The main argument against the 1999 Constitution is that
it was imposed by the military
the executive have immunity clause
It is expensive to operate
It did not create additional states
Explanation
Video Explanation
Post your Contribution
Discussions (8)
The main criticism is that the constitution was imposed by the military. Other issues, like the immunity clause, cost, and state creation, are secondary. The core problem is the lack of a democratic process in creating the 1999 Constitution.
Cost of operation shouldn't even be a Primary problem because it also happened with 1979 constitution and other several constitution. If it was a primary problem why would they repeat the same mistake?
the answer should be A
A significant criticism of the 1999 Constitution is that it was promulgated by the departing military regime, rather than being a product of widespread, inclusive civilian participation. This has led to questions about its legitimacy and claims that it does not truly reflect the will of the Nigerian people.
Many argue that a truly democratic constitution should be created through a process involving extensive public consultation and input, such as a constituent assembly. The core issue is its origin and the lack of popular participation in its creation.
The main argument against the 1999 Constitution, often cited in discussions about Nigeria's constitutional reform, is that it was not created by the people through a constituent assembly and lacks legitimacy due to its origins in a military decree.
@MySchool Angela, the answer shoulda been A not otherwise
my school you are 100 
percent wrong...The Answer is A. it lacks proper legitimacy because it was imposed by the military. Not many know this, but it is certainly the write option....A
