The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

  • PDP in APC

    Last week’s defection of the Abubakar Baraje-led PDP to the All Progressives Congress APC will for quite sometime, continue to dominate public discourse. Not only did it herald a redefinition of the political equation of this country, it is bound to send the ruling party back to the drawing board. There are now higher prospects that these coalescing interests will culminate in the emergence of two strong parties that can checkmate each other during elections. This should be something to cheer for all true lovers of democracy

    The defection is seen by many as the long awaited birth of a two party system and a prelude to the deepening of democracy on these shores. In the days ahead, we expect to witness alignment and realignments among the various political interests. Though not entirely unexpected, the defection must have taken the leadership of the ruling party by surprise since they are yet to conclude negotiations with the group.

    Issues tabled before the president as conditions for peace include among others, the sack of the national chairman of the PDP, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, reinstatement of dissolved state executive committees of the party in Adamawa and Rivers states, commitment from Jonathan that he will not run in 2015 and cessation of harassment of some of the governors by officials of anti grant agencies.

    With the sudden defection by five out of the seven dissenting governors, it would seem that a death knell has been sounded to whatever remains of that negotiation. Having joined the APC, all further negotiations appear foreclosed even as two of the dissenting governors still hope to go on with it. How they intend to do this given the new development is hazy.

    Expectedly, the development has generated considerable interest from a broad spectrum of the Nigerian population depending on which of the political divide one belongs. The APC leadership sees it as a defining moment in Nigeria’s political history. With 16 governors in its fold, it envisions the strengthening of a strong two party system. In its calculations, the defection has made it a strong alternative to the ruling PDP with higher chances of defeating it in the coming national elections. Such has been the level of optimism generated. There are merits in this optimism especially when the efforts that crystallized into the formation of APC are put into reckoning.

    But the PDP sees the development as good riddance to bad rubbish. For them, the move is long expected as it would now enable the party to put its house in order. The party said it will not lose sleep since decampment is not novel to it. It believes the PDP is such a large organization to be rattled by the actions of the five governors. The PDP is entitled to its views on the matter no matter how unconvincing they might seem.

    Beyond these however, are very fundamental issues that have been thrown up by the defection. The strengthening of a two party system is one especially given the dangerous slide to a one party state. There is also the issue of giving the electorate a plurality of choice. These are bound to find expression in the emerging order provided certain conditions are met.

    The first of such conditions is that the two parties must be visibly distinct in both ideology and orientation to be able to offer alternative political choice. Their manifestoes and programs must proffer alternative paradigms on governance and how to provide for the greatest good of the greatest number of our citizens. They must also be peopled by those who have shared vision on how best to tackle the developmental challenges of their constituents.

    Compatibility of interests, orientation and perception on the essence of governance is a sine qua none for co-habitation.

    That is where the defection has serious drawbacks. The APC prides itself as the party of the progressives. It also sees the PDP as a conservative party.

    But it has gone to town celebrating the coming into its fold of a group that had been deeply ensnared in the conservative train. It remains to be imagined how the APC intends to wean them of this conservative predilection. Or are we about to be treated to the biblical similitude of the pouring of an old wines skin into a new one? Will the new wine not be contaminated by the mixture? That is the challenge ahead. The way it is resolved will lead us closer to whatever national value or lack of it there is in the current marriage.

    The action of the PDP governors has been hailed in some quarters for its capacity to deepen democracy. That could as well be. However, when their reasons for leaving their party are juxtaposed against this optimism, the entire euphoria may add up to nothing. The issues they tabled before Jonathan say it all. Apart from the matter of internal democracy, all others in their agenda are largely propelled by self-serving and sectional considerations. Even the agitation for internal democracy must be taken with a pinch of the salt. Before now, these governors had benefited disproportionately from the scant regard of their party for internal democracy. They had been part and parcel of the bazaar that is the imposition of candidates both at the national and state elections. It served them well as long as they took advantage of it to determine who runs for political office or not. They saw nothing wrong when they sidelined their opponents through their undemocratic control of what has now become known as political structures. Now they have been cornered by their own dialectics, they complain. Is it not an irony of sorts that these later day apostles of internal democracy had the temerity to demand that Jonathan should repudiate his right to contest the 2015 election as a condition for peace? This demand has inflicted incurable damage to their claim to being apostles of good conscience. At any rate, were they not part and parcel of the Jonathan regime that has received unmitigated bashing from the opposition? What has been their reaction to all the ills bedeviling the country since that party has been in power? These are the issues to ponder. It could well be that the defection is a fresh undertaking by the governors to turn a new leaf. Only time will bear that out.

    To be sure, the defecting governors are within their rights to seek political accommodation in any party of their choice. But there is a problem when you hide under seemingly national goals to project interests of a selfish or sectional nature. Governors Chibuike Amaechi and Muritala Nyako’s further insight into the reasons for their defection bear this out. Amaechi told reporters that it is to protect Rivers oil wells that are being ceded to other states. Nyako’s grouse is with Tukur’s dissolution of the state’s executive committee of the party. How these will further the course of national politics and democracy remain at best, illusory. It would appear behind this façade is the masquerading of selfish and sectional interests under the garb of patriotism. Its outcome could turn out a mixed grill of the good, the bad and the ugly.

  • Orji’s belated penitence

    When two years ago the Abia State government came out with the obnoxious policy of sacking civil servants in its employ for being non indigenes, the measure had for good reasons, attracted widespread condemnations. Then, the state government rationalized the policy on the ground that it was inevitable for it to pay the minimum wage approved for workers in the public sector. It shut its eyes to pleas and the argument that the policy was imbued with the wider prospects of denting relations between it and the governments and peoples of the affected states and stultifying efforts at national integration.

    Abia State government was even quick to join issues with some other states trading words in a manner that further exposed the limitations of those who conceived that policy. Coming from a section of the country that has been upbeat in raising allegations of mistreatment from other sections of the country, the Abia incident was seen as unmitigated disservice not only to the unity of the country but that of the Igbo nation. It was very difficult to reconcile with the action, how the Igbo could still reasonably talk of alienation and marginalization in their relations with the central government when one of theirs has become the chief apostle of hate and discriminatory policy.

