Category: Emeka Omeihe

Restructuring debate was again re-opened by President Buhari and his deputy, Yemi Osinbajo when they spoke at separate venues last week. The president while addressing the Nigerian community in France claimed those calling for restructuring have been doing so without defining what it should be.

According to him, “there are too many people talking lazily about restructuring in Nigeria. Unfortunately, people are not asking them individually what they mean by restructuring. What form do they want restructuring to take. Do they want us to have something like the three regions we used to have?  Let them define it and then we see how we can peacefully do it in the interest of Nigerians”, the president reportedly told his audience.

At an entirely different occasion in Lagos, Osinbajo who spoke on the theme “Restructuring and the Nigerian Federation” told his listeners that good governance was what Nigeria needed rather than geographical restructuring. He said he has been “an advocate of fiscal federalism and stronger state governments. I have argued in favour of state police for the simple reason that policing is a local function. You cannot effectively police Nigeria from Abuja”. He also claimed to have argued before now that stronger, more autonomous states would effectively eradicate poverty in the country.

When the two positions by the nation’s topmost leaders are paired, one cannot but be utterly dismayed at the manifest dissonance inherent therein- dissonance that exposed the naivety or insincerity in some of the claims ascribed to Buhari on the precise meaning or definition of restructuring. But even before some of those claims are appraised, it is clear Buhari and Osinbajo are definitely not on the same page on the matter. Not with the clear demonstration by the latter that he understands the meaning and confines of restructuring.

Osinbajo prefers good governance to geographical restructuring. But he recognizes the imperative of fiscal federalism, stronger states and state police. He recognizes that more autonomous states would effectively reduce poverty and that policing is a local function, very difficult to perform from Abuja.

He is not under any illusion as to the precise meaning and elements of restructuring canvassed by its army of proponents in contradistinction with what his boss wants us to believe. He neither offered any definition nor did absence of it bar him from identifying salient issues that needed to be tinkered with through restructuring. At any rate, the vice president must have been guided by the knowledge that in social analysis, definitions are rather inconclusive.

Osinbajo is no stranger to the fact that the federal system we operate is not original to us as it was copied from somewhere. And that raises the issue of comparison embodied in his admission that policing is a local function. By logical inference, he is saying there are functions that are better performed at certain levels in a federal system and structural adjustments have to be made to properly align them and strengthen system. He identified fiscal federalism, stronger states and state policing as some of them

Apparently deploying the most similar systems design of comparative analysis, he identified three areas that must align themselves to the realities of a true federal structure. There are many other nagging issues including geographical restructuring which he would want to avoid. There are no ambiguities on these despite Buhari’s prevarications. We are not surprised since it tallies with the hallmark behaviour of interests opposed to restructuring of inventing tenuous reasons to throw spanners into the wheel of its progress.

More fundamentally, it was a huge joke reading some of the claims ascribed to the president on restructuring. He wants proper definition of restructuring before government could go into it. He wants people to define the form it should take and whether we should go back to three regions and all that. Perhaps, we can excuse the president because he was addressing citizens abroad some of who may have faint knowledge of issues surrounding a matter that has been very clearly and copiously canvassed.

But then, the questions he threw to his audience are really for him to answer. And as the head of a government that promised restructuring in its campaign manifesto, is it not ridiculous that Buhari would be taking Nigerians abroad to task on an issue he ought to have a better idea of by now? And if one may ask, what concept or idea of restructuring did the president have in mind when he promised, campaigned and won election its basis? What definition of restructuring did his party have in mind or they just inserted the word without deep reflection on its precise meaning? Or are we being made to believe it was just a campaign gimmick?

The latter poser is reinforced given the double-speak which Buhari and some of his functionaries have subjected resurging agitations for restructuring to. At the peak of those agitations, the All Progressives Congress APC set up a committee headed by Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai to distil the true intent and definition of true federalism or restructuring as it promised during the 2015 elections. The move then was largely seen as a ploy to buy time.

But after four months of what they called rigorous research, the committee submitted its report to the party leadership with recommendations spanning 13 items on which they said a wide gamut of consensus existed among Nigerians for constitutional amendments to align them with the realities of the times. These included merger of states, delegation principle, fiscal federalism and devolution of powers.

On fiscal federalism, they proposed amendment to section 162 and sub-section two of the constitution and revenue allocation formula to “give more revenue to the states and reduce the federal government’s share of revenue”, noting what it called the overwhelming demand for devolution of powers, the committee proposed that the second schedule of part one and part two of the constitution should be amended to transfer some items that are now on the exclusive list to the concurrent list to enable both the states and federal government legislate on them.

