In his scores of lectures, speeches and books, Chief Obafemi Awolowo identified the root cause of Nigeria’s protracted crises of political instability, fragile nation hood and fractured nation building as well as social anomie as being essentially economic. He did not share the then prevalent conventional wisdom of the ‘modernization theorists’ of the time that sought to blame the country’s post-independence crises on her ethno-cultural pluralism or such divisive primordial variables as faith or regionalism. Neither did he at any time locate the source of the country’s post-colonial crises in any defects in subsisting constitutional documents. Although he paid a great deal of attention to the question of an appropriate, workable and effective constitution for Nigeria, Awolowo placed as much premium on the quality and character of leadership as being critical to the country’s rapid socio-economic and political transformation.

This was why he was confident that, under the 1979 presidential constitution of the second republic, he could still perform as exemplarily as he did as Premier of Western Nigeria under the parliamentary constitution of the first republic, and deliver on his party, the Unity Party of Nigeria’s four cardinal welfarist programmes for the benefit of the teeming masses of Nigeria. The vices of stupendous corruption by occupants of public office, ostentatious living, election rigging, religious extremism, ethno-regional conflicts and political violence for which many lampoon the extant presidential constitution were no less prevalent under the parliamentary constitution of the first republic and indeed led to its collapse in 1966.

No novel constitutional contrivance, no matter how exquisitely fashioned, can instantly eliminate the defects in personal or national character that have impeded the country’s positive development since independence. In a lecture he delivered at the then University of Ife on 9th April, 1970, in the immediate aftermath of the civil war, Awo declared emphatically that, “I have said it before, and I want to say it again that the causes of our national maladies are essentially economic. It is important, therefore, for us to bear in mind that if we failed to find the right solutions to our economic problems, we would not succeed in solving our political and social problems”.

There is no doubt that these words remain as true today as when they were uttered decades ago. At the root of today’s endemic evils of Boko Haram insurgency, terrorism, herdsmen-farmer’s clashes, kidnapping, secessionist agitations and militancy are the mass poverty arising from mass economic deprivation and the gross inequality between a microscopic minority of exceedingly wealthy Nigerians and the vast majority of our long suffering citizenry.

As Awo again forceful put it, “My case then is that, in order to keep Nigeria harmoniously united, and at the same time, fulfill the natural, ultimate, supreme, and inalienable purpose of that unity, the present and future rulers of this country, must place the most crucial emphasis on, and attach the most importance to, the advancement of the economic prosperity and social well-being of the entire people of Nigeria without exception or discrimination”. If successive military regimes, being wielders of unaccountable power, were more preoccupied with personal enrichment than the socio-economic uplifting of the country, what excuse do those who have occupied public office since 1999 in this supposedly democratic dispensation, have for deepening rather than relieving the economic immiseration of the vast majority of the citizenry?

In the latter phase of the evolution of his political thought, Awo placed considerable emphasis on the socio-economic liberation of Nigeria. He drew up, with the aid of his able lieutenants, far reaching and meticulously detailed programs and policies to transform every sector of the country’s economy including agriculture, transportation, industrialization, education, health as well as provision of qualitative shelter and full employment for the populace. Unfortunately, when during his arduous campaign tours across the country before both the 1979 and 1983 presidential elections, he put his plans before the Nigerian people there was an elaborate elite conspiracy that prevented him from achieving his goal.

For instance, on agriculture, Awolowo envisaged, in a lecture he delivered in Kano in February 1970, as Federal Commissioner of Finance, that by 1985, if properly planned and managed, the sector “should be able to contribute as much as £1, 784 million to our GDP; that is, £179.4 million more than our total GDP in 1966”. But to achieve this objective, he submitted, “Nigeria’s agriculture must be modernized and mechanized in a bold and massive manner. We shall need to invest heavily in tractors, mechanical plows and ridgers, fertilizers, pest control, irrigation, research into high-yielding grains and seeds, cattle pastures and ranches, fishing trawlers etc. It is only in the pursuit and attainment of these targets that our oft-repeated desire to increase the productivity, and so raise the standard of living, of our peasantry, throughout the Federation can be achieved”.

Neither in the North nor the South has that admonition been heeded. Thus, even as occupants of public office across the country have amassed immense personal wealth since 1999, peasant farming in the South remains as underdeveloped and impoverishing as cattle business in the North. Lamenting the state of agriculture in the country in a 1980 lecture in Akure, Awo submitted, “From all that has been said, it is crystal clear that, whichever way you look at it, the present system of farming condemns the average Nigerian farmer to grinding poverty, to degradation and abjectness. This is a situation that must be terminated with the utmost sense of energy and unabating vigor. Its existence is already leading to visible disasters”.

He continued: “Within three years – 1976-1978- farmers in Nigeria abandoned the cultivation of more than 8 million hectares of farmland. There is a stampede among young dwellers of rural areas to the cities and urban areas…The social and economic consequences of these trends are already manifesting and will continue to manifest themselves in increasing lawlessness of various kinds, and in secular decline in the local production of foods for domestic consumption, and of certain classes of agricultural commodities for foreign markets”.

