By Segun Ayobolu
This columnist apologizes for our absence in the last two weeks. The spirit was indeed willing but the flesh was weak and weary. In the interlude, there were interesting developments. President Muhammadu Buhari appointed new Service Chiefs. State and non state actors rose up against criminal herdsmen in parts of the South-West. These have a bearing surely on our ongoing discourse on senior lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana’s take on the restructuring debate which we conclude today. Many advocates of restructuring in Nigeria today appear to perceive and approach the issue essentially from an ethnic prism. Return to your ethnic camps O Nigerians, they seemingly intone, and all will be well with us. Those of them who were once adept and most adroit at explicating the dilemmas of Nigeria’s national question from a class and economic perspective have long since ‘gone off their Marx’! They now worship at the shrine of the gods of ethnic supremacy. From their new perspectives, Nigeria should be structurally reconfigured along ethnic and/or regional fault lines as class analyses have lost their saliency. The doctrinaire Marxists of yore may have unduly underplayed the critical dimensions of race, ethnicity, religion and gender in their analyses of society but that does not diminish the continued utility of class as a category of dissecting and understanding contemporary political structures.
For, it becomes more obvious by the day that as Nigeria’s protracted economic crisis deepens and the size of the total social product to be shared among contending factions and fractions of the ruling class continually shrinks, the more the latter resort to the exploitation of ethno-regional sentiments to legitimize themselves politically among their assorted primordial constituencies. But Mr. Femi Falana argues forcefully that trying to reconfigure Nigeria along ethnic lines is not only a social engineering impossibility, it is a logical absurdity except we are no longer thinking in terms of a coherent and cohesive country.
In the words of Mr. Falana, “There should be a greater clarity of purpose in the proposition of restructuring. The diversity and complexity of Nigeria should obviously make the idea of ethnic restructuring impractical in the Nigerian circumstance. When members of the major ethnic groups talk of restructuring in which maps of Biafra and Oduduwa Republics are neatly drawn, do they give a thought to some ethnic groups whose members are only a few thousands? Some languages are spoken each by fewer than a thousand persons while others are spoken each by tens of millions. How do you restructure on ethnic basis in such a complex terrain? That is why the focus should be devolution of powers and responsibilities along class lines. The competence and capacity of states and local governments to govern should be bolstered by awakening institutions of democracy including civil society”.
Again, some advocates of restructuring create the impression that the notions, ideas or models of a reconfigured Nigeria which they have subjectively arrived at are somewhat superior to others and should be binding on all. They hardly give a thought to the roadmap of how to get from where we are today to the Nigerian Eldorado they have dreamt up for the rest of us. But is there a magic wand for bringing about the new Nigeria of their fancies without working through existing structures and processes? It is doubtful and Mr. Falana makes the point pungently. According to him, “Those who advocate restructuring hardly play the politics of restructuring very well. Like I indicated earlier, the problems of restructuring are to be approached strategically with negotiation and engagement. Since the issue will ultimately be resolved with constitutional amendment or if need be writing a new constitution, the various ethnic and regional champions should engage robustly with their people in the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly. It is inexplicable that restructuring hardly features in parliamentary debates in Abuja or in any of the state capitals”.
He continues, “Restructuring should not be an alibi for governance to go on vacation as we are beginning to see in some states of the federation. States do not have to wait for restructuring to fix primary schools without roofs or health centres without drugs and equipment. The absence of restructuring cannot be a justification for some states to fail to access funds from the Universal Basic Education (UBE) to remove 14 million children from the streets. State governments need not wait for restructuring before mobilizing the people to embark on food production and industrialization”.
How about the issue of lopsided appointments and especially the allegation of nepotism against President Muhammadu Buhari in filling key and sensitive positions particularly as regards the headship of components of the security architecture? Is this a problem for which the extant 1999 constitution should be blamed or is it, first and foremost, a challenge of leadership limitation? The answer is obvious. For instance, with a single decision and within the twinkle of an eye, President Muhammadu Buhari this week bowed to popular pressure and appointed new Service Chiefs more reflective of the country’s plurality no matter how imperfectly. This shows that the constitution was not the problem all along but rather the leadership will to abide by its letter and spirit.
As Mr. Falana points out, “In order to command national loyalty, in recognition of the diversity of the people and the need to promote a sense of belonging among the people of Nigeria, Section 14(3) & (4) of the Constitution provides that the composition of the government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria by ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or in any of its agencies. It is submitted that lopsidedness in political appointments is prohibited by the constitution. Hence, the Federal Character Commission, a federal executive body, has been assigned the responsibility to deal with allegations of lopsided appointments in public and private sectors”.
Many commentators blame the extant constitution for the pervasive insecurity that has made the length and breadth of Nigeria today a vast, Hobbesian wasteland and killing field. They contend that the constitution imposes a unitary policing system on the country and confers the vacuous title of Chief Security Officer on State Governors without giving them any powers of control over the police in their respective states. Mr. Falana disagrees submitting that “With profound respect, the constitution has empowered state governors to share police powers with the President but for reasons best known to them they have abdicated the responsibility to the Federal Government”. He points out that the Nigeria Police Council, which is constitutionally empowered to administer, organize and supervise the Nigeria Police Force, is composed of the President and the state governors.
In a damning indictment of the state governors, Falana states that “About two years ago, my repeated calls on state governors to requisition the meetings of the Nigeria Police Council fell on deaf ears. Hence, I sued the President at the Federal High Court to convene the meetings of the Council to address the security challenge in the country. However, Section 6(4) of the Nigeria Police Act 2020 has made provision for at least two meetings of the council per year and emergency meetings when necessary. In spite of the worsening security situation in the country, governors have not requisitioned a single meeting of the National Police Council. But last week, the APC governors held an emergency meeting with President Buhari and persuaded him not to honour the invitation to address members of the House of Representatives on the security situation in the country. Apart from making a mockery of the basic tenet of accountability and separation of powers, the APC governors have brazenly subverted federalism”.
In much of the restructuring debate, there is the reflexive assumption that the problem with governance and federal practice in Nigeria is an all too powerful centre and unfairly emasculated states. What comes out of Mr. Falana’s lecture, however, is that the totalitarianism of state chief executives is perhaps worse than what obtains at the centre. For instance, financial autonomy for the judiciary and legislature in accordance with constitutional stipulations is adhered to at the federal level but totally ignored by state governments. Again, even where the constitution confers joint responsibility on the federal and state governments such as in the management of the economy or fighting corruption, for instance, state governors have slept on their rights leaving the terrain to the dominion of the centre.
As Mr. Falana submits, “Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the 1999 Constitution, there are some residual powers reserved for state governments which have not been explored to promote the economic development of the country. We have identified specific areas where state governments have refused to jointly exercise powers with the federal government as stipulated by the constitution. In view of the strident opposition of the ruling party to power devolution, the Nigerian people are not deceived by the campaign for restructuring which is being championed, in recent time, by politicians who are interested in the 2023 presidential race. Instead of dismissing the campaign, state governors who are genuinely interested in restructuring should democratize the powers that have devolved to state governments from the centre through litigation. They are also advised to insist on power sharing with the federal government with respect to the management of the economy and security of the nation as stipulated by the constitution”.