There were also proposals on independent candidacy, local government, revenue allocation, citizenship, judiciary and referendum all geared towards resolving some of the imperfections of our convoluted federal order that has often resonated in agitations for restructuring or true federalism. It is almost a year since the committee submitted its report without any concrete action coming from the government. And as if the silence of the APC and the government on the report is not worrisome enough, Buhari seemed to have added salt to injury when he sought to interrogate his audience on issues his party has been properly advised by the committee. It is quite amazing that the president feigned ignorance of the wide gamut of consensus reached by the committee set up by the party he leads. What other definition, interpretation or suggestion does he expect on the matter rather than action?

Or how do we explain his stunning dithering on the precise meaning and definition of restructuring even as Osinbajo appears clear as to aspects of the restructuring the government can possibly undertake to strengthen the federal order? If at this point the president neither knows the items of restructuring nor prepared to provide the required leadership and requisite political will to honestly address the matter, then this country is in a deep mess.

The fact remains that restructuring the polity can no longer be wished way. It is also clear the current regime is not being honest on it. That is why it continues to erect obstacles on the road to its implementation. But restructuring holds the key to the continued progress and development of this country.

The rancour and bitter competition that characterize our politics and the massive looting of public funds by sundry buccaneers masquerading as leaders are directly linked to the imperfections of our federal contraption. Restructuring will largely address all that and stave off the increasing recline to primordial and parochial predilections. Is it surprising these tendencies are at an all time high?

Those calling for the head of Ebonyi State governor, Dave Umahi over his utterances on the choice of former governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi as running mate to Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP, should tarry for a while.

For, it appears the euphoria that usually greets such appointments is about to blur whatever point there is in the reservations of some southeast leaders as presented by Umahi. This should not be surprising given the high wire politics that usually surrounds which part of the nation’s geo-political divide that clinches the position.

Given this, comments with prospects of narrowing the chances of the zone or even working against it in producing the number two citizen are bound to ruffle public sensibilities. The peculiarity of the southeast within the nation’s political matrix since the return to democracy in 1999, further reinforces such feelings.

So it was when after a meeting of southeast governors of the PDP and some leaders, Umahi addressed the press repudiating an earlier statement by his media aide congratulating Obi on his nomination. “I am shocked over the choice of former governor of Anambra State, Mr. Peter Obi as the running mate to the presidential candidate of the PDP, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar without consulting with the leaders of the zone. The earlier statement quoting me as congratulating Peter Obi was never to my knowledge and I dissociate myself from the statement” Umahi said.

A barrage of attacks has been hurled at Umahi and the leaders on whose behest he spoke. Most of the views lampooned the governor for daring question the choice of Obi who in their view is eminently suitable and very qualified for the position. Umahi has been called all sorts of names with his promptings subjected to all manner of speculations. Some have even gone further to reel out Obi’s credentials all in an effort to rubbish whatever reservations might have informed the position of the southeast leaders. There are others who feel the governors should not have come public with such reservation as it tends to conform to the usual blackmail that the zone cannot agree on anything. For this group, Umahi’s comments could be capitalized upon by those against the progress of the zone to further divide and deny them their rights.

The controversy is in part, self-inflicted. That Umahi issued a statement congratulating Obi on his nomination only to repudiate same shortly after is enough to raise eyebrows. It is immaterial whether the first statement was brought to his knowledge by his media aide or not. The fact that such a sensitive message went public without his endorsement also spoke volumes on the kind of administration he runs.

It is curious that the governor, after issuing the congratulatory message turned full circle to express shock at the nomination on the grounds that the southeast was not consulted? Or put differently, were there no other available avenues to ventilate such grievances even in the seeming predicament he found himself?

Having issued the first statement, one had thought that further developments on the matter should have been taken up privately. The retraction and the manner Umahi spoke conveyed the unmistakable impression that the southeast PDP governors were against the nomination of Obi. That is the general reading of the message. The governors are entitled to their position but as events have since shown, their strategy ended up producing direct opposite results.

Apparently reeling on the sheer weight of these attacks, Umahi has made last ditch efforts to clarify his position.  In an interview with journalists in Abakiliki, he explained he was not against the nomination of Obi but the process leading to it. His grouse was that people from other zones met and took a decision that affected the southeast without the single input of any person from the area. “We have never said that Peter Obi is not good for us, we have nothing against Obi. But we want when decisions that concern us are being taken, we want to be part of that decision”, he said.