    The so-called non-indigenous civil servants were eventually sent packing in the most callous way. Since then, the media have been awash with the untold hardship victims have been exposed to. There was this story of a widow who had to be thrown out by her landlord because she could neither pay her rents nor any longer cater for her children on account of the sack. Some may have even died. It is not known that the government paid them disengagement benefits to cushion the debilitating effects of their sudden sack. That had been the sad tale from Abia State and their own contribution to nurturing bad blood and disunity among the people of that geopolitical zone that has not fared well within the Nigerian federation. Some of the states in the zone were so disgusted that they threatened reprisals. Ironically, this discriminatory policy came at a time some other state governments have been making concerted efforts to demonstrate that they are prepared to accommodate people from other states in their public service. Before then also, there had been heated debate on the necessity to incorporate the residency clause in the constitution to make it mandatory for those who have lived a certain number of years in a particular place to become automatic indigenes, enjoying the perquisites and privileges accruing to indigenes. These issues were raised as a way out of the increasing slide to centrifugalism and stave off the burdensome competition between the primordial units and the central government for the loyalty of the citizens. It is not surprising that the inability of this country to decisively address this key and unifying variable has been largely responsible for our failure at national integration 53 years after independence. In place of national cohesion, what we have harvested very bountifully has been the resurgence of ethnic nationalism. The Abia incident therefore had the prospects of pushing this negative tendency to a very ridiculous dimension if not checked.

    Two years thereon, we are now being told that the same government that hounded those who faulted the myopic policy has had a change of heart. Reports filtering from that state have it that the Abia State government has put plans afoot to recall the same civil servants. According to reports, the decision was arrived at during the last executive council meeting presided by Governor Theodore Orji.

    There are conflicting versions of the nature and scope of the reinstatement as well as the rationale for it. While some reports said all the workers have been recalled, some others indicated that those interested are being asked to reapply. The state commissioner for information was even quoted to have said that those who reapply may either be reabsorbed in their former positions as civil servants or posted to schools as teachers.

    Some reasons have also been adduced for this curious twist. They claim it is on account of substantial improvement in the internally generated revenue base of the state. With more money in its coffers, it can now comfortably employ its indigenes dislocated from the northern states and re-engage the sacked workers. That should be something to cheer from a government that has come under constant challenge for its neglect of its prime commercial city-Aba. Not long ago, lawyers in Aba had to embark on demonstrations to bring to the fore the sorry state of roads there. Would it surprise anyone if the purported high internally generated revenue profile of the state was raised from that neglected city?

    But that is even beside the point. There are issues to be raised if it is true that the decision to reabsorb the sacked civil servants was due to an unexpected rise in internally generated revenue. It raises the question of bad planning. Modern governments make projections of expected revenue earnings and expenditure and adjust their plans according to such indicators. Since planning is done in an incremental sense, it is possible using the projections of previous years to have a peep into the future. In other words, if Abia state really plans for its programmes, it was possible to predict that two years after, it would have a huge leap in its revenue base. Were that to be so, it would have perhaps, saved itself the embarrassment of having to sack these workers only to suddenly discover that it had no need to do so.

    Effective planning would have shown in very unmistakable terms that in two years time, it will not have problems not only with creating additional jobs but adequately taking care of those in her employ. That is the stark realty that has been raised to the fore by the reasons given by that state government for its policy summersault.

    If the purported increase in internally generated revenue is meant to justify the earlier one adduced for the exercise, I am afraid it has come with additional problems that put to task the competence and limitations of managers of that state. It is a sad commentary on the leadership quality of that state that they were incapable, using revenue growth projection of previous years to have a fair idea of what the situation will be in less than 24 months.

    That is the logical inference of what we are now being made to believe and it does no credit to that government.

    There are also problems with its plan to send some of the civil servants into its school system as teachers. It stands to be seen what point Abia state wants to make by this if it does not intend to ruin the education system.

    In all, it is either the Abia state government is playing to the gallery or it is intent on scoring cheap political points having realized the folly in sacking those workers. If it is sincere with the project, why not automatically recall the workers instead of asking them to reapply with the prospects of being sent to teach. It has the list of those it sacked and ought to have reinstated them before making public show of the matter.

    So nobody should be deceived by this subterfuge. It is all politics. With about 18 months to go, Orji may be seeking national relevance and may want to relieve himself of the political liability that policy has put on his shoulders. Even if Orji re-engages all those sacked, he deserves neither pity nor patronizing words because it is a self-inflicted baggage.

  • Jega’s delimitation agenda

    For some time now, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has been in public show of its zeal to delineate constituencies in the country before the 2015 elections. Basking on provisions of the 1999 constitution and the Electoral Act which require that such exercise be conducted after 10 years or after a national census, Jega has told whoever cares to hear that he is irredeemably committed to the exercise.

    The commission is partnering relevant agencies and has already signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) the office of the Surveyor General of the Federation with two committees set up to give effect to the exercise. Through these MOU’s, INEC hopes to tap into the high satellite imagery resolution capacities of these agencies to cover the entire country. It has also sought assistance from the National Population Commission (NPC) among others.

    Given the foregoing, it is certain that INEC is not leaving anyone in any doubt that it is pursuing the delimitation agenda with vigour. According to its chairman Prof Attahiru Jega, the overall aim is to ensure that every federal constituency should be as nearly equal in size as possible. What this immediately throws up is the equalization theory of his predecessor and the fact that population is going to be the major factor for this exercise. His immediate past predecessor, Prof Maurice Iwu had proposed the equalization of the constituencies such that population differences above 300,000 between senatorial districts were considered very substantial and were to be adjusted. Similarly population differences of 150,000 in the case of federal districts were also to be adjusted. But the proposal was trailed by controversy with that administration unable to carry it out before Iwu left office.

    Ironically, when the Jega-led INEC visited the NPC to seek certified data on the various enumeration areas, he was pointedly told by its then chairman, Festus Odimegwu that there are no certified data for the various enumeration areas. Odimegwu had then said that politicians bought enumeration areas in the same fashion they buy voters’ cards during elections to gain advantage. He also disclosed that it was on account of the unreliability of the 2006 census that the commission decided not to publish it.

    Jega seemed to have come to terms with this encumbrance when he said in a recent communiqué that “even though the aspects of the 2006 census have been countered, it remains the most credible source of data to carry out the exercise”. He had also in the same communiqué which he personally signed, stated that the delimitation was meant to engender equality in electoral constituencies and not to create additional sets at the national level.

    INEC is within its powers to seek the delimitation of constituencies. This is more so as it is in keeping with its powers as conferred by extant laws. Thus, it is not so much the issue of its right as the wisdom and timeliness in embarking on the exercise now.

    First and as rightly admitted by Jega, there is no credible census for the country; that of 2006 inclusive. The 2006 census has been challenged at the census tribunal by sections of the country on account of the manipulation of its figures. Lagos state was so dissatisfied with the outcome that it had to conduct its own version of the census which came out with 18million people as against nine million allotted to it by the 2006 census. There are also other parts of the country where the figures credited to them are at variance with established demographic traits. The South-east is among them. As a matter of fact, an independent preliminary satellite imaging around the Imo area was said to have produced results that would render the outcome of previous censuses a huge joke. Just recently, the figures posted for the 20 local government areas of Lagos State were overturned by the tribunal as they bore no semblance with the actual population on the ground. The point being raised here is very clear. And it is that it will amount to double jeopardy if INEC goes ahead to rely on these flawed census figures to alter the boundaries of the constituencies or set up new ones.

