…Says it’ll strengthen country’s democracy
In a notable intervention from one of Nigeria’s key democratic transition figures, former Head of State Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar (rtd.) has urged the removal or amendment of military-era decrees embedded in the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The goal, he argues, is to align the foundational document more closely with democratic principles and the evolving needs of Nigerians more than 27 years after the return to civilian rule.
Abubakar, who oversaw Nigeria’s swift transition from military to democratic governance in 1998–1999, made the remarks in his recently launched autobiography: ‘Call of Duty’. The book reflects on his brief but pivotal tenure following the death of General Sani Abacha in June 1998.
Abubakar’s administration inherited a nation exhausted by prolonged military rule, economic hardship, and political repression. Within 11 months, he organized elections and handed power to elected President Olusegun Obasanjo on May 29, 1999. The 1999 Constitution, promulgated via Decree No. 24 of 1999, just weeks before the handover, served as the legal bedrock for this new democratic era.
The document was not drafted from scratch by soldiers. According to Abubakar, it drew heavily, approximately 95% from the 1979 Constitution (itself produced by a civilian Constitutional Drafting Committee of legal experts) and elements of the 1995 draft constitution from the Abacha era.
A committee reviewed public input, and the military Provisional Ruling Council finalised it under time pressure to enable a rapid handover and avert instability from hardline military factions resistant to ceding power.
Abubakar has repeatedly pushed back against claims that the military “wrote” the constitution, emphasizing that it was adapted from civilian-led prior efforts. He acknowledges, however, that certain decrees and provisions from the military period were incorporated or retained.
Critics have long targeted provisions such as: the Land Use Act and the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), seen as legacies of military centralization and authoritarian tendencies. Other embedded elements reflecting military-era governance structures, ouster clauses (limiting judicial review in some contexts), and federal-state power imbalances. These elements, sometimes described as “smuggled” into the document, have fueled debates about the constitution’s legitimacy.
Detractors argue it was imposed rather than popularly adopted, lacking a full constituent assembly or referendum in the final stages, and that its preamble’s “We, the People” claim rings hollow given its military promulgation.
Abubakar does not dismiss all criticism. He describes the constitution as a “living document” subject to amendment and states that adjustments are needed to reflect technological, social, and political changes. However, he insists changes must follow democratic procedures in the National Assembly and state legislatures, not wholesale rejection. “There’s no perfect constitution in the world,” he noted.
He also defends provisions like the Land Use Act and NYSC, arguing critics have not made a compelling case for their removal and that invalidating large parts of the document would be disproportionate.
