, laying the basic principles by which its internal life is to be conformed, distributing and limiting the functions of its different department and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of her sovereign power. 2 As a result of the importance of a constitution and its strict enforceability, most states involve their citizens in the constitution-making process. This is carried out by means of a representative body elected directly by the citizens for the purposes of constitution making. In some states, the outcome of this process is further subjected to a referendum to enable the people vote for or against the proposed constitution. This process is known as direct democracy. A constitution that evolves from this process is regarded as autochthonous having been made by the people themselves.
The actual participation of the common citizens in the promulgation of a statute that would be binding on them would legitimize not only the process but also the outcome. The necessity for legitimacy of a constitution need not be over-emphasized as its importance is also the reason why most written constitutions are commenced with the phrase "we the people", which signifies the participation of the citizenry and their intention to be bound by the provisions contained in the constitution. In the case of Nigeria as we shall see, the recurring of such phrase in the preamble to all her constitutions, past and present are nothing more than mere embellishment.
The legitimacy of Nigerian constitutions has consistently been put in doubt as Nigerians have consistently agitated for a sovereign national conference to cater for the opinions and needs of the Nigerian public bearing in mind her cultural and ethnic differences. These agitations as we shall see in this paper have fallen on deaf ears.

History of Constitution-Making in Nigeria
The constitutional history of Nigeria may be classified into about four (4) phases. These are: 1) the period of colonial administration; 2) the period of internal self-government; 3) the period of independence; and 4) the period of military rule. We shall briefly highlight the manner of constitution making in each of these phases.

The Period of Colonial Administration
This is the period Nigeria was ruled by the government of Britain. During this period constitution making was the sole responsibility of the colonial govern- Constitution. During this period, constitution making was carried out by the colonial power acting by and through the British officials in Africa. In fact, between 1914 and 1920 the only existing legislatives council was only restricted to the colony of Lagos and members were made up of British officials only. For the rest of the protectorates of Nigeria the Governor General was empowered to make law by way of a proclamation. Further the legislatives council was mainly advisory in function. 4 In 1922 a legislative council of Nigeria was established, it was however restricted to the southern protectorate and the Lagos colony. 5 By 1946 however, a new Constitution was tabled before the legislative house for adoption by the then Governor-General, Governor Richard. 6 Although there were indigenous members in the federal legislative house at this time, the Constitution was poorly received as it was conceived and promulgated with least possible consultation with Nigerians with whom it was intended. 7

The Period of Internal Self-Government
This period dates from the making of the Macpherson Constitution of 1951 to the period of independence. One remarkable feature of constitution making in this period was that before the adoption of the draft Constitution (Macpherson's Constitution, 1951) a series of questionnaires was submitted for discussions at various levels; villages, districts meetings, and at provincial and divisional conferences followed by regional conference and Lagos colony conference and rounded off with a general conference in London. For the first time, Nigerians were given opportunity to participate in the framing of the Constitution under which they were to be governed. 8 However, this Constitution could not endure as events unfold rapidly indicating the preference of Nigerians for a federal constitution and an accelerated transition to full independence for the country. A conference was held in London between July 1953 and August 1953 as well as in Lagos in 19 th January 1954 under the chairmanship of Sir Lyttleton. The aftermath was the birth of a new 3 Governor-General, Governor Richard., see Udoma (1994)

The Period of Independence
Constitution making took place after the period of independence, which climaxed with the enactment of the Republican Federal Constitution of 1963. The granting of independence to Nigeria in October 1960 following the 1960 Independence Constitution did not guarantee autochthonous constitution as the said Independence Constitution was a brainchild of the British Government promulgated by means of a British ordinance. 9 However, the granting of independence having marked the realization of her self-realization; the desire for a republican constitution terminating all the vestiges of colonialism was accelerated by the aftermath of the decision of Privy Council in the appeal case of Akintola v Adegbenro. 10 The federal government having been embarrassed by the appeal b) The abolition of the requirement of her majesty's consent before a bill is assented by the president or Governor-General. 9 ibid. 10 Cited in K. Eso,The Mystery Gunman, (Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd 1995), pp. 146-162. 11 The Supreme Court of Nigeria then was an appellate court but not the final court of appeal, the Privy Council was regarded as the final court of appeal. c) Provision for the supremacy of the constitution instead of the British crown.