    It is about seven years since the last census was conducted. After seven years, significant demographic changes would have occurred such that the 2006 census can no longer be reasonably relied upon. The situation is not helped by the imperfections of that census and our rising population growth rate.

    When you add observed distortions in that census to the changes that would have occurred in population dynamics over this time frame, its reliability for the exercise is further whittled down.

    For another, the NPC has also been on top gear to give the nation a credible census in 2016. That date is just barely three years away. Does it really make any sense embarking on the delimitation exercise on the eve of a census that is being looked upon to redress glaring inequities of the past? And what is the value in expending taxpayers’ money in the project when it will not fundamentally address observed disparities and can conveniently cue in after the 2016 census?

    Matters were not helped by Jega when he said his commission does not intend to create new constituencies but to adjust existing ones. The purport of this is that even where the commission discovers that additional constituencies needed to be created to redress observed imbalances, nothing of sort will happen. This is as curious as it is confounding. It might be interesting to hear from him why he cannot abort the exercise if he is not prepared to undertake the rigour the creation of additional constituencies entails.

    Even before he volunteers information on this, suffice it to say that those reasons that make the creation of new constituencies inappropriate now are the same reasons why the delineation in the manner Jega proposes it has to wait. My guess is that Jega wants to run away from envisaged controversy which the creation of additional constituencies will engender especially now people have been sensitized on the inadequacies of our previous headcounts. He sees the balancing of the population among constituencies as less contentious. That could also be. But it comes with its problems.

    Again, we are at the threshold of another national conference to redress the imperfections of our federal order. Some of the issues that will feature in that conference include the conduct of a credible census, state and local government creation as well as the unit of representation within the federal arrangement. The way these issues are handled is bound to have very serious impact on the structure and size of our current constituencies.

    Since INEC is not prepared to go the whole length in this exercise, it makes little sense approaching it very grudgingly. There is nothing practically urgent in the exercise that it cannot wait after a credible headcount in 2016. The commission should discard the idea of constituency delimitation and concentrate its energies on the challenges posed by the 2015 elections. Delimitation should wait until we have a credible basis for it. Only then will its outcome meet the wishes and aspirations of the peoples of this country.

  • Edo’s ill-fated dialogue

    Outrage over the abortion of the interactive session of the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue in Benin, Edo State is to be expected. This is more so given that the issue which led to the disruption of the session was the raison d’etre for that gathering. It therefore came as a huge contradiction that a committee charged with setting the grand norms for the impending national conference and supposedly the mirror from which the nature and texture of the conference will be seen, could find itself faltering on this basic test. So when infractions that detract substantially from a setting where views are robustly canvassed without let or hindrance cropped up, they cannot but cast serious slur on the credibility of the conference.

    That was the foreboding reality of the disruption of the South-south interactive session of the dialogue committee in Benin. Reports had it that a member of the committee, Col. Tony Nyiam rtd had launched a verbal attack on Governor Adams Oshiomhole of Edo State as he was making his remarks on the propriety or otherwise of the conference. Apparently, the attack was to stop the governor from voicing his opposition to the conference which he viewed as unnecessary and a waste of resources. As he spoke, Nyiam rose to shout him down with his action spurring some thugs at the venue who rushed to the high table and disrupted the session.

    But for the security agencies, the charged atmosphere could have degenerated into serious confrontation.

    Nyiam’s unruly action has come under serious attack for very obvious reasons. Most of those who have deprecated his conduct are at pains to reconcile how the outing of a committee that has been put together to fashion out the modalities for constructive engagement among the diverse peoples of this country could turn out a theatre of high level intolerance and thuggery. That thugs could infiltrate such an occasion is a thing that is still difficult to reconcile. So also is the motive of their sponsors. But all those conjectures are now history.

    The incident has raised posers as to whose interest Nyiam was actually serving and above all, the desirability of his continued membership of the committee. Sadly, his conduct has deprived the South-south where he even comes from, the opportunity to make input into the formulation of the conference agenda. That must be a great disservice to his geo-political zone. Or are we safer to assume that being from that zone, he had some self interest to protect or scores to settle with some people hiding under the canopy of the committee?

    Whichever way, Nyiam must have disappointed even his most ardent admirers by his very rude conduct. Or is it possible to rationalize his action against the backdrop of the command structure and regimentation of his military background? But he has before now, been posturing as a social crusader and an apostle of good governance; offering views on a variety of issues of our national being. It strikes as a huge contradiction that someone who engages in informed dialectics at least on the pages on the newspapers, can display such a disdain to other views no matter how opposed they are to his predilections. That is the main problem with Nyiam’s conduct.

    He has offered some reasons for his conduct even as weak and unconvincing as they are. According to him, his action was spurred by the sarcastic remarks Oshiomhole made against the proposed national conference. Hear him: “Governors who have the penchant for insulting the president or making sarcastic remarks against the sense of judgment of the president of Nigeria should be ready to tolerate response from Nigerian citizens to tell them no”. He further alleged that the governor talked down on them when they paid him a courtesy visit only to continue the same at the venue of the interactive session. For these, he had to move to stop him, he seemed to be saying.

    But that is where he went entirely wrong. The impression created by his action is that he is intolerant of opposing views. Ironically, it is for the same reason that taxpayers’ money is being expended on the country wide tour of the committee. The committee was in that state to hear what the people of the zone had to say on the conference. That was part of the message Oshiomhole had for the committee. His, was by no means all there was to say. But it is his inalienable right. Neither Nyiam nor any other member of that committee can deny him of that right.

    It is a huge contradiction that a committee set up to ascertain the views of Nigerians on how to make the conference live up to public expectations can be so cheaply embroiled in disputations that cast serious doubt on the credibility of its members and the overall job they have set out to do.

    Oshiomhole’s views as the governor of that state must count. He represents a very key segment of that population. There are unarguably other views that may be supportive of the conference. But it is for the holders of such views to air them. Regrettably, the action of Nyiam and the thugs that disrupted the session could not allow such views to flourish.

    Going by his defence, Nyiam put forth himself as one trying to protect the interest of President Jonathan. That is the purport of all the argument about those who have the penchant of insulting the president or faulting his sense of judgment and all that trash. He is also opposed to those who make sarcastic comments about the conference. These, as justification for that unruly conduct cannot fly as they are not only puerile and unconvincing but equally ridiculous.

    First, he was not sent out there to defend the president. President Jonathan has an array of qualified aides that can enter defence for him if and when such need arises. Second, there is nothing new in the presentations of Oshiomhole that should warrant the conduct he displayed at that venue.

