Which of the following is NOT a reason in support of rigid constitution?

Step 1: Analyze the question The question asks for the option that is NOT a reason supporting a rigid constitution. So we are looking for the "odd one out", which is a point that does not favour rigidity.

Step 2: Explain the concept A rigid constitution is one that is difficult to amend. It requires a special procedure, such as a two-thirds or three-fourths majority in the legislature, or approval by state legislatures or a referendum. Nigeria's 1999 Constitution is an example.

Arguments in favour of a rigid constitution:

• It ensures political stability, because the basic laws do not change often.
• It guarantees careful consideration of laws, since amendments cannot be rushed.
• It protects minority interests, because the majority cannot easily change the rules to suit themselves.
• It prevents arbitrary changes by those in power, so government changes occur in an orderly way.

A flexible constitution, by contrast, can be amended easily, with the same procedure as ordinary laws. Its advantages are quick adaptation to change and quick action in emergencies.

Step 3: Go through the options

• A. Encourages smooth change of government: a stable, fixed set of rules makes transitions orderly. This supports rigidity.
• B. Ensures political stability: a classic argument for rigidity.
• C. Guarantees careful consideration of laws: the difficult amendment process forces careful thought. This supports rigidity.
• D. Flexibility encourages quick action: this is an advantage of a flexible constitution, not a rigid one. It is NOT a reason supporting rigidity.
• E. Protects the interest of the minority people: a standard argument for rigidity.

Step 4: Answer

Exam tip: Remember "rigid = rules stay firm". Rigid goes with stability, protection, and careful thought. Flexible goes with speed, adaptability, and ease of change. When you see words like "flexibility" or "quick" in a question about rigid constitutions, suspect that it is the odd one out.