The inadequacy of the Republican Constitution was that it was merely a re-enactment of the Independence Constitution with few amendments, which included the above stated features. 13 Further, the people of Nigeria were not as individuals given opportunity to discuss and make input, neither was the final draft subjected to a referendum for final adoption by the people.

The Period of Military Governance
The period of military constitution making is the period commencing from the The Babangida administration initiated the most elaborate and expensive programme of transition which took a period of eight years but could not yield any tangible result. This transition programme initiated a process of constitution making resulting to a Draft Constitution of 1983. 19 The Babangida administration set up three bodies specifically for the purpose of piloting a new democratic constitution. These bodies were; the Constitution Review Committee, which was mandated to review the past constitutions and make recommendations, the reviewed report was to be submitted to the second body; The Constituent Assembly made up of 450 members inclusive of 111 members nominated by the military government. The constituent Assembly took about one year to deliberate on the Draft Constitution and made recommendations to the Armed Forces Ruling Council Presided by President Babangida. 20 The members of the constituent assembly were forbidden from deliberating on what was described as sensitive matters which were left to the Armed Forces Ruling Council to determine. The third body was the Political Bureau set up in 1986 for the purpose of organizing debate on the future of the Nigeria Political system. 21 The outcome would have been the promulgation of the 1989 Constitution of Nigeria and a successful transition to civil rule. The annulment of the Presidential Election of June 12, which Chief Moshood K. O. Abiola was popularly acclaimed to have won, led to the demise of the still birth 1989 Constitution. An interim government took over power as President Badamasi Babangida stepped out of power. The new Interim National government which was believed to be an illegal government 22 could not survive as the head of the interim government was removed in a palace coup by General Sanni Abacha who took over power.
Between 1994 and 1998, General Sanni Abacha commenced his own protracted programme of transition to civil rule. A Constitutional Conference Commission was set up pursuant to Decree 1 of 1994 and charged with the task of organizing conferences, inviting and receiving memos from Nigerians for submission to the Constitutional Conference Commission. The commission was made up of 369 delegates among whom 96 were nominated by the Provisional Ruling Council (P.R.C) headed by General Abacha. Like its previous constitution making assembly, the delegates were not permitted to deliberate on issues of Nigerian unity, the federal structure as well as the June 12 annulled election. 23 The Provisional Ruling Council further appointed a review committee to advice the government on the necessary changes to the Draft Constitution. A Constitution Analysis Committee was appointed to review the work of the Review Committee after which the Draft Constitution was examined by the following bodies; The Federal Executive Council, The Council of states and the P.R.C. By October 1, 1995 the government announced the changes on the final Draft Constitution. 24 The Mysterious death of General Abacha the head of the ruling Provisional Ruling Council, saw to the end of the constitution making process as another military government headed by General Abdulsalami Abubakar took over power.
On assumption of office, General Abubakar vowed to commence an accelerated transition to civil rule. To make good this promise, a 24 member Constitu- The 1999 Constitution at present has experienced some amendments by Nigerian Federal Legislators. 28 There exist however as much as the years before, if not much more, loud clamour for a people-driven National Convention for the purpose of evolving a democratic based Constitution founded on the free will of the people of Nigeria and not a Constitution made by way of a military Fiat.
One of the major characteristics of all the past and present Constitutions of Nigeria is that Nigerians were not given a free hand to participate in the making of these Constitutions. Although in few cases, some of the delegates were elected, yet a larger number were usually appointed by the military government of the day.
It is worthy to note that these successive colonial and military governments ruled not by the collective will of the people of Nigeria but through the force of arms. Meanwhile, it was the practice for the final Draft Constitutions to be tinkered by these successive unconstitutional regimes. 29 Throughout these periods, Nigerians led by pro-democracy groups have persistently agitated for an all inclusive Sovereign National Conference with the powers to steer itself toward evolving a people oriented Constitution for the Country. These successive regimes have however rejected these patriot calls based on pre-modal fears that it may precipitate to the disintegration of the Country.
