Category: Ropo Sekoni

In the process, no country has promoted stigmatisation of diversity than Nigeria

Article 1 Belgium is a federal State composed of Communities and Regions.
Article 2 Belgium comprises three Communities: the Flemish Community, the French Community and the German-speaking Community.
Article 3 Belgium comprises three Regions: the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Brussels Region.
Article 4 Belgium comprises four linguistic regions: the Dutch-speaking region, the French speaking region, the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital and the German-speaking region.

The quotation overleaf is from Belgium’s federal constitution. I have inserted it here to demonstrate how a multiethnic nation-space does not need to be organised as a country of people who are or should be afraid of their identities. Since Nigeria’s independence, particularly since the emergence of military rule, the goal of those in charge of governance has been to engage in unity discourse that demonises diversity. Unity presupposes existence of diversity; it is meaningless if what needs to be united is just one. The view that diversity needs to be wiped out for unity to emerge has driven rhetoric of rulers since the civil war till now. And the overwhelming theme of such rhetoric seems to be motivated by self-derogation by propagators of the theme of ethnicity as a bogey in construction of a multi-ethnic country.

No post-colonial country in sub-Sahara Africa has invested so much energy in the rhetoric of unity than Nigeria. In the process, no country has promoted stigmatisation of diversity than Nigeria. And such promotion appears to have ensued from rising sense of self-derogation and self-erasure by those who deliberately confuse unity with uniformity or unification with homogenisation.

A major plank in the unity discourse has been about prevalence of centrifugal forces, as if there are no centripetal forces and without anyone one of the pundits or politicians on role of centrifugal forces providing any idea of the strength of centrifugal forces in relation to centripetal ones. Details of unity rhetoric include stigmatisation of ethnicity as if Nigeria is the first or only country inhabited by multiple nationalities and cultures. For example, when citizens call for organisation of Nigeria as a secular state, they are quickly reminded that Nigerian is a multi-religious country, as if there are no countries with multiple religions that organise themselves as secular state, where religion is private and has no noticeable role in state operations. For instance, during recession, the Central Bank feels obliged to make dollars available to pilgrims at a discounted rate that those going abroad for medical attention may not have access to. United States of America is a shining example of a multi-religious state that separates religion from the state without endangering citizens’ rights to practice various faiths.

A recurrent theme in the country’s unity discourse concerns hyping the challenge of building a modern multinational state from multiple nations. Many pundits and politicians sell the ideal that to achieve this goal, there is need to construct a nation that thrives on willingness of existing nationalities to erase themselves so that a united nation can emerge without any trace of perceived centrifugal forces, as if there is such a human space devoid of conflicts on the globe. The fact of history is that whenever a multiethnic nation exists without having a core that was an imperial master which added other nations to its space via conquest—by violent war, colonialism, or cultural imperialism, such nation needs to accept the challenge of creative (rather than coercive) management of its diversity.

Any attempt by the government of a multiethnic country to spend all its resources to create a nation in the tradition of pre-modern one-language, one-culture, one-religion construct cannot but lead to tension and state failure. This is an old-fashioned approach to creating or sustaining a political and economic space that makes people of diverse cultures desire to co-exist for more or better opportunities for all. If the kind of nation that those who bemoan existence of diversity in the country want is inevitable globally, it would not have been possible for the world to have many of the successful countries of today: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Belgium, Switzerland, United Arab Emirate, etc.

Relatedly, it is reassuring that even those who used to think that acknowledging ethnic diversity and identity politics was inimical to progress, development, and peace in multiethnic Nigeria are getting converted to the belief that restructuring Nigeria can improve the quality of its governance and the life of its people. The recent expression of belief in unfettered federalism as a viable approach to nation-building by individuals who had earlier believed otherwise as rulers is an acceptance that nation-building is a work in progress and that no single individual, regardless of the size of his political or cultural power is omniscient. Hearing of acceptance by former and current leaders (including many governors) that choosing a truly federal system is a pathfinder to ensuring more peace and progress is good news that require amplification.