He also picked holes with the manner in which the five names in the list were picked from three states in the zone to the exclusion of Ebonyi and Imo. He saw this as an attempt at marginalization contending that one of the reasons the Ebonyi man is not too comfortable with the idea of regions is that they are afraid of further marginalization.

There are three issues raised in Umahi’s clarification. The first was that they were not carried along while decision on the nomination of the vice presidential candidate of the party was being deliberated upon by leaders from other zones. If people of other zones came together to consider the said list, it was only proper that the southeast should have had its representation irrespective of where the slot fell. This will make for equity and fairness and does not in any way compromise the right of Atiku to his choice of running mate.

Umahi alluded to this in his earlier statement when he said if Atiku had just picked Obi without consultation with other regions; the southeast would not have raised eyebrows. But since he found it expedient to consult other regions, the exclusion of the southeast amounted to an error of judgment. We cannot agree any less with this view more so when the position was zoned to the region. Faulting that procedural error does not amount to a rejection of Obi’s candidacy as some are inclined to.

It would then be improper to view that observation as evidence of schism within the ranks of the leadership of the zone. It is not. Neither should the lure of securing the vice presidential slot bar the leaders from making genuine observations on issues that affect them. After all, what is really there in the position and how does it remedy the precarious position of the southeast that we should be falling against each other? The slot is just one political post like many others that may end up not adding any real value to the southeast. It may not even be worth the energy being dissipated on it.

There is the suggestion that PDP governors of the southeast did not support Atiku during the last convention of the party and that was why he did not consult them. This is neither here nor there since Atiku would still have to seek for votes in those states.

Umahi went off tangent when he insisted that the five nominees in the list of possible vice presidential candidates ought to have been picked one from each of the five states. That would amount to trivializing the matter. If the nomination is based on merit as one should expect, demanding its sharing among the five states makes little sense. If all the states are ranked and one produces the five best nominees, the best of them all should emerge. This has nothing to do with marginalization as the governor erroneously argued.

It was myopic for him to have alluded to this as some of the issues for which people of the state oppose the idea of regions copiously canvassed by proponents of restructuring. By extrapolation, he is saying that people of the area now known as Ebonyi were marginalized in the former eastern region and a return to regions would further accentuate that.

The issue is not as simple as has been presented as whatever progress traceable to other sections of the zone are largely on account of individual efforts of those people depending on their competences, industry and hard work. And these vary from one area to the other. It was never a matter of deliberate government policy. Even then, Dr Akanu Francis Ibiam, the first governor of that region came from the present Ebonyi state. His position could have made all the difference in the lives of people of the area if all that was required for collective progress was ascendancy to high political office. Umahi must cure himself of such morbid prejudices if he must succeed in his current capacity.

Emerging predictions on the dire outcome of events after the 2019 elections in Nigeria are bound to ruffle sensibilities within government circles. We do not expect any less especially given the gloomy picture they portray on the economic and political health of the country.

Three international bodies: the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the research unit of The Economist magazine and HSBC, a multinational banking and financial services company had in their various reports painted frightening scenarios of the implications of re-electing President Mohammed Buhari in the coming national elections.

The Economist appraised Buhari’s regime against his three-pronged campaign promises: to end the jihadist insurgency, diversify the economy and reduce corruption with the conclusion that the government has not been able to meet public expectations on them. In very specific terms, the magazine observed that though Buhari made some gains against the jihadists in his first few months in office, it has since been bogged down as soldiers patrol the roads but the insurgents still rule the countryside.

The report also assessed the performance profile of the war against corruption with a verdict that voters are angry that Buhari “appears to have made slow progress in curbing corruption”.

While the magazine was very emphatic that the 2019 elections will be a close contest between the ruling APC and PDP and it expects the PDP presidential candidate to win, HSBC came out provisional as it said Nigeria’s current economic struggles look set to continue if Buhari wins a second term in office. It is also noteworthy that though the magazine predicted victory for the opposition, it expects the “next administration to flounder against the same problems as the incumbent one”.

The Nigerian government is yet to react to these reports. But the ruling party, the APC was quick to dismiss them as the handiwork of doomsday prophets. While urging Nigerians to disregard the reports, APC’s acting National Publicity Secretary, Yekini Nabena described them as the usual doomsday prophesies about the Nigerian nation which had proved false, deceptive and unreliable several times.