As Nigeria moved to the 4 th Republic, stringent calls for people' driven Constitution were rebuffed by successive civilian administration based on the ill founded logic that it will amount to the existence of two Sovereigns in a state, to bestow a parallel body outside the National Assembly 30 with a law making pow- At the end of the day, the outcome will not have the force of law as long as it is subject to the approval of the President or the legislature. As far as I am concerned, only a SNC, which will have the force of law, can serve the real purpose of a conference and nothing else. 33 In addition to use of conferences of people elected for the purpose of evolving a Constitution, modern States have accepted the use of Direct Democracy, known as referendum for the purpose of enabling all citizens to participate in Constitution making and the adoption of the final Draft of the Constitution. 34 We shall consider some of these States. But before that it is important that we consider the imperative of a Constitution founded on the free will of the people, a Constitution made by a Constituent Assembly specifically elected for that purpose by the people and subjected to a referendum for adoption by the people.

The Legitimacy of a Constitution
A legitimate constitution must evolve from the legitimate will of the people. A promulgation or enactment of a constitution by an undemocratic government does not bestow same with the character of legitimacy. Even the stereotyped phrase in almost all the successive Constitutions of Nigeria to the effect that "we the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria …" 35 made the Constitution, does not, and cannot clothe them with legitimacy. Further, it is the Constitution that ennobles and legitimizes government and not the other way round. Therefore an illegal regime; government not supported by or derivable from the Constitution cannot legitimately foist its own constitution on the people. 36 This is because of the well known accepted principle that political sovereign inheres with the people and such the people reserves the right to determine by themselves how best they want to be governed. Sovereignty is described as inalienable. 37 In the era of Hobbessian Leviathanic monarchs, sovereignty lied with the Kings or Queens. During the ecclesiastical period of the Reign of Pope in Rome, the custodian of sovereignty was the Pope. However, in this modern era of republicanism and democracy, sovereignty inheres with the people; the citizens of the state. It cannot be delegated nor transferred even temporarily to government officials. 38 The idea of social compact has as well experienced modernization. This idea as explained by Rousseau 39 is one entered by the citizens with themselves for the purpose of self preservation. This notion of social contract in the perspective of Paine 40 does not amount to surrender of sovereignty to a class of people. According to Paine; There is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on the one side and the government on the other side to preserve and constitute a government. To suppose that any government can be party in a compact with the whole people is to suppose it to have existence before it can have right to exist. The only instance in which a compact can take place between the people and those who exercise the government is that the people shall pay them while they choose to employ them. 41 No matter what may be its own preconceived advantage, any process by which an existing legislative assembly be it elected or otherwise, without prior popular mandate for the purpose of enacting a constitution purports to make a constitution, cannot be a reflection of the popular will of the people. This is because its mandate is limited to lawmaking according to the provisions and limit of the existing Constitution. 42 The lawmakers cannot go outside the Constitution upon which they derived legitimacy no matter the popularity or exigencies of such temptation as the outcome will be ultra vires. A Constitution will be an act of the people if it is made by them either directly in a referendum or through a convention or constituent assembly popularly elected for the purpose of Constitution making and nothing else.
It is not the formal act of promulgation that crowns the Constitution the character of legitimacy as an act of the people. The legitimacy of the constitution is concerned with how to make it command the loyalty, obedience, and confidence of the people. It cannot be disputed that a constitution often embodies ideas that are not part of the native cultural heritage of the people, like ideas originating from Roman law, Greek philosophy, English as well as American and French revolutions. No matter how popular such ideas may sound, it is fundamentally essential that the people are made to be acquainted with as well as voluntarily accept this foreign heritage otherwise such ideas will be resisted by the people. Therefore, to achieve this understanding and acceptance, a constitution needs to pass through a process of popularization with a view to generating public interest in it. The people must be made to identify themselves with its ideas and contents; otherwise it will remain remote, artificial with no more existence than the paper on which it is written. 43 A constitution needs not be necessarily 'enacted' by the people to have legitimacy, what is necessary as stated above is that the people should be involved in the process of its making.