It is important for those with the fortune of governing Nigeria to accept that ethnicity by itself is not a threat to nation building in the 21st century. What is threatening is failure of those with opportunities to lead the country to listen to voices of those who have been calling in the last three decades for a new approach to governing Nigeria. Certainly, General Ibrahim Babangida’s recent statement: “The talk to have the country restructured means that Nigerians are agreed on our unity in diversity; but that we should strengthen our structures to make the union more functional based on our comparative advantages” could not have been better put. It is a realization of decades-old myopia of viewing restructuring as a call for disintegration or as preparation for dissolution of the country, as many former and current leaders have claimed for years. Babangida’s new understanding is the kind that should have been in ascendancy since 1966. Despite huge flow of dollars from petroleum for almost five decades, the choice of a wrong design for Nigeria since 1966 has slowed the country down almost to the point of paralysis.

As this column has observed regularly since 2006, building a modern country from multiple nations does not have to include denial or repression of existing ethnic or cultural identities that constitute the nation-space. While nation building can be threatened by calls for secession or separation, calls for restructuring or true federalism (as opposed to the false one now in place in the country) does not have to include denial of existence of multiple cultures and religions. And such cultures and religions can be prevented from being centrifugal through adoration by all communities in the nation-space of equity, equality, justice, tolerance of difference, and self-confidence. For example, the quotation above from the Belgian Constitution demonstrates that acceptance of multiple ethnicities can in fact be a foundation for unity. That the Belgians recognize their country as consisting of people of Walloon, Flemish, and Dutch ancestry is presented as a motivation for unification, rather than a source of discouragement for builders of a new nation-space from many nations.

Political leaders need to liberate themselves from the false consciousness created by colonialism: African tribal or ethnic groups are a danger to development. What makes the Igbo any more tribal than the Scots or the Yoruba any more ethnic than the Welsh or Irish in the United Kingdom? What makes the Fulani or Hausa any more tribal than the Quebecois in Canada? Our leaders need to get real and stop creating false problematique. The challenge of modern development is to accept the right of all groups—majority or minority—to thrive in a polity built on fairness and justice. Since 1967, Nigeria’s leaders have obsessed over the metaphorical ‘Biafra’ in each of its nationalities and the need to repress the ‘Biafra’ in all individuals and communities that feel compelled to struggle for de-marginalization and dis-alienation in a polity that seems averse to responding to complaints  from  citizens.

The character of a nation is not the character of its president; the character of a nation is the character of its people—Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator

When Nigeria obtained independence in 1960, the consensus among leaders was that Nigeria was the result of human construction, hence, the various constitutional conferences that culminated in the Republican Constitution of 1963. Nobody, not Frederick Lugard, Ahmadu Bello, Obafemi Awolowo, and Nnamdi Azikiwe, called Nigeria a creation of God. It was not common in the world at that time to pass the buck of poor architecture to God, as many highly placed leaders tend to do these days. In order to reinforce the status quo, political and cultural leaders have had for too long the tendency to make claims that are not realistic or rational, namely that it is God who created Nigeria and nobody should do or say anything that challenges God’s design.

For example, long before anybody demanded for revival of Nigeria, many stakeholders warded off demands for restoration of federalism as an attempt to commit sacrilege, an abuse of a celestial or divine process and product, Nigeria.  Much more than before, the notion that Nigeria is a creation of God got transformed into an advertorial in the last few years, particularly since self-styled Indigenous People of Biafra became a force to tame, if Nigeria is to survive as one geographical entity. Former vice presidents, sitting vice president, traditional rulers, governors, and legislators amplified the narrative of divine design of Nigeria, perhaps to put the mind of ordinary people who are perceived as fertile grounds for false consciousness planting at rest and protect such fragile minds from corruption by those calling for any manner of reform of the status quo. In both cases, apostles of the status quo or nothing else were enthusiastic in shutting up demand for reform on the excuse that such demands tamper with celestial design of Nigeria.