    Before now, so many Nigerians have raised issues with not only the timing of the conference but its capacity to address the plethora of national problems for which agitations for a sovereign national conference had been on top gear. Even then, scepticisms that this conference may go the way of others before it are neither new nor can they be solely traced to the doorsteps of the governor. These are issues borne out of our experience over time. They are being raised now so as draw Jonathan’s attention to the incongruity in expending our scarce resources on the conference if it is going to be consigned to the dustbin so soon after. That is the purpose of those criticisms and it is within the rights of people like Oshiomhole to say them loud and clear.

    The way forward is for the committee to take copious notes on these observations and advise Jonathan accordingly. It is not for any of its members to shoot down views that do not seem in tandem with their desire to go ahead with the conference. They would have done a great disservice to this country if they fail to properly reflect the views of its constituents on the need to subject the decisions of the conference to a referendum so as to guarantee its overall success. Jonathan will have the chance to prove sceptics wrong by what he makes of the decisions of the conference. That is the message. Before then, Nyiam owes unqualified apology to Oshiomhole.

  • Beyond Odimegwu’s resignation

    Those behind the campaign to get the National Population Commission NPC Chairman, Festus Odimegwu out of office, may have cause to smile with his resignation. Odimegwu threw in the towel last week apparently due to his inability to withstand the heat generated by his scathing remarks on past censuses.

    He stirred the hornet’s nest when he averred that censuses in Nigeria since 1816 had been largely flawed with that of 2006 deliberately manipulated in favor of the north. Expectedly, this did not go down well with some interest groups in that part of the country with Kano State governor, Rabiu Kwankwaso demanding his removal. Even then, the Christian Association of Nigeria CAN northern chapter had risen in his defence.

    Before then, the former NPC boss had told a delegation of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, that had come for assistance in its proposed constituency delimitation exercise that there were no certified data for the various enumeration areas. According to him, politicians bought enumeration areas in the same manner they buy voters’ cards during elections to gain advantage. He then vowed to give the country a credible census in 2016 that will satisfy international best practices.

    But those who felt threatened by his revelations would not let go. They invented all manner of reasons including the support of a preponderance of NPC state commissioners to demonstrate that they were no longer on the same page with their boss. They contended that given Odimegwu’s mindset, he could no longer be trusted to give the nation a census that will be devoid of deep controversy. And in circumstances like this, one should not be surprised that opportunists and those not favoured by his style of administration will see it as an excuse to settle scores. That was the purpose of all those petitions in the national dailies by public servants in a manner reminiscent of the antics of politicians. Yet, no one saw anything wrong with them including the source of the fund for the sponsorship of those advertorials.

    They may have succeeded in heating up the environment and getting Odimegwu out of the job. They may have also succeeded in acting out the script crafted for them by their sponsors. But the substantive issues raised by their former boss cannot be wished away. Odimegwu can be blackmailed; he could also be denigrated and called names. But his salient message has come to stay. It is a message of hope which his predecessors shied away from either for fear of losing their jobs or they were working in collaboration with those who appointed them to produce predictable results and stall the overall development of this country. Odimegwu’s short-lived tenure has become a reference point for drawing attention to all that is wrong with our previous census and the inevitability of departing from that decadent and discredited past. Fair-minded Nigerians will not forget this message in a hurry. Not with the ruling by the census tribunal voiding the 2006 census figures posted for Lagos State in 20 local government areas. Not with the fact that all previous censuses including those done before our country’s independence had been entangled in deep controversy and disputation and roundly rejected by sections of this country.

    So Odimegwu said nothing new except his office gave huge weight and credibility to all that we already knew. And that was the only problem with his message. They know it is the gospel truth. But their grouse is with the messenger whose message is most likely to be believed. They questioned his neutrality and threatened that the coming headcount was doomed to fail if Odimegwu remained at the helm of affairs. In that circumstance, he had to give way even as the veracity of his statements was not in any iota of doubt. The consistent manipulation of population figures to keep down sections of the country hitherto shut out of the commanding heights of the nation’s bureaucracy is an old tale. This should not surprise anyone, given the crucial role population plays in the political affairs of this country.

    Those rejoicing at the exit of Odimegwu do not understand the current that has been unleashed by his revelations. They seem to gloss over the wider issues raised on the past national population censuses and their inadequacy and unreliability for planning purposes. It has become very clear to most Nigerians that whatever census figures we currently bandy are statistics that have little to do with the demography of this country. They are at best as worthless as the pieces of paper on which they are written.

    Little wonder our monumental failures in planning for the needs of the people of this country as epitomized in years of abysmal poverty, hunger, ignorance and disease. We cannot continue with this deceit and expect that raging schism among constituent units will abate. We cannot continue with this fraud and be pontificating on values that unite the people. You can only unite by doing what is seen to be right. That is the folly in silencing those who draw attention to the cruel realities of this country that must change for the better.

    Odimegwu may have played into the hands of those who have unduly benefited from the census fraud. He may have also underestimated how entrenched these vested interests are and the extent they can go to pursue their clandestine goals. These vested interests may have also succeeded in blackmailing President Jonathan to acquiesce to the view that the only way to redeem the credibility of the coming census is for Odimegwu to go. That could well be. It may also have found some allure in the reasoning that if sacrificing Odimegwu is all it takes to ensure that those who benefit from the discredited order do not blackmail and sabotage the 2016 census, so be it.

    But beyond this is the general awareness that has been created on the inadequacies of previous headcounts and the danger in using them for planning purposes. More importantly, it has underscored the compelling imperative for the 2016 census to be conducted in a manner that satisfies generally accepted international standards. That is the challenge that has been elevated to the front burner by the travails of the former NPC boss. Odimegwu’s action therefore was a very patriotic one that was meant to draw attention to the need to get our vital statistics right if we must make any progress in this country.

    This assertion draws enormous support from the fact that of all those who criticized his views, none faulted the substance of his contention. There was no such thing. They could not fault the message but the messenger. Now that that messenger has gone, it is only proper that his message must be our guiding principle as we prepare for the forthcoming census. The time is ripe to adopt the scientific methodology-aerial or satellite imaging to get at the nation’s accurate census. Any thing to the contrary will only expose the deceit of all those who rose to force the former NPC boss out of office.

    It is the minimum expectation that all those in the campaign against Odimegwu should deploy the same zeal in fighting for a census that is truly reflective of the demographic nature of this country. Ethnicity and religion must form indispensable quotients of the demographic statistics. Else, all the fuss would have turned out a subterfuge to perpetuate the decadent status quo. Such a scenario would have rendered a nullity, the heuristic value of that discourse and therefore must be strongly resisted.