The argument that constitution making is an act of lawmaking of which only a state machinery can perform and such that the people either in a referendum or through a constituent assembly elected for that purpose are not legally competent to adopt a constitution and bestow validity upon same is founded in error.
If the state is a creation of the people by means of a constitution and derives its The problems confronting the Nigerian federal state are of such complexity and enormity as to require fundamental and radical changes in her Constitution, which put them beyond the power of the government to effect by way of constitutional amendment without recourse to the people through the machinery of a referendum. The limited nature of government's mandate in this regard is further underlined by the universally recognized distinction between its legislative organ and a constituent assembly. The latter is an assembly specially mandated by the people, as the repository of a country's constituent power, either to adopt a constitution on their behalf or to draw up proposals for a constitution to be submitted for adoption by the people in a referendum.

Referendum and Plebiscite
Plebiscite and referendum are two forms of Direct Democracies employed in modern times, the former having originated from French revolutionaries 48 and described as "totalitarian democracies". Through Plebiscite people were prompted to vote on specific matters to provide legitimacy to government actions. Its origin is traceable to the ancient Rome in the fourth century when the plebeians or the commoners directly participated in law making process. 49 Today plebiscite is used to describe a vote that is advisory or consultative rather than legally binding on the government. 50 The referendum on the other hand originated from the Switzerland in the 45 Ibid. 46 Cited in Okoye (2006), "Why Resolution of Confab Should go for a Referendum", Vanguard Friday (Nigeria) April 22, 2006, p. 18. 47 Ibid. 48 Daniel J. Elazar,Op. cit. 49 See http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/referendum/ assessed (12/01/17). 50 In Europe plebiscite is usually used in a negative sense to refer to unfair and un-free vote in an undemocratic political system. Dictators like Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, and Mussolini all held plebiscites in which rejection of their proposals were unthinkable. A referendum by contrast is a free, fair and competitive vote -it is democratic if the wording of the question and the rules governing the campaign give both the proponents and opponents of the issue the ability to compete on fair terms and votes are compete on fair terms and votes are cast and counted without fraud. See Richard Rose "referendum or plebiscite: what's the difference? www.cspp.strath.ac.uk/ESRC-ref%20or%20pleb.pdf assessed (12/01/17). middle of the nineteenth century and were employed as a substitute to the previous outdated and presently unrealistic method of assembling voters in a place for the purpose of deciding major policy decisions, as it was no longer possible to congregate citizens in one place so as to make them vote. 51 Through referendum direct constitutional or political questions were presented to an electorate for direct decisions by general vote. 52 In the modern times referendum has become a popular tool of policy making associated with republican Democracy. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, referendum has been accepted as an effective tool for policy making by government around the world. Today referendum is the most people friendly election device in which a law can be either accepted or repeal based on the popular vote of the people. Through the process of referendum voters can reject or accept law or statute passed by a legislature by taking a popular vote on the issue.
Both constitutional changes and legislative changes may be carried out through the process of referenda.