Before this season, Nigerians were already used to hearing that it is God that appoints leaders, especially when some nosy citizens accused ruling parties of election manipulation. This happened in 1979, 1983, 1993, 1999, 2003, 2007, and even in 2011, particularly when those who lost elections challenged the integrity of such elections. Resorting to metaphysical explanations of political activities has been for some time part of political rhetoric in the country, but it got to a crescendo in the last few years, particularly since demand for restructuring by a section of Yoruba opinion leaders and later with the rise of MASSOB and IPOB’s call for secession or disintegration.

Mystification and distortion started to become popular during the regime of President Obasanjo, who equated call for restructuring with demand for secession, in order to call the dog of restructuring a bad name to get it ready for hanging. Most Nigerians had no reason to expect that there would be an emergence of such dare-devils as the Kanu group with irrational ambition: breaking Nigeria so that Biafra can be revived, to allow what the group considers a maste- race nationality in Nigeria to move ahead and reclaim its manifest destiny.

When MASSOB and IPOB emerged on the landscape of the country’s geopolitical struggle for the soul of Nigeria, those calling for restructuring got eclipsed by the bellicose rhetoric of IPOB. And some of the new theorists of etiology seized the moment to remind citizens that it was God in his/her infinite mercies that created Nigeria and that nobody born of women has a right to question God’s design. Of course, mystification has its function. It either makes people interrogate what they perceive to be overdone or get them intoxicated or indoctrinated by the sheer force of the oversize image that may have no bearing with reality.

Unfortunately, attempts by political and cultural leaders to create images designed to indoctrinate citizens backfired for all of us. Instead of calling for a dialogue to identify the problems and make amends where necessary, politicians in power used the excuse of recession to de-emphasise the frustration of several Nigerian groups, without even considering that recession itself can be an immediate cause for irrational demand, such as Kanu’s. Kanu’s stature began to rise meteorically and without justification, until the Arewa Youth Organisation decided to occupy what they thought was a vacuum.

Without any belief in the constitution, the Arewa Youth Organisation started to issue ultimatums. They first issued a military type of ultimatum to Igbos living in the 19 states of the north to migrate back home by October 1, failing which they would face extermination. The world quickly expressed shock at what could become a major international refugee problem. Those who have a sense of Nigeria before the civil war that Kanu wanted to re-enact got scared about the possibility of conflagration. The Acting President quickly went to work, calling meetings of regional stakeholders including modern and traditional rulers. Given the sharp response to the first ultimatum, the Arewa Youth Forum issued another ultimatum. This time to the Vice President, to urge him commence disengagement process between Nigeria and Kanu’s Biafra. And the rest is fast becoming history. Some Igbo leaders are showing readiness to accept an offer of the presidency in 2019 as a sufficient evidence of Nigeria’s willingness to de-marginalise Kanu’s followers.

Suddenly, what started as a practical joke by MASSOB and IPOB after the change of presidential power in 2015 grew into a national crisis. Some organisations encouraged Igbos to vacate the North and for Hausa-Fulani to leave Biafraland. Even some Yoruba organisations said that the Arewa fatwa to the Igbos is a fatwa to all the people of the South including Yoruba people, whose recurrent demand since 1993 or earlier has been for return of federalism to Nigeria through negotiation among all federating units. Better put, a threat to the Igbos in the North is a threat to all lovers of human rights everywhere.

For too long, political and cultural leaders have relished in self-delusion by making God responsible for the way Nigeria has become, since gradual erosion of federal provisions in the country’s constitution. Our failure to respond to demands for restructuring on the excuse that this is the way God wants Nigeria to be got replaced by demand for secession, which has now put everyone on his/her toes. Decision by Arewa youth to call the bluff of IPOB has also aggravated the tension. It is reassuring that the VP has moved fast to engage stakeholders in the Nigerian enterprise. As one of the northern governors said at one of the meetings with the acting president, “nation-building is a work in progress” that requires appropriate response to inevitability of change. Recently, two states, California and Texas mooted the idea of secession, and such demand did not lead to scattering of the tribes as it has done in Nigeria. Ethiopia has a secession provision in its constitution, and nobody has attempted to invoke it.