  • Conference decisions

    For very obvious reasons, the impending national conference will continue to dominate public discourse for quite some time. Not only will the processes leading to its final convocation be contentious, the conference proper promises no less rancorous. The envisaged controversy was given fillip when President Jonathan indicated in his Independence Day broadcast, that he too was uncertain on its appropriate nomenclature, which he then charged the committee to figure out.

    Since then, debate has centred on whether it should be a sovereign national conference or just a national conference with many rooting for the sovereign variant. Issues were also raised regarding the incongruity in having a sovereign national conference with all the democratic structures in place. The argument is that you cannot have two sovereigns at the same time.

    But Jonathan seemed to have responded to this dilemma when he said last week that the decisions of the conference will be subjected to the national and state assemblies for ratification and incorporation into the constitution. For this to be realized, he then urged Nigerians to persuade their representatives at the national and state assemblies to get the recommendations of the conference incorporated into the constitution.

    Expectedly, the proposal has attracted a wide gamut of reactions. Most of those who spoke, faulted the proposition on the grounds that it amounted to another constitutional amendment process and therefore an avoidable duplication. They find it difficult to fathom how reflective of the decisions of the people the conference outcome would become if it is subjected to these assemblies that are largely peopled by those who represent the status quo. And why dissipate energy, valuable time and resources if the conference is another name for constitutional amendment which the National Assembly is currently handling, they seemed to be asking. These posers seem to have further reinforced scepticisms by the national leader of the All Progressives Congress APC, Senator Bola Tinubu on the motive of the conference. It would seem the envisaged conference may turn out a subterfuge to buy time especially given the rancour generated by Jonathan’s political ambition.

    But some others have argued that there is no way you can get the decisions of the conference into the constitution without subjecting them to the body constitutionally charged with that duty. Senate committee chairman on information, Enyinnaya Abaribe said the president’s position was proper and in tune with the fact that the National Assembly is the custodian of Nigerian sovereignty.

    At stake here again, is the location of the sovereign powers of the people in a democratic setting. In this column last week, I had dwelt extensively on the larger philosophical and conceptual issues encapsulated in this argument. We do not intend to go over them again. But suffice it to say at this point that the argument on the location of the sovereign powers of the people in a democracy would have been superfluous if elected persons, extant democratic institutions and structures had been truly reflective of the collective will of their constituents. That Nigerians are wary of subjecting the decisions of the conference to the national and state assemblies is indicative of the dissonance and of loss of faith in the capacity of these assemblies to reflect the will of their supposed constituents.

    That is the tragedy of the contraption of democracy we purport to practice on these shores. It would appear it is this lack of synergy between the collective interests of the Nigerian people and their elected representatives that accentuates feelings for the nationalities to once again, take their destinies on their hands.

    We should be seriously worried why people do not have confidence in the capacity of the assemblies to reflect and represent the collective will of the Nigerian nationalities. It is because the Nigerian nation in a strict sense of it does not exist at present. In its place, what we have are ethnic nationalities that compete with the central authority for the loyalty of the citizens. With this competition comes mistrust and suspicion. The problem is further accentuated by the structural advantages which some sections of this country enjoy over and above others. These are reflected in inequalities in the spread of states, local governments and electoral constituencies among the zones.

    Because the central authority is largely seen in terms of what the constituents stand to grab from it, forging national consensus on vexed issues of our federal order has been largely illusory. Issues are perceived from the prism of how they satisfy the predilections of the primordial groups. It is difficult to build national consensus in such a prevailing circumstance. Little wonder nation building has largely remained a mirage.

    In the issue of subjecting the decisions of the conference to the national and state assemblies, the suspicion is that these differences will again come into play. That is where a sovereign national conference derives its greatest lure. But its problem lies in the fact that the sovereign powers of our people are now vested in subsisting democratic structures irrespective of whatever reservations we may have against them. This fact is not in doubt. It is also not in doubt that the residue of the sovereign powers of this country lies with its peoples. But much progress will not be made in the present circumstance if we continue to dissipate energy on the structure of the conference.

    The fact of the matter is that there are contentious issues of our federal being that needed re-engineering if we must make progress as a united nation. A way has to be fashioned out to get some of these trashed out such that they do not continue to hinder our development. Ironically, the National Assembly has not shown enough capacity to get these issues resolved.

    Jonathan has now told us that he has no place for a sovereign national conference. That is his message and the way it is handled will determine the success or lack of it of the conference. The challenge is how to resolve the myriads of these destabilizing tendencies taking copious inputs from the people without compromising the powers of the National Assembly on constitutional amendment. It is a matter of striking a balance between the resolutions of the conference and the powers conferred on the National Assembly to amend the constitution.

    Now we know the mind of Jonathan, it is only proper we channel our creative energies to the best ways of taking maximum advantage of the seemingly difficult circumstance we found ourselves. The alternative is to spurn the entire idea. But that will not be in the best interest of our people.

    It is at this point that one considers the intervention by a leading lawyer, Awa Kalu SAN very apt. He had suggested that a way out is to subject any new or radical idea to a referendum. If approved, it will be sent to the National Assembly which will then have no power to override any decision taken at the referendum because power belongs to the people. It will take time. But if there is genuine commitment, it is realisable because some consensus already exists on some of these issues.

  • Fear of the sovereign

    The word sovereign or sovereignty has become the fulcrum of debate on the desirability or otherwise of the envisaged conference of Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities. Most of the agitators for the conference have canvassed the convocation of its sovereign variant even as sceptics centre their reservations largely on this nomenclature. President Jonathan reacted to this dissonance when in his independence speech he referred to it as national conference/ dialogue. He further gave teeth to this seeming conceptual ambivalence when he inaugurated the committee and charged it to come out with the most appropriate name for this “national conversation”.

    Before then and since after, issues have also been raised on the propriety of a sovereign national conference with all democratic institutions in place. It has been variously canvassed that it is anomalous to talk of sovereign national conference when that sovereign power has been vested in elected structures at all levels of government especially the National Assembly.

    The thesis of this argument is that with the National Assembly in place, you cannot have two sovereigns at the same time. Once you constitute such a conference, you have inadvertently thrown to question the authority conferred on these institutions via democratic elections, it is further argued.

    Those who drive this school seem to be drawing strength from the postulations of social contract philosophers such as John Locke, Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes on the origin of modern states.

    These philosophers had characterized life in the state of nature as nasty, short and brutish. Due to the atavism of the state of nature, medieval man had to enter into a contract with a sovereign to whom he surrendered some of his powers and was in return, guaranteed protection. The abstraction recognizes two things at the same time: power belongs to the people; those who exercise power do it on their behalf. This is the philosophical root of the concept- sovereignty. It is an analytic construct to account for the residue of political power in modern governments. Its purpose is to domesticate the locus of political power.