In Australia referendum is a veritable part of the country's constitutional and democratic process as it is employed for constitutional amendment. 53 Even in United States of America where no provision was made for referenda in her Constitution, 49 out of 50 states of US has employed referenda as a normal part of their government and has been made part of the Constitution of these states. 54 In Britain where the parliamentary sovereignty is practiced, referendum has been considered for the purpose of granting more autonomy to Scotland and Wales, such that Scotland and Wale were expected to vote for or against the granting of increased rules. Recently, Britain was allowed to decide by means of referendum whether or not they should continue to be part of the European Union. 55 The major distinction between referendum and plebiscite is that whereas the outcome of a referendum is binding on the government as well as the citizens the outcome of a plebiscite is advisory as government is at liberty to adopt or to reject same. 56 In other words, while referenda change the law, plebiscites merely 51 This is also known as small republic" the evolution of large federations make the practice of "small republic" impossible and unrealistic. Daniel J. Elazar, Op. cit. See also, C. U. Anyawu, Op. cit. 52 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/referendum/ assessed (12/01/17) The word referendum is derived from the Latin expression "ad referendum" which means "that which must be taken back" or "that which must be submitted to an assembly." Switzerland apart, France and other European countries have accepted referendum as a form of democracy. See https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-referendum-and-a-plebiscite assessed 12/01/ 17) 53 Pursuant to section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, constitutional amendment can only be carried out by means of a referendum. The key feature of the Australia referenda is that they are legally determinative. In other words given a successful vote in favor of an issue in a referendum the results operates to change the relevant provision of the Constitution without any further governmental action or discretion, be it legislative or otherwise except the ceremonial granting of royal assent. www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/referendums-and-plebiscites.html (assessed 12/01/17) 54 The American founding fathers opposed the idea of referenda because of their belief that policy decisions required formal deliberation. Daniel J. Elazar,Op. cit. 55 Wikipedia (Assessed (28/01/17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016 indicate that the people would like the law to be changed in a certain direction-it then being the responsibility of government to implement it if it so desire. 57 Further while referendum is usually applied to constitutional polls plebiscite may be applied for a wider range of objectives. 58 In practice, a referendum is employed after the draft constitution must have been first deliberated by a constituent or other deliberative body preferably a deliberative body specifically elected for that purpose. This process is necessary since the referendum does not normally provide a proper opportunity for canvassing of views on the issues in question or the accommodation of different perspectives. 59 Referendum will thereafter be employed to ratify the decision of the constituent deliberative body.

Autochthonous Constitution: Drawing from Other States
The making of the U.S. Constitution laid the universal precedent that the constituent, the sovereign power, the power to make or change the constitution of a 56 Plebiscite is sometimes called advisory referendum because the government does not have to act upon its decision. The only choice usually available in a referendum is 'yes' or 'no' and not a nuanced answer. 60 Another major component is initiative. Initiative however only proposes new laws for consideration see moadoph.gov.au/blog/referenda-and-plebiscites-whats-the-difference (12/01/17) 61 C. U. Anyanwu,Op. cit. 62 Professor Markku Suksi, a foremost authority on the referendum, notes that more than half of the constitution-making processes from 1998 through 2007 used the referendum to decide on new constitutional text. But at the level of states (ignoring subnational entities), new constitutions, or constitutions that seem to be the result of a more specific constitution-making process rather than a regular amendment process, have been decided by means of the referendum only in some fourteen cases (Albania [1998], Sudan [1998], Venezuela [1999 Kyrgyzstan [2007], and Thailand [2007]). Suksi also estimates that at least half of the world's constitutions require a referendum for constitutional change Suksi 2008, cited in http://constitutionmakingforpeace.org/book/3-5-referendums-and-plebiscites/ assessed (12/01/17). country belongs to the people. Thomas Paine 63 in his "Right of Man" stated that a Constitution is not the Act of a government but the people constituting it. Edward Corwain 64 traces the efficacy of the U.S. Constitution to the fact that the people to be governed by it established it. The great French philosopher and Jurist Alexis de Tocqueville 65 in his great classic described the emergence of the people as a constituent power and lawmaker, not as a matter of political theory but in the real practice of government. He said; The doctrine of the sovereignty of the people took possession of the state.
Every class was enlisted in its cause; battles were fought and victories obtained for it, it became the law of laws… the people reign in the American Politician world as the deity does in the universe. They are the cause and the aim of all things, everything comes from them, and everything is absorbed in them. 66 The characterization of the people by Tocqueville as "the law of laws" needs to be particularly emphasized. The opening words of the U.S Constitution: "we the people… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America", does not merely echo a revolutionary sentiment, it reflects a common The notion of the people as the rightful authority to adopt a constitution through a referendum or a constituent assembly specially elected by them for the purpose is also well-rooted and accepted in Belgium, one of the European colonizing powers in Africa. A specially elected National Congress of 200 delegates adopted its first and still surviving written Constitution of 1831. The First amendment by which the suffrage was vastly expanded in September 1893 was likewise adopted by a constituent assembly elected for the purpose in April 1952.