It is dangerous for those who profit from understanding of transitive and intransitive use of religion to attribute the way Nigeria is or has been to God. Children who are growing up with a scientific mind with the hope of connecting cause and effect in what they do may be discouraged from cultivating scientific and rational minds. Young students are already calling their mentors in a country that discontinued the study of history for many years to find out what is correct: amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914 by Frederick Lugard or the creation of Nigeria by God?  It is too late in human progress to use mystification to deal with political matters. Doing so increases the risk of irrational demands. If Kanu had wanted to secede, he would not have made a religion of talking about it. He would have confronted the rest of Nigeria with a new Biafran army and await the response.

Those who govern and those being governed need to understand that Nigeria, like any other country, has not been perfectly made, largely because modern countries are not made by God. Citizens have the right to make demands designed to make the country better. Shunning for too long those who call for peaceful reform (such as restructuring) risks emergence of those who are ready to throw away the baby with the bathwater, like MASSOB, IPOB, and the Arewa Youth Organisation behind ultimatums to the Igbos and Vice President Osinbajo. The new announcement of APC governors’ commitment to restructuring for federalism clearly renews and reinforces the progressive party’s election promise to: “initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit.”

If there are still people who want to break Nigeria up, they will need to look for new reasons other than marginalisation.

Roposek@msn.com

Most times it is the wife of the privileged Nigerians on the street that hand their bags to policemen waiting to carry the bags to the car

Contradictions are not strange to anything that involves government/citizen interaction. And this situation is not unique to Nigeria, but it seems to many Nigerian citizens that contradictions overwhelm consistency at every level of experience: police/citizen interaction, citizen/utility providers engagement, citizen/customs interaction, etc. And this is despite rich rhetoric about citizen-centred governance across regimes and party ideologies. Understanding this tension would have been easier if our social scientists and development journalists had given more attention to research on views of citizens about how they are governed, apart from periodic anecdotal evidence from media pundits on how citizens feel about politicians and political parties. Policing is one area that stretches patience of citizens to the limit.

It sounds illogical to say that Nigeria appears overpoliced, just a few weeks after the IGP announced plans to hire 150,000 police for a special law enforcement initiative that will post policemen and women to their natal communities. He ought to know the staff strength in relation to manpower needs of the Force better than anyone else. However, the signs out there give the impression that the country must have more police and para-police staff than it requires. Despite President Buhari’s announcement early in his administration that use of police as Maiguards for big men and women should stop, hundreds or thousands of police are still deployed as personal security for members of the over-privileged class, at the expense of community and individual protection.

For example, I live on a street that has just about 20 housing units. But the street can boast of 10 policemen waiting in front of houses of maigidas and with guns positioned as if to intimidate neighbours taking their morning or evening exercise. This writer took a suicidal venture one morning to ask three impeccably dressed anti-riot policemen in well-starched, well-ironed uniforms and shining black boots “if they were still working for the Nigeria Police Force.” The answer was brief and confident: “Of course, daddy, why do you ask, you think we look fake the way we are?” the spokesman running his eyes up and down the visage of his colleagues in uniform, while using his left hand to demonstrate his own sartorial authority. I became further suicidal: “Who do you work for in this quiet and seemingly safe estate, if I may ask?” Some silence from the three law enforcers for a few seconds, during which the gate to the house was pushed open from inside. A Chinese man in his early sixties emerged from behind the gate, and the three policemen disappeared into the SUV as it sped off. One strange thing about these police is that they live in the house with the Chinese factory owner and change into mufti in the evening to play ayo or ludo in front of their oga’s house. They seem to be on 24-hour duty in and out of uniform.