    The idea has found further expression in modern governments through representative democracy. Because modern states can no longer permit of direct democracy as was practiced in ancient Greek City States, the people now exercise this sovereign power through elected representatives. Having elected their representatives, they confer sovereign powers on them to make laws for the good of them all.

    Conceived this way, it is presumed that those elected have now been armed to reflect the wishes and aspirations of their constituents. That is the point antagonists of sovereign national conference seem to be making. And there is some sense in it. But that is not all.

    There are also conditions under which the concept is supposed to operate in its pure form. For this symbiotic relationship to function optimally, these conditions have to be strictly observed and followed.

    The first is that the structures that throw up candidates for elective offices must be democratic enough to truly reflect the will of the people. Here, internal democracy within the political parties comes to mind. The other, closely related to the first is the issue of free and fair elections. Both form the necessary and sufficient conditions for the sovereignty of the people to have full expression. To what extent do those who purport to represent their people satisfy these basic conditions? And if they do not, how much of credibility do we ascribe to the sovereign powers they now purport to exercise on behalf of us all? These are the issues to ponder in the debate over where sovereign power really resides in our peculiar circumstance.

    It would appear that those who fault the convocation of a sovereign national conference on the ground that there is already sovereign power in the national assembly are not saying it all. They seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that what we have here is representative democracy in its most aberrant form. Not only is internal democracy observed in the breach, elections are yet to reflect the will of the people as amply expressed at the ballot box. When we canvass sovereign powers which elected structures or persons purport to possess, we should also call to mind the limitations in stretching this argument too far.

    Besides, it is also possible for those elected to supplant the wishes of their constituents with their personal goals. When we have a situation of goal displacement, our laws provide remedies for the people. That is why we have provisions for the recall process and impeachment. The same elite now parroting the sanctity of sovereign powers conferred on them through elections, are quick to erect obstacle against being impeached or recalled when they have fallen out of favour with their people. Thus, this new found love for the observance of extant regulations cannot stem from altruistic considerations. There must be more to it than the way it has been presented.

    Even then, it is clear that Nigerians desire to engage themselves on issues concerning their common destiny. Signals that things are going awry are very palpable throughout the length and breadth of this country. There are genuine fears that if urgent steps are not taken to stem this tide, the ensuing systemic stress may lead us to more disastrous consequences. Yet, some people are holding on to the issue of sovereignty as if it is an end unto itself rather that a means to an end-public good.

    It may be a mark of the failure of the sovereign powers of elected structures and persons that the country has drifted to the edge even after the various nationalities have co-habited for nearly 100 years. If a marriage can no longer hold after 100, is it not suggestive we have danger in our hands? If bending some of the rules can take us out of the impending doom, does it make any sense to be enslaved to stereotypes that portend dire consequences?

    In effect, the argument that we cannot have a sovereign national conference is neither here nor there. There is nothing so sacrosanct about the elections that produced these structures that they should pose an impediment to genuine efforts to get the architecture of this unity in diversity right. For, the same people vested with inalienable rights to confer sovereign powers on elected representatives can call such powers back when their representatives have become a liability.

    Just recently, something of that nature happened in Egypt when the same people who overwhelmingly voted in Morsi got utterly disenchanted with him after about a year in office. The revolution that saw him out without waiting for his tenure to expire is a classic demonstration of the sovereign will power of the people. This dialectics must not be ignored by those opposing a sovereign national conference.

    The authority of government is created and sustained by the consent of the people who remain the source of all political power. Benjamin Franklin summed up this when he wrote “In all free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns”. If a sovereign national conference is all that is required to pull back the country from the brink, those who oppose it do not believe in the continued existence of the country.

  • Agreement or no agreement

    Even with categorical clarification by President Jonathan that he did not sign any agreement with anybody to serve one term, the controversy has refused to die down. The president had in a media chat last week, said no such agreement exists. He challenged those who have been peddling the claim to produce the agreement for public perusal.

    And for those who claimed he also confirmed his intention not to run in Addis Ababa, he had this to say: “I did not say I will not contest in 2015”. According to him, what he said when he canvassed a single term of seven years was that if Nigerians agreed to that, he may not be involved adding he never said he will contest or not.

    But the Baraje faction of the PDP would not let go. They have since after these clarifications continued to insist that Jonathan actually said he would not contest in 2015. They claimed while interacting with Nigerians and diplomats at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and the African Union in Ankara, Turkey in 2011, Jonathan had said he would work towards Nigerians in the Diaspora voting during the 2015 election though he will not be running for election. They also bandied another claim that an agreement was signed during the tenure of Okwesilieze Nwodo that he will serve for only four years. For these, they promised to expose him at the appropriate time.

    Incidentally, Jonathan has challenged all those with evidence he promised to run for one term, to come up with such.

    Why wait now he has thrown the challenge to those privy to the agreement to produce it? The appropriate time the Baraje faction alluded to is now. Jonathan has said no such agreement exists and we should believe him until evidence to the contrary has been produced. The burden of proof is now on the shoulders of those who have been parroting the existence of such agreement as the basis for dissuading him from running in the coming elections.

    If nobody is able to produce such a document now, then the likes of Babangida Aliyu of Niger State must have told the nation a lie. He was the person who challenged Jonathan to respect the spirits of that agreement. What has happened to that key document if it does exist? And as we raise this question, there have been speculations in some sections of the media that the document is with a South-south governor who has sympathy for Jonathan. The motive of this dummy is to convey the impression that the document may not see the light of the day as the said governor is unlikely to produce it in deference to the president. Then, Jonathan would have become an accused who must produce all the evidence the prosecution needs to prove its case. What an irony of sorts?

    It remains a puzzle how such a vital document will be left with Jonathan’s sympathizer when in fact it was the north that extracted the agreement from him. Is it not curious that the same north could not lay hands on a document it must have cajoled Jonathan to sign before supporting him in the last election? Is it possible for Jonathan to sign an agreement for the north without the beneficiary having a copy? We have raised these posers to underscore the incongruity in the latest speculation. It is nothing but a figment of the imagination of those who want to keep the controversy going.

    But then what is all this fuzz about the said agreement with Jonathan? Why is his ambition a big issue for members of the PDP even now that the party has split into two factions?

    Opponents of Jonathan cite this agreement because they do not want him to run. They want power to revert to the north. With Jonathan running, they envisage very slim possibility of realizing that ambition since the PDP has boasted it will rule for 100 years uninterrupted. They are all sold to the warped idea of the invincibility of the PDP in electoral matters. Being in control of the central government, its enormous resources and coercive apparatus of the state, they desire to deploy these to advantage. That is the first lure for the prime movers of the argument.