The monarchy being the central pillar of the Constitution, the question whether or not Leopold III should be permitted to return to the country from exile after the Second World War to resume the throne from his brother regent was de- the adoption of about thirty four constitutional principles for a democratic South Africa 68 . Similarly the Ethiopians, after several years of bloodletting went through a process-led constitution making exercise and adopted a constitution which is distinguished by its recognition of Ethiopia as a multi-ethnic state and creation of ethnically based states. The right to self-determination, freedom to determine a working language by states and the composition of the national defense force on the basis of equitable representation of the nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia are all enshrined in her Constitution. 69 The stabilising effect of real grassroots constitutional assemblies or conventions whose outcomes are articulated and enacted by a central constitutional conference or convention for constitution making purposes need not be over-emphasised. For instance, the 1960 Constitution of Ghana was enacted by a Constituent Assembly but only after it had been submitted to the people in a referendum. The constitution itself incorporated the people as part of the legislative process. Powers not delegated to the regular organs of the state remained with the people who could exercised them by means of a referendum; in particular of the fifty five articles of the Constitution no less than seventeen were made alterable only by the people, exclusive of the legislature. 70 Similarly in Kenya, which battled with a colonial government' imposed constitution; a constitution which has undergone processes of amendment by a one party dominated parliament propelled by self interest. 71 At last Kenya was able to initiate a process of constitution making process centred on the Kenya populace. The proposed constitution was exposed to public debate through various fora and finally subjected to a referendum. 72 The Indian Constitutional Assembly was elected by provincial legislative assemblies at the ratio of one to one million people. The three main communities 68 The South Africa initiated a process of constitution making through the convention for democratic South Africa. In 1991, a transition Constitution was made which provided for an elected constitution assembly for the purpose of drafting a final constitution for South Africa. By 1993, through its multi-party negotiating Process (MPNP) A set of principles forming the standard for the modern constitution was agreed upon to ensure basic liberty as well as preserved rights of minorities. The Interim Constitution took off in 1994. The Interim Constitution provided for a parliament made up of 2 houses, a 400 member national assembly and 90 member senate representing 9 provinces, the joint session of the national assembly and the senate was required to form the constituent assembly. This constituent assembly was required to draw up the final Constitution. A provision for referendum of which 60 percent vote is required was provided therein. The process of constitution making was completed with the distribution of millions of copies of the final document in 11 languages of the country thereby underscoring the importance of the citizen participation in constitution making process. See, Abioye (2011)  namely Muslims, Sikhs and General Population elected the Provincial Assemblies. According to Dr. Hari Chand, the Indian Constitutional Assembly was the master of its own procedure and its powers were not limited or fettered by any other authority. It was a self directing and self governing body. It was the second of its kind in Asia, the first being the Chinese national assembly conceived by Dr. Sun Yatsen and convened by his successor Marshall Chiang Kai Shek which was 'turbulent' in session at that time. The Constitution of India provided for a flexible procedure of amendment for a transitional period of three years derived from Article 51 of the Irish Constitution to guard against any mistakes or loopholes that may need to be revisited. 73

Conclusion
We have so far X-rayed the history of constitution making in Nigeria and demonstrated her inability to evolve a people driven constitution, which is acceptable, by the citizens. We have further considered the true source of legitimacy of a constitution and the imperative of a constitution made by the people through a constituent assembly elected for that purpose and submitted to the people by way of a referendum. We noted that a people's made constitution is in conformity with the practice of republican democracy, which encourages popular participation in the governance process. This is a process followed by most states of the world today and Nigeria should follow suit. It is therefore submitted that even under a democratic regime, Nigeria can organize a constituent assembly with the aim of effecting a fundamental and lasting changes to the constitution or with the aim of radically bringing into life a new and autochthonous constitution, which shall be subjected to a referendum. The method of voting at the referendum shall be Yes/No response to the key decisions of the conference. Such constitution made in this direct democratic manner will gain legitimacy and support from the citizens and therefore engender political cohesion and a virile federal Nigeria.