In three other houses on the same street, the maigidas being given special protection are Nigerians whose pictures I have not seen in any of our newspapers or on any of our television stations to indicate they are current or former ministers or commissioners. Most times it is the wife of the privileged Nigerians on the street that hand their bags to policemen waiting to carry the bags to the car. The owner of the bag walks behind the bag towards the door that the policeman holds for her to enter, while ensuring that no part of madam’s wrapper hangs out after closing the door. A neighbour’s daughter’s eyes caught mine one day during the mini drama of a privileged woman moving from her gate to her car. The teenager gave me a nod that was overloaded with disgust, saying with contempt: “Who the hell are these people carrying policemen all over the place and treating them like houseboys?” She would not allow me to walk off before she added: “What kind of country is this and under the nose of an elected government of change?” From that brief interaction, it became clear that the contempt for police is not only about the bribe they demand from citizens but also about loss of dignity. Citizens who see the police in such obsequious states cannot but disrespect officers who look like them. It is also clear that a tiny minority of residents on similar streets with twenty houses and 10 policemen on private beat enjoys the benefit of police protection denied to millions in a country in which police have no fuel in their vehicles to respond to emergency calls from citizens on time and most citizens still install high walls, heavy iron gates and windows barred with iron rods for protection.

As if the new Inspector-General of Police sensed that citizens were feeling harassed on urban roads and highways, he, like many others before him, announced that policemen on urban streets and inter-city roads would not have the usual “way your particulars beat” during the government of change. If the IG has the time to travel in vehicles, he will be surprised at the number of his men still occupying the roads and expressways: from Shagamu to Ore (average of 20 police stops), more miserly stops of five between Lagos and Ibadan, about 10 police check-points between Ibadan and Ondo, and about 12 between Ibadan and Akure. This does not include military barricades erected between Ore and Ondo, between Ifetedo and Ondo, and between Ondo and Akure. Anyone entering Ondo State from any direction would think that the state is at war. This siege is not new. It has been there for several years.

As if the highways linking cities in the country do not have enough check-points to frustrate travellers, Customs men (usually without women, like their police counterparts) also have check-points of their own, not near Lagos but in the middle of the forest between Ibadan and Ondo, Akure and Ibadan, Shagamu and Ore, etc. A few days ago, I had the misfortune of being on one of these roads. Two customs officers in uniform stood in front of my car to signal to the driver to park. The driver quickly obliged, only to be asked for customs papers paid at the port of entry through which the car entered Nigeria. I quickly gave the officer original copies of registration, insurance, and road worthiness (whatever that means). He verified that the copies tallied with those pasted on the windscreen. He then asked for papers given to me at the port when I cleared the car. I told him I bought the car in Lagos ten years ago and brought out copies of my annual registration papers for the past ten years. After going through this, he then asked me for the receipt given to me by the vendor of the car. He ignored us for over ten minutes before waving us off to enable other cars to park.

A few metres from where the Customs had stopped us, red or burgundy-capped traffic police men of the FRSC fame stopped our car to ask for fire fighter and “triangular sign.” The two items were provided immediately after which we were waved off. A few minutes after, we entered Akure only to be flagged down by VIO in white shirts who asked for the same thing and looked around the car before allowing us to go. This was not before asking us to open the trunk of the car to ascertain its content.

Ongoing government efforts to simplify the culture of business and enhance efficiency and productivity must include assessing cost-effectiveness of training policemen who end up being used as private guards for big Nigerians and foreign businessmen. Such programme audit should include deployment of customs officers to the ports to ensure that proper payments are made before imported cars leave the ports, instead of posting them to the middle of the forest. When vehicles break down in the country, drivers and owners ensure that piles of leaves are put behind such vehicles to alert other road users. In most cases, such leaves are much bigger and more visible than what one FRSC staff called “Triangular Sign.”

Insisting that citizens purchase all manners of imported gadgets that are hardly used in countries that manufacture them: speed limiter, caution sign, replacing factory-built tinted cars with ordinary windows or obtaining special permits to use cars duly imported into the country with factory-fitted tinted glass wastes travellers’ time and impedes productivity. It also wastes on non-essential accessories hard-earned foreign exchange in what is increasingly looking like a post-petroleum moment.

Roposek@msn.com

One recurrent and incontrovertible argument being heard from Nigerians is that the 1999 Constitution does not belong to such group of duly negotiated constitutions.

