The **1999 Constitution** of Nigeria is often criticized primarily because it was **imposed by the military**. Here is a simple explanation of this argument:
Imposed by the Military:
One of the primary criticisms of the 1999 Constitution is that it was crafted and enacted under the military regime of **General Abdulsalami Abubakar** without broad-based public participation or input. This means that it was not derived from a comprehensive democratic consensus but rather from a top-down decree format. Many critics argue that because it was imposed by the military, it lacks **legitimacy** and does not truly reflect the aspirations and desires of the Nigerian people.
Other points of argument can be discussed for a comprehensive understanding:
The Executive Have Immunity Clause:
This clause provides certain immunities for the president, vice president, governors, and deputy governors from civil or criminal prosecutions while in office. Critics argue that this provision grants too much protection to these officeholders and can be a shield against accountability.
It is Expensive to Operate:
The constitution provides for a large and complex government structure, with a **bicameral legislature, multiple layers of political offices**, and robust financial allocations for running these structures. Maintaining such a system is considered costly and may divert essential resources from pressing national developmental needs.
It Did Not Create Additional States:
Another argument is its failure to create additional states to correct perceived imbalances or foster further decentralization. Some groups feel underrepresented and believe that creating more states could enhance political representation and economic distribution.
In summary, while the most significant argument remains its military origin, other structural issues and ramifications inherent in the constitution contribute to the critiques it faces.