Could anyone have been more prescient given what is happening in the country today?  But then Awo was not content to only point out the problems, he was always adroit in preferring well thought out solutions. Thus, his admonition that “If it is our determination, as we often profess to lift the farmers from the prevailing morass of social degradation and economic miseries, at the same time help raise and improve their standards of life, the immediate introduction of certain programmes is absolutely imperative. Firstly, the state governments should take immediate steps to mobilize and organize our farmers into cooperative societies throughout the country. A cooperative unit of between 100 and 200 practicing farmers, all depending on the type of crops to be cultivated, could be the optimum. In this regard, it must be constantly borne in mind that the individual farmer, except a rich landowner, is not a viable proposition”. Of course, he goes on to adumbrate several ways that these nationwide cooperatives could be financed and managed as thriving businesses.

While it is true that governors in the South may have generally been more committed to the developmental demands of their states relative to those of the North, both categories of governors must significantly scale up their performance to meet the strenuous governance standards set by Awolowo. Unfortunately, when some governors in the North misguidedly argue that herdsmen have the divine right to migrate anywhere across the country seeking pasture and water for their cattle even to the detriment of host farming communities, they create the impression that they are too mentally indolent to rise up to the governance challenges of the terrains under their jurisdiction.

No governor, ordinarily, should take pride in the fact that his inability to provide conditions and facilities for modernized cattle ranching within his territory compels his people to traverse the length and breadth of the country in the process of rearing their cattle and thus becoming a danger to lives and property of people in far flung places.

Here again, Awo’s perspicacity is quite useful and relevant. In a lecture he delivered at the University of Lagos in 1968, he stated that “Firstly, it has been assumed that every underdeveloped country has enough of natural and human resources for its purposes. It is true that some countries are richer in these things than others. But it is also true that, granting a rational exploitation, mobilization and deployment of these resources, each country has enough of them to make it carry on a happy and economically free existence”.

He continued: “Instances are not wanting. Israel has shown that any kind of land or natural resources can be made productive, as long as other productive agents are sufficiently qualitative and optimally quantitative. What the Israeli experience has proved beyond dispute is this: the only difference between a country which is rich and one which is poor in natural resources, is that the same dose of the other productive agents will produce better results, when applied to the one than when applied to the other”

True, the charge of leadership bankruptcy arguably applies as much to the South as to the North even though the latter faces a more serious challenge of poverty and inequality. In the final analysis, the solution to the problems that bedevil the North lie in the resoluteness of the leadership of the region, particularly its elected governors, to seize the bull by the horns and creatively tap the resources of the region for the development of her people. With determination and audacity, even Sambisa forest can be transformed into the Dubai of Nigeria.

The immense touristic and agricultural as well as mineral resources of the North await productive exploitation for regional transformation. That I think is the point to be gained from Awo’s reference to Israel. The North stands to gain as much as the South from restructuring, perhaps even much more.

By Segun Ayobolu

As far as the Senate President, Dr Ahmed Lawan, and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami are concerned, the recent call by the southern governors for restructuring of the country as part of the resolutions reached at their meeting in Asaba is wholly unjustified.  Both men have forcefully expressed the view that the restructuring advocacy by the southern governors can only be worth a hearing if they initiate the restructuring process from their respective states by guaranteeing the financial and functional autonomy of their legislative and judicial arms of government as well as allowing their local government councils to operate genuinely as the third tier of government as prescribed by the constitution.

This perspective cannot be said to be without some merit. This column once advocated what I called ‘restructuring from below’ arguing that most governors are veritable emperors in their domains with the legislature, judiciary, civil service and local governments under their unquestionable suzerainty.

It is impossible to wield the kind of powers that governors enjoy and deploy in their states without getting imperiously inebriated. The truth of the matter is that since 1999, the principle of checks and balances has been more operational and effective at the centre than in the states. Although the National Assembly has been consistently perfunctory and tardy in carrying out its duty of screening stipulated categories of appointees to public office, it has been relatively more rigorous in debating and scrutinizing federal budgets, performing its oversight role over Ministries, Departments and Agencies and in debating critical national issues.

Both the legislature and judiciary at the federal level are financially autonomous of the executive and any subservient disposition of either the law –making or law-adjudicating branches to the presidency is a matter of voluntary self-abasement rather than due to any compulsive stranglehold of the latter. This is clearly not the case at the level of the states where what we have in most cases is effectively one man, not even one party, rule.

But does this justify the rather abrasive dismissal of the southern governors meeting and resolutions by the duo of Malami and Lawan? I don’t think so. For one, the 17 governors who attended or were represented at the Asaba meeting are elected representatives of their people speaking on behalf of roughly half the population of the country. The mandate the governors wield as elected leaders of their states is as sacrosanct and inviolable as that held by President Muhammadu Buhari in a federal polity. A substantial number of the votes that enable Buhari to hold office today are from the south, which the governors spoke for in Asaba.