It is true that Nigeria’s federal system has been experiencing challenges and there have been agitations and prescriptions to reform and modify it. Reforms and modifications, institutional arrangement, systems and processes are normal in festoons, but are not done in single swoop as being advocated in Nigeria. Mega changes are not healthy for federations…. There is no true or false federalism. Indeed, there is no single, pure ideal federal model that is universally applicable everywhere. Each federation reflects the particular conditions and circumstances that produce it. We cannot wish away the particular conditions and circumstances that have produced the challenges in our federal system.—Attorney-General Abubakar Malami at a recent NIPSS conference on Federalism and the Challenges of Dynamic Equilibrium for Restructuring in Nigeria: towards a national strategy.

What factors have proven key to the success or failure of federalism in Nigeria to play its potential role in reversing or quarantining deep rooted conflicts, how can Nigeria’s federalism maintain a dynamic equilibrium between centrifugal and centripetal forces in the country without excessively overheating the political system. In what ways can the conflicting interests regarding the allocation of responsibilities, functions and revenue sources be accommodated to promote equitable development in the federation.
—Jonathan Juma, Acting Director-General of NIPSS

Nigerians must stop deceiving themselves by saying that the union is negotiable when the policy actions are not in tandem with this argument….Studies have tended to suggest that the current federal arrangement is neither viable nor sustainable.—Ambassador  Sunday Dogonyaro at a recent NIPSS

It seems that matters that have been arising since the first call for restructuring two decades ago are moving almost unexpectedly in the direction of subsiding, but only superficially. However, the conference that produced the epigraphs overleaf is primed to serve as a source of new debate on restructuring, negotiation for a new constitution to regulate national and subnational relations, etc. Today’s piece is to contribute to debate of the issues raised by the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, at the historic conference organised recently by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS).

What makes the conference historic in a country where everything starts and ends with conferences and retreats mostly to no avail? NIPSS is generally not a think tank that engages in frivolity. Even when the call for restructuring got loud enough for former President Jonathan to convene a National Dialogue that ended with over 600 recommendations (thereafter filed away) on how to re-invent Nigeria for sustainability, NIPSS was silent over noises about whether Nigeria’s federalism was false or fake. That NIPSS, generally believed by Nigerians to be a respectable organisation, has chosen to call a conference (though not of stakeholders, as it is normal with most Nigerian organisations), should catch attention of activists for re-federalisation of Nigeria. If anything,it seems that the message that the status quo of quasi-federal governance is not sustainable is getting to men at the top of the federal government, despite media speculations that the president has blocked his ears to demands for restructuring.

Although quality of the conference was almost watered down by trite phrases such as ‘there is no true or false federalism’ by both the Attorney General and Prof. Sam Oyovbaire, such situation was compensated for by the Attorney General’s readiness to engage in more substantive issues than mere verbal gymnastics. Without doubt, every experience that is constructed by human beings can have true or false manifestations and features. This explains why definition of false in the English dictionary includes the following: ‘adjusted or made so as to deceive,’‘intending or tending to mislead,’ or ‘based on mistaken ideas.’

It is, however, remarkable that Mr. Malami saved the day by moving away from facile forensic semantics to substantive issues about when it is best to commence restructuring of the polity. For the attorney general of APC that came to power with a manifesto that includes commitment of the federal government to”initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit,” to worry about appropriate season for commencing change must mean more than his lecture conveys on the surface.

One way to interpret Mr. Malami’s thesis on right time to ask for restructuring and the amount of noise appropriate must mean that the APC federal government is not only listening to the noise about restructuring but also that the presidency is getting ready to let activists know it is not ready to consign such demands to the national archive. This may be an optimistic view of the Attorney General’s paper. Another possible interpretation is that the country’s chief law officer is saying to activists for federalism that the only way to achieve restructuring is through amendment of a constitution that does not reflect the feelings of citizens about the kind of document needed to chart the way forward for a sustainable multiethnic federal Nigeria.

Malami’s statement: “The idea of restructuring is not a function of advocacy or agitation. It is about constitutional accommodation and or alternative constitutional amendment” seems to be advising those calling for return to a federal system agreeable to by all that want to belong to a democratic Nigeria to lobby lawmakers across the country to ensure that their proposal for return to federalism is accepted by not less than 24 state legislatures or drop the idea. This perspective ignores the fact that critics of the current constitution see the provisions invoked by the attorney general as not representing their wish about the Nigeria they want to spend their lifetime with and bequeath to their children.