    Secondly, if it is proven that Jonathan actually signed such an agreement, reneging on it will count as evidence that he cannot be trusted. Having signed an agreement or made promises to its effect, it is to be expected that any president worth his salt will not toy with it. If for any reason the contrary happens, Jonathan would be courting the image of an unreliable person. This could also do irredeemable damage to whatever ambition he now nurses, the argument further goes. These points can be conceded.

    But he has come out to say he neither signed any agreement nor made any promise that he will not run in 2015. He deserves the benefit of doubt since nobody has produced any concrete evidence to the contrary. The minimum expectation given the open challenge by him is for all those who have been canvassing these issues to show evidence of them. That will form the basis for determining whether Jonathan is lying to the nation or not. Nothing of sort seems to be happening. Instead, the Baraje faction is still talking of exposing him at the appropriate time. That time has come and it is either they join the fray now or keep quiet forever.

    But, is it out of religious zeal or self-serving motivations that the issue of keeping faith with agreements has assumed the dimension it has currently taken within the nation’s political space? What of those championing the campaign? Can they say with every degree of sincerity that they have kept all the agreements they entered into including their contract with the electorate? If so, why are we buffeted by the spectre of unfulfilled promises that has held this nation on its knees? To what extent have our politicians including the ones seeking to discredit Jonathan kept faith with their own agreements and promises especially with those that voted them into power? This poser is at the heart of the hullabaloo about agreement or no agreement with Jonathan. If it is proven that the key promoters of this argument have not kept faith with some of their promises with the people, they do not stand on sound moral grounds to make noise on the matter. It is a legal maxim that those who go for equity must come with clean hands.

    In effect therefore, while one is not averse to the sanctity of agreements (written or oral) it would appear that repudiation of agreements on these shores is no big deal. Our people are known more for defaulting than keeping agreements. They also have an uncanny penchant for disregarding rules. These are not in doubt. If Jonathan defaults or even repudiates an agreement on such a mater, he will not be the first of its kind.

    So, renewed interest on this unproven agreement is neither guided by religiosity nor a culture of strict adherence to principles. If these pristine values were to be at play, the social decay that has stunted our development despite our enormous resources would have been mitigated. Selfishness is at its best when a small band of politicians extract agreement with a sitting president to revert power to them without caring for the overall interests of other sections that no less deserve the same power. That is the folly of all the argument about agreement or lack of with Jonathan.

    Now a panel has been raised to fashion out modalities for a national conference, the matter can no longer fly. All issues giving rise to it are better thrashed out in a conference of all nationalities in a more lasting and equitable manner. That should be the path of all those who wish this country well.

  • Probing Abuja killings

    By all indications, Nigeria is going through very dire straits. Things are not normal in many aspects of our national life. Suspicion and mutual distrust among the various cleavages are at an all time high and exert tremendous influence on perceptions and actions. This is a sad commentary for a country that is about to mark 53years of independence in a couple of hours from now.

    Under this circumstance, it is the minimum expectation that those in authority should be alive to extant sensibilities and refrain from actions that could give vent to blackmail, anger and frustration.

    In an environment where people have been sensitized to think in very self-serving and particularistic manner, actions or inactions of public officers that should ordinarily have been given the benefit of doubt are subjected to very serious scrutiny. The overall aim is to find excuses to get even with perceived adversaries. That is what you find where people are aggrieved for one reason or the other. And it sums up the current mood of the country.

    These sensibilities were evoked last week when officials of the State Security Services (SSS) announced their encounter with suspected Boko Haram members at an uncompleted building in the Apo area of Abuja in which nine of these suspects were killed and many injured. Deputy Director, Public Affairs of the SSS, Marilyn Ogar gave account of what transpired. According to her, some suspected Boko Haram members in their custody had disclosed that some arms were buried within the premises of the building which provided a meeting point for their members. Based on this information, a combined operation of the SSS and the Army stormed the building at night and as they were digging the ground for the arms, they came under the gun attack of the insurgents.

    Their counter response led to the dead and injured. But this account has been disputed by some of the residents who said they are migrant workers and less-privileged people who paid some token to the security man in charge of the building to sleep there. They also claimed the owner of the building, said to be a military officer, had given them notice to quit the place and that the allegation was part of the plan to call a dog a bad name in order to hang it.

    Expectedly, the turn of events has elicited resentment and anger from a large segment of the society. The feeling is that there seems to be more to the issue than ordinarily meets the eyes. There is the feeling that the account of the encounter presented by the SSS did not tie up. To add to this air of suspicion, the police have said they were not put on notice before the attack. Both the Senate and the Police have responded to this outcry by stepping up investigations to get at the root of the matter. But the SSS insists its account is a true representation of the matter. The Army also corroborates SSS account as its position on the matter. Ogar has made spirited efforts to persuade the public that the attack followed rules of engagement and the services stand to gain nothing by killing innocent people. She said their action was based on credible security reports at their disposal and would therefore want the public to believe their account of the circumstances of the encounter.

    Ordinarily, there would have been the temptation to reason along with the SSS. This is more so as the service is not known to post shoddy records in handling issues of this nature. Again, the very sensitive and difficult nature of the fight against terrorism ought to count in their favour in resolving the misunderstanding arising from the incident.

    Yet, there are issues that have been brought to the front burner by the killings that cannot be allowed to be swept under the carpet. And they account for the outcry.

    Much of the suspicion is informed in part by the handling of the matter by the SSS both before the encounter and after the subsequent killings. There are yawning gaps to be filled. There are also questions to be answered. Though one cannot claim expertise in the rules of military warfare and strategy, there are commonsensical procedural flaws in the SSS account of the encounter. And much of the crisis of confidence they are now battling with, stem largely from these. The immediate impression one gets is that the first thing they did on getting to the building was to commence the digging of the ground for the arms their informant said were buried under ground. As they were digging the ground, they came under the gun fire of the terrorists and had to respond in self-defence culminating in the casualty figure.

    Now, the searing posers: if the SSS and the Army detachment were detailed to hunt Boko Haram suspects in the building, what should constitute the standard entry behaviour on getting to their target? Is it not a standard safety rule that they should anticipate some resistance and prepare well ahead of time for that eventuality? This is more so when they had prior information that some arms were buried there. Should they not have cordoned off the area and then selectively commence arresting those they suspect to have links with Boko Haram? These questions arise because, the immediate impression we get from the SSS account is that as soon as the security agencies got to the site they commenced the digging of the ground for the supposedly buried arms. By this account, it was as they were digging that they came under the heavy gun fire of the insurgents and had to counter resulting to the killings. This account looks somewhat untidy and unprofessional. The minimum expectation is that all those living in the building should first have been under the safe custody of the security operatives. Having done that, the entire premises will then be searched before the digging to recover whatever arms were supposedly hidden there. Had this precautionary measure been adhered to, perhaps those who supposedly shot at the security operatives would have been apprehended earlier and disarmed. And where that proves difficult, the agencies would then consider maximum force such that led to the high death toll.