He recalled it was predicted that the Nigerian federation would fail in 2015 resulting in some ethnic nationalities going their separate ways but “here we are; nearly four years after the doomsday prophesy, the Nigerian federation rather than collapse, is waxing stronger with President Buhari’s administration striving to unite the country and consolidate positively on the strength of our diversity”.

The quick response of the APC is to be expected especially given the implications of the prediction on the electoral fortunes of the party. And with the 2019 around the corner, the effects of such predictions in swaying popular support cannot be underestimated. But they remain speculations that will have to contend with some other factors.

The salient point here is that though the Economist predicted a slight margin of victory for the opposition, it was quick to add that that regime will still flounder under the same problems that buffeted the current one. That is the real issue to worry about. Again, even as HSBC was provisional on the swing of the 2019 electoral victory, it envisages the current economic struggles to continue if Buhari emerges victorious.

The obvious deduction from the two positions is that Nigeria will not fare better either way. That is something to worry. Before now, such views have been expressed by not a few Nigerians. In his controversial open letter to Buhari not to run for the coming elections, former President Olusegun Obasanjo had thumbed down the two leading parties as incapable of providing the type of leadership that will lead the country aright.

He had canvassed the idea of generational shift culminating in the emergence of a third force. For him, extant order denoted in the leadership of the two leading political parties has become stale and incapable of serving the collective future interests of the country. The solution lies in the emergence of a new corps of leadership, a group of patriotic and selfless Nigerians with the requisite skills and abiding commitment to re-inventing the country.

But the consummation of that idea is yet to take real shape. This however, does not in any way whittle down the thesis of Obasanjo’s presentation. Rather, it is reinforced by the Economist and HSBC in their views on the future health of Nigerian economy if the election goes either way. That to me is the issue to contend with rather than the indecent haste with which the APC sought to dismiss the predictions.

Even if we quarrel with their position on the direction of electoral victory, it is difficult to fault their verdicts on the war against the Boko Haram insurgency and corruption in our public life. They said Buhari made some progress in the fight against the Jihadist insurgency in the first few months of his regime and that progress has been bogged down. That is correct.

Not only was the government unable to meet the ambitious deadline it set to conclude the war, its assessment of the overall progress has been at utter variance with facts on the ground. We had been told that the insurgents have been decimated and degraded such they can no longer muster the capacity to engage the military or military formations. There is also the narrative that they no longer occupy our territory and can only attack soft targets. Yet, we are beginning to witness another phase in the resilience and dexterity of the insurgents as they regularly engage our military with casualties on both sides.

The rising capacity of the insurgents to confront the military as the national elections draw nearer, has miserably thrown up a complex web of theories reminiscent of what we had prior to the 2015 general elections. While some people in the north believed then that the Jonathan regime was behind the insurgency, there were widely held views that Boko Haram was nothing but political grievances masquerading under religious garb.

Sadly, the undue politicization of the war is what has left us with the current pass. No doubt, the state of that war will count seriously in the unfolding electioneering campaigns. The signs are already in the public space. The question is, will Buhari again factor it into his campaign promise given the claim that the war had already been won? What this poser underscores is the inappropriateness in dismissing with a wave of the hand some of the conclusions of these foreign bodies.

We can neither fault their conclusion that Buhari’s popularity has dipped nor the fact that he has made slow progress in curbing corruption. When some time ago the president received Catholic Bishops in audience, they told him clearly that the popularity with which he easily sailed into office had waned considerably. Even then, the spate of defections from the party, says much about the personality of the president irrespective of strident efforts by his media aides to shield him from the implosion.

It is also difficult to dismiss their conclusion that “without collective resolve, it would prove impossible to bring permanent peace to large parts of the country hit variously by an Islamist insurgency in the north, ethno-nationalism and piracy in the oil producing regions, secessionism in Biafra region and disputes over land access across the centre of the country”.  At the centre of it all, is the vexed issue of an equitable federal order. But the collective resolve to address these nagging national questions cannot emerge with the discordant voices and equivocation of the government on restructuring.

It is not enough to dismiss these predictions. Neither does it suffice that earlier prediction that Nigeria will be a failed state by 2015 has failed to materialize. That Nigeria is more divided and factionalized along ethnic, religious and other primordial cleavages now than ever before, is in sync with the prediction. The solution lies in initiating credible and reassuring measures to address these nagging questions to obviate the dynamics and verdict of self-fulfilling prophesy.