The convener of the conference cited overleaf, Jonathan Juma, raised pertinent issues that echo some of the fears of segments of the country when he called for finding out “What factors have proven key to the success or failure of federalism in Nigeria to play its role in reversing or quarantining deep rooted conflicts.” Nobody can be sure what a restructuring conference can unearth or recommend. The Attorney General’s suggestion that restructuring may lead to abolishment of states which may also have effects on the nation or downsizing of the National Assembly and abolishing State Houses of Assembly smacks of pre-judging outcomes of a national conference. There are states in the United States with bicameral legislature, some with unicameral legislature while others even have part-time legislatures. The choice of what type of state assembly to have is a matter solely for the states or regions that result from restructuring to determine. Puppeteering of states or regions is one of the traits that restructuring is to exterminate.

The kind of strict constructionism about provisions of the 1999 Constitution demonstrated by the Attorney General seems to be missing the central point of calls for return to a functional federal system in the country. Citizens who want restructuring are interested principally in a constitution that caters to a federation that derives from a process of “coming together,” rather than a process of “holding together” or just being held together. In all federal systems, apart from Nigeria’s, the constitution that enshrines each country’s federal system considered views of all federating units and thus enjoyed the consent of citizens either via the process of referendum or accomplishment of a consensus by duly elected delegates. One recurrent and incontrovertible argument being heard from Nigerians is that the 1999 Constitution does not belong to such group of duly negotiated constitutions. It was imposed on the country by the last military government as part of a transition from military to civil rule.

Therefore, the Attorney General’s view that for people to expect the constitution to accept new ways of organising and running the country is a tall order seems to be intended to foreclose the debate that the 1999 Constitution is at the core of what is to be restructured. if Nigeria is to enjoy the harmony and stability of a federal system derived from a process of “coming together of all Nigerians,” rather than victims of a process of “holding together,” a transparent constitutional conference will obviate the fears of the attorney general about the resistance of the constitution to fundamental change.

Roposek@msn.com

A national conference to address concerns of herdsmen and farmers

Who says the All Progressives Congress’ two-year old government is not interested in national conference? Those who do are just not paying adequate attention: The Federal Government is deep in the process of convening a national conference, but not the type that professional activists and advocates for re-federalization demand ceaselessly. This time, it is a national conference to address, not the problems that seem to inhibit economic development and political stability in the country, but one to address the concerns of herdsmen and farmers who have been clashing for the past two years, almost without any solution from the security forces.

Speaking about what looks like the latest big national dialogue since the Jonathan conference one year to the presidential election that brought Buhari to power, the Federal Minister of Agriculture has confirmed the extent of the government’s commitment to getting to the roots of herdsmen’s menace in different parts of the country:”We facilitated this team. We engaged a cross section of stakeholders ranging from state commissioners, traditional producers, practicing ranchers, people directly in the marketing of livestock products across the country.’’

Chief AuduOgbeh went further to prepare citizens for the seriousness of the proposed national conference: “We are not silent on the matter, we are concerned about ending this crisis and applying every possible means of solving the problems, so this society can be happier and see cattle rearing as something of benefit to Nigeria, noting that in Holland 25 per cent of the land mass is reserved for ranching, that is why it is the largest diary exporter to the rest of the world. Ours doesn’t have to be a source of conflict….All of us rather than quarrel and disagree will sit together and analyse this matter to solve the problem and we will solve the problems by looking at all the dimensions, the difficulties and all the possibilities which exist….We need the cows, the milk and the skins, we were exporting the skins before, Nigeria, was a major hide and skin exporter, we need the farms to grow food, but we do not need the conflicts”.

This page must be buzzing unnoticed of complaints about failure of the party and the president to listen to those who want exactly the same consideration for national and subnational relations. It is not as if the issue of herdsmen and farmers are not serious enough to talk about at present.Some professional analysts are likely to warn that the herdsmen/farmers’ issues sound like a microcosmof the issues that a national conference on the polity and structure of governance would consider. The clash of cultures or worldviews that the intermittent attacks between plant growers and animal breeders demonstrates, a subdued conflict that encourages some to demand restructuring and others to insist that the status quo is the best for them, and by extension, for the rest of the country. Enough of digression, to allow us return to the soothing sermon contained in the speech of the minister of agriculture.