Again, Lawan is a senator elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) while Malami is presumably a sympathizer of or even a card carrying member of the ruling party. On the other hand, the southern governors who met in Asaba were from the APC, the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). Their position, therefore, transcends partisan political divides and this should certainly be taken into account by Lawan and Malami.

Beyond this, one of the resolutions reached at the Asaba summit was the call for an urgent national dialogue to deliberate on the state of the nation and the way forward. Surely, such a forum will offer an opportunity for interested participants to raise the questions posed by Lawan and Malami such as the need to guarantee autonomy of the legislative and executive arms of government in the states as well as the structural and functional viability of local governments.

Indeed, the Senate President and AGF must be commended for pointing out the patent lack of equity, balance and fairness in the way in which power is distributed among the arms and levels of government at the sub-national units of governance. Since they advocate the de-concentration of powers from the person and office of the governor at the sub-national level, however, they cannot logically be opposed to the demand for the decentralization of more powers, resources and responsibilities from the centre to the lower levels of governance in accordance with the dictates of federal practice.

Surely, Lawan and Malami cannot be indifferent to the fact that the entire country is fast collapsing all around us with many parts daily degenerating into veritable theatres of anarchy and mindless blood- letting? No part of the country is spared the menace of one or the other of the atrocities of insurgency, banditry, rape and kidnapping that claim valuable lives on a daily basis. It is thus obvious, for instance, that the present security architecture in the country is outdated, dysfunctional and ineffective. The centralized policing structure put in place by the extant constitution for a plural, complex polity is unsustainable and the time is long overdue for the decentralization of the policing structure as stated by the governors. Of course, in doing this, Lawan and Malami will rightly be concerned that appropriate checks against misuse of state police to harass, oppress and victimize opponents by temperamental, volatile and emotionally unstable governors must be put in place.

The view has been expressed in some quarters that the southern governors could more appropriately have sought audience with the President to make their views known to him. But there is absolutely nothing wrong in the southern governors putting their position in the public space for all to see and appraise. In any case, there is hardly anything new in the resolutions passed by the governors. The same positions have been advocated at various times by diverse stakeholders from both the north and the south. Given the critical positions they occupy, the governors of the south joining hands across intra-regional and partisan divides to publicly articulate and advocate these demands will help impress on President Buhari and his kitchen cabinet the need for urgent action to stem the country’s current dangerous slide.

In his reaction to the resolutions of the southern governors, Kogi state governor, Yahaya Bello, admonished that “when it appears as if you are fighting President Muhamadu Buhari, our father and our President, we are all getting it wrong because we get (sic) to where we are today as a result of maladministration of successive administrations”. In my view, it is precisely because of diffidence towards and respect for the President that the southern governors and other stakeholders have not publicly staked this kind of position before now. The language of their communique was neither provocative nor insulting and they strongly reiterated their firm commitment to the continued cohesion of the nation.

Some of the most influential members of the President’s kitchen cabinet stood by him loyally and steadfastly during his long years in the political wilderness as he sought in futility three successive times to be President of Nigeria. It is only human and natural for Buhari to appoint such people into sensitive positions in his government and to repose implicit trust and confidence in their good faith and commitment to the best interest of his administration. These beneficiaries of his benevolence in this regard must be concerned about the President’s reputation or the legacy he will bequeath to posterity. Because they enjoy the trust of the President, these members of his kitchen cabinet have a responsibility and duty to utilize their influence to help steer the administration in a direction that unites rather than divides the country thus distracting attention from much of the good work being done in key sectors including agriculture, social intervention initiatives and infrastructure upgrade.

For instance, in passing a resolution banning open grazing across their states, the southern governors are obviously motivated by the need to take drastic action to halt the ceaseless flow of blood in large swathes of the south as a result of invasion of farmlands and host communities by herdsmen. This has become a source of danger not only to lives but to livelihoods in the south. As the Chief Security Officers of their states, the southern governors can certainly not be indifferent to this. And a broad consensus has emerged across both the southern and northern governors’ forums and even including Miyetti Allah that open grazing has become anachronistic and must give way to modern ranching across the country.

In disagreeing with the southern governors on this point, the AGF is concerned with the constitutional right of citizens to live and pursue a legitimate livelihood anywhere in the country and this is an important right that must be protected. However, open grazing of cattle has become so hazardous to peaceful co-existence across the length and breadth of the country that there should be no legal squabbles on whether or not the practice should be scrapped. It belongs to a bygone era. If vehicle spare parts sellers pursue their business in such a way as to pose danger to lives in the north or anywhere else, a poser raised by the AGF, they should be banned and deported to their states of origin.

Malami and Lawan want restructuring at the sub-national levels. The governors want restructuring from the centre, devolving more powers and serious to the states. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. The governors must immediately heed Lawan and Malami’s advice that they should take the initiative and begin the restructuring process from below. It is up to the governors to urgently begin to work with their lawmakers in the National Assembly to actualize the restructuring of Nigeria in line with their demands.