    Again, the case of the SSS is not remedied by their inability to show evidence of the digging, the arms recovered and possible victims of the attack on their side. By just bandying claims without substantive evidence to corroborate them, they left room for the raging suspicion that has become the lot of the ill-fated encounter.

    Matters are not helped by the testimonies of some of the injured. The allegation that the incident was a subterfuge to get the squatters out of the building since the owner had become uncomfortable with them is another issue. Even as the SSS would want us to resolve the doubts created by these lapses in their favour, it will be difficult to do so under the foregoing circumstances.

    Admittedly, the war on terrorism is a very daunting and risky one that has cost the lives of security operatives and civilians alike. Even at that, no room should be left for doubts to creep into the enormous sacrifice that has been the fate of the war against terrorism. Neither should the fight constitute an alibi for extra judicial killings. It is a very critical and sensitive challenge that must be handled in the most professional manner. Boko Haram has some support from within. And no room should be given to these anarchists to ridicule the war against terror. The current probes must get at the root of the matter. It is in the overall good of the continuing struggles to tame the scourge.

  • Now, Mark has spoken

    Before the disclaimer by the Baraje faction of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP of speculated agreement with President Goodluck Jonathan, events had pointed at that grim direction despite claims from supporters of the president. Early indication came when the Tukur-led executive set up a caretaker committee for the Kano State chapter of the party. If there were some agreement, the Baraje faction would have been taken into confidence on the matter or it would have pended till the resumption of talks presumably in the first week of October.

    But Tukur went ahead even as both factions are still embroiled in power struggle over the soul of the party. Of course, the Kano state government did not waste time to denounce it citing the party constitution that has no room for such contraption. The other signal which also came in quick succession was the visit by the Baraje group to the leadership of both chambers of the National Assembly to brief them on their grievances.

    During both visits, the group tabled all the issues they hitherto purportedly reached agreement with the president including the demand that he should not be allowed to go for another term. To underscore the deadlock this time around, they referred to the purported ambition of Jonathan to run in 2015 as a third term agenda.

    The purport of this terminology should not be lost on any discerning person. If anything, it underscores how hard the mind of the group has stiffened on that project and their irrevocable commitment to oppose it with their last blood. Their new disposition may have been fallout of speculations that the president pointedly told them he never told anybody he will not run for another term. This could have been extrapolated as clear indication that Jonathan has made up his mind to run. And it could be logically so deduced.

    The third term coinage has therefore left no one in doubt as to the sequence of events to follow.

    Their engagement with the Senate President, David Mark was orderly. Mark never left them with any shred of doubt that he stood for a united PDP. But their encounter with the speaker of the House of Representatives turned out rowdy. There was fracas as the anti- and pro-Baraje factions engaged each other in shouting bout and subsequent fisticuffs. The battle line was very clear and indicated very glaringly that harder times await the nation as the crises within the ruling party plays out in the days ahead.

    Before the visit, Mark had succinctly captured the mood of the nation when he said at the reconvening of the Senate that he has seen the imperative for a national conference. According to him, steps should be taken to convene a national conference of ethnic nationalities to confront the “perceived or alleged structural distortions which have bred discontent and alienation in some quarters”. Such a conference in the thinking of the senate president could find accommodation in extant provisions of the constitution that guarantee freedom of expression and association.

    Mark however put forward two caveats. The first is that it will be unconstitutional to clothe such a conference with constituent or sovereign powers. The other is that discussions on dismembering the country should be a no-go area. These aside, Mark believes every other question should be open for discussions as the resolutions of the ethnic nationalities called under the auspices of the federal government will carry tremendous weight.

    No doubt, the senate president’s backing for the convocation of a national conference of Nigeria’s estimated 390 ethnic nationalities is a very positive development for the country. It is also in line with the feelings of those who had before now, seen the conference as the only way out of the multifarious challenges facing the country. These challenges have been so much so that doubts have been expressed on the capacity of the country to withstand recurring systemic stress. Things are not helped by prediction from the United States of America, US that Nigeria might go the way of a failed state come 2015.

    Though this predication had been roundly denounced in official quarters, events as 2015 inches nearer, show increasing signals that we may be in for a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to stave off the prospects of this looming danger, several well meaning Nigerians and interest groups have recommended the convocation of the conference. But the greatest opposition to that idea had come from the National Assembly basking on the powers which the1999 constitution appeared to have conferred on it.

    Now Mark has spoken, it would appear that a major stumbling block to the imperative of a national conference has given way. He believes that the National Assembly though constitutionally not bound by the resolutions of such a conference, will be hard put to ignore them in the current constitution amendment process. In effect, Mark would want the conference to go hand in hand with the ongoing constitution amendment process. He would want the Nigerian people to come up with resolutions on how they desire the nation’s affairs to be conducted. When such resolutions have been crystallized, the National Assembly will then incorporate them as part of the ground norms for running this country. That could be a way out provided the resolutions of the nationalities will not be subjected to another round of debate by the lawmakers. This may not be as simplistic as has been presented. All the same, the key thing is the admission that we need to sit down and discuss issues affecting the constituent units.

    The issue of structure and composition should pose no serious problem when it is understood that the overall goal is to save the country from going asunder. This objective weighs more than anything else. No sacrifice will be too much in its pursuit. In the same vein, fears on the possible fallouts of a sovereign or constituent variant can be taken care of, if all are genuinely committed to the overall unity and progress of the country. After all, the National Assembly derives its powers from the people and cannot possibly be above the ultimate sovereign power- the people.

    Signals emanating from sections of the country, increasingly speak of an increasing pull towards centrifugalism. And at the root of these are increasing feelings of alienation, marginalization and the inability of the central government to equitably cater for the component units. There are also several structural and systemic distortions that have stood on the way of the citizens realizing their potentials to the fullest. They are loaded with frightening prospects for system collapse and failure. It is more profitable to address than allow them weigh down the country.

    It is gladdening that President Jonathan and Mark are buying into this visionary and futuristic idea. What is required now is for the necessary machinery to be set in motion for the immediate convocation of the conference. It is possible. All obstacles that have been raised are human including aspects of the constitution. Being human issues, they can be redirected to serve humanity better.

    But, we need to hear the position of the factional PDP led by Baraje on the propriety of a national conference. We also need to hear from the Arewa Consultative Forum, Northern Elders Forum and others that have been vocal on power shift. This will help sift those genuinely for the peace, progress and stability of this country and others seeking power to perpetuate the glaring inequities of the decadent order that has led to this pass.