With respect to clash of worldviews, herdsmen, we have been told by experts on Fulani culture do not feel constrained by borders. In other words, herdsmen live in the state of nature, before the creation of constraints of culture that came with modern political geography and geopolitics. The farming cultures also subscribe to a worldview that their land should be used only for what they know is not alien to it and thus capable of denaturing it. The herdsmen do not want to be bound in their natural habitat by the constraints on movement in space that ranching imposes while the farmers believe the best way to preserve their land for farming is to use the ranch model for herdsmen who produce crucial sources of protein. Of course, whatever clash that exists between herdsmen and farmers is not a reflection of any hostility—ethnic or religious. Farmers appear more enamored of beef than pastoralists, to the extent that in Nigeria’s farming communities, no ceremony is well consummated until a cow is killed. What can compel a national conference is the bizarre character of herdsmen/farmers relations inside Nigeria. Although communities of farmers love beef and are principal buyers of cows from herdsmen, the latter do not hesitate to kill their customers or run them out of their homes. In a situation where sellers of goods relish killing buyers of such goods, there should be a conference to find out what the motivations and motives are.

But what could be the goal of the minister for harping on inevitability of herdsmen in his pre-conference statement? Is he already doing the analysis that the conference is billed to do? What has the fact that Nigeria used to export hide and skin got to do with a conference that is set up to look for the roots of violence against farmers by herdsmen? Herdsmen need not be conflated with cattle production. Most of the beef eaten in most countries of the world is not produced by herdsmen but by ranchers. Is the minister recommending that 25% of Nigeria’s land be reserved or allocated to herdsmen when the region of origin of herdsmen has about two-thirds of Nigeria’s land?  Is there anything in the discussion of violence of herdsmen to suggest that there are sections of the country that do not recognize the importance of cattle or beef production?  If there is anything that is common to all Nigerians historically and now, it is consumption of beef. The speculation is that more beef is consumed in non-cattle producing states than in cattle-rearing states in the country. It seems that the minister’s sermon has moved considerably away from recommendations of the FAO-assisted committee that inspired convening of a national conference on herdsmen and farmers: access to land, capital, market, infrastructure, inputs and manpower.

In a related matter, the minister also reminded the nation about the sanctity of the fact that most of the herdsmen killing farmers in Nigeria are from foreign countries, presumably in West and Central Africa. He also assured citizens at a recent Town Hall meeting in Abuja that the federal government plans to stop illegal entry of herdsmen into the country, adding that the federal government plans to make a presentation to the Africa Union to bar illegal entry of foreign cattle producers into Nigeria. The new assurances by the minister reinforces the analysis of northern governors of the problem between farmers and herdsmen, namely, the claim that herdsmen perpetrating violence in the country are foreigners.

Questions arising from the minister’s latest statement include the following: Which countries in Africa are these herdsmen from? Are they friendly or hostile countries to Nigeria? Does Nigeria’s laws at present allow foreigners to enter the country illegally? Are there any hidden laws that inhibit the nation’s internal security: police, immigration, and customs from stopping foreign cattle owners from walking into Nigeria at the borders? Does the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) or the African Union (AU) currently have a law that stops Nigeria from enforcing its own laws against illegal entry into Nigeria? Why has the federal government not been able to complete the plans announced by the minister up till now, after hundreds of citizens have been killed and dispossessed of their farms in places like Benue, Kaduna, Taraba, Niger, etc? Recently, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Ilorin made passionate pleas for assistance to the university to save its research farms from herdsmen. Finally, if most of the herdsmen molesting Nigerian farmers are from foreign countries, would it not be more cost effective for the proposed national conference to be turned into an African continental summit on a problem that is adjudged to be largely beyond Nigeria’s jurisdiction? This choice would allow the federal government to kill many birds with just one pebble.

Roposek@msn.com

To be continued