The Nation Newspaper

Category: Ropo Sekoni

Confab: scripts and speculations

Reports from committees are confirming that what the conference has achieved at the committee level is largely a reinforcement of the status quo

It is hard to ask if the national conference is going as scripted. The reason for this difficulty is that nobody is sure about the plan of action scripted by the planners of the conference. In addition, it is not clear if each delegate or group of delegates from the various constituencies had a script before moving to Abuja. But now that the conference has gotten an additional lease from the federal government, it is no longer premature to start worrying about whether it is heading in any direction that can bring any happy change to most parts of the country and to most of the individuals that made the conference possible.

There have been many variants of the scripts that might have been central to this conference. One popular variant is that President Jonathan set up the conference in order to gain some electioneering advantage over his opponents. Propagators of such narrative claimed that some disgruntled Yoruba politicians were drafted or recruited to prepare the script that served as plan of action for the conference. The hope that drove that script (according to folk commentators) was to create the loudest sound bite about a national conference billed to re-design Nigeria for success. It would not matter if at the end of the conference, nothing new happened or the unitary political command system from the centre got reinforced.

Some more uncharitable narrators even said that the ambition behind convening the conference was to galvanise Yoruba voters to vote for the current president who made a national conference that looks more serious and more credible than the last one organised in 2005 by the then President Olusegun Obasanjo. It was also believed that the conference was to just scare political and cultural leaders from the north who are generally expected to be averse to such conference, with the hope of re-assuring them at the end with reinforcement of the status quo. Such managers of grape vines of unverified stories went further to say that delegates even lobbied with everything at their disposal to get a seat for the principal reason of getting some millions of naira as sitting allowance and also getting opportunity to be in the news as co-participants in an elaborate effort to re-launch Nigeria, and with their new media connection, launch their political career under the president’s party after the conference.

Mischievous public affairs commentators went further to say that the rule made by authors of conference modalities to the effect that majority decision in the absence of a consensus would be 75% of delegates did it knowing very well that this would be unattainable and thus capable of bringing the conference to an end in a fiasco. It was also believed and peddled that the compromise that put majority vote at 70% was not without similar goal: re-affirming the status quo that has hobbled the country and made it an enemy of nation-wide development since 1966.Such storytellers pushed the narrative of conspiracy which claimed that the shift of the conference from being one of representatives of ethnic nationalities to one composed of nominees of various vested interests was an integral part of the design-to-fail character of the conference. It was such conspiracy, according to folk narrators, that silenced the existence of a Minority report by Chief Asemota until such occlusion was no longer possible. Those who felt that the denial of the existence of a Minority report to challenge the Okurounmu report was deliberate are not likely to be surprised at the ease with which members of the Devolution of Power committee tried to block the hearing of Ms. Ankio Briggs’ Minority report that challenged the position given by the committee’s co-chairmen: Victor Attah and Ibrahim Coomassie.

Many seemingly unpatriotic Nigerians are even saying, at a time that the conference is almost over, that the claim that all Nigerians consulted at the drawing of modalities for the conference clearly recognised the indivisibility or indissolubility of Nigeria was exaggerated and deliberately crafted to make palatable the imposition of the No-go area that has hobbled the conference from its first sitting: taking the territorial unity of Nigeria as a non-negotiable fact, even at a conference that was charged to work out how to make the multiethnicnation-space work for the good of all constituent nationalities. Authors beholden to stories about conspiracy even claimed that erection of No-go area was to tie the hands of delegates at their backs before they were told to run fast towards getting medals for participating in the country’s most reliable conference.

Now is the time for speculations. Partisan and non-partisan folk commentators are also already at work on what to expect from the conference. Some have affirmed that the no-nonsense stance of the north as its political and cultural leaders claim to be the backbone and strength of Nigeria falls into the pattern of what was expected by designers of the conference. Once the north, the heir to British colonialists and Nigeria’s ‘landlord’ insists that nothing is wrong with the way Nigeria is currently structured and swears loud that no force can change the status of states as mere administrative units while affirming that no constitution in the country accepts regions as federating units, conference delegates would start packing their things to go back home to enjoy their modest allowances for coming, thus confirming the resilience of Nigeria’s culture of political racketeering.

Reports from committees are confirming that what the conference has achieved at the committee level is largely a reinforcement of the status quo. The nation’s Cassandras see nothing more than the typical Nigeria Factor (of holding something that is false to be also true or vice versa) in the report about a compromise over the matter of Devolution of powers. Specifically, the decision to put oil matters on the Exclusive list but with a window of opportunity for states to have a say in the exploitation, collection of royalty and tax as well as sharing of such revenue is already being pooh-poohed by pundits as an illustration of the lack of proper focus at the committee level.

Similarly, the report that the committee on law enforcement has recommended that Nigeria is not ready for multi-level police system is being viewed by critics as another manifestation of the power of vested interests in the matter of security. This is despite the fact that the paper presented at the instance of governors from the north accepted the need for a multi-level police system, despite the region’s reactionary position on all other matters. Could it be true that it was not disagreement among regions about having a truly federal police system that led to the committee’s opposition to state police, but the fact that retired police officers on the committee advised committee members against such a move that fear mongers believe to be capable of endangering the country’s unity? Neighbourhood storytellers are already wondering if any serious-minded conference organisers would knowingly put on such important committee individuals who had retired from a police force that had failed characteristically to protect citizens and their property over the years.

I know that my readers are eager to know my own feelings about what has been going on at the conference, instead of reporting what other public affairs observers have been thinking. Seriously, I believe it is still premature to pass any more critical evaluation than folk commentators have made in their own style. I just believe I should let my readers know what I have been able to collect in terms of folk-life research since the announcement of the Jonathan national conference. I did keep my cool until the end of the Obasanjo conference. I have no reason not to have the same patience this time.

May 25, 2014
How close is Nigeria to federalism? (3)

If the South is to take care of environmental challenges resulting from oil and gas exploitation, why can the North not find solutions to the problem of diminishing land for cattle grazing in the North?

We concluded last week’s piece on the note that the North’s desire to make the current Centralism the defining character of the Nigerian State encouraged it to present a position paper that views the North as the major shareholder of the Nigerian State while the former Eastern and Western regions are minor shareholders. We added that constructing Nigeria as a space occupied by main and minor owners is, more likely than not, capable of threatening the national unity that the North seems eager to sustain.

Just about every page of the 46-page paper on “Northern Nigeria: The Back Bone and Strength of Nigeria” is marked by inflation of the self (the North) and deflation of the other (the South). The major motifs celebrate the North as the sole financier of Nigeria as a whole and of the South in particular. This self-adulation makes it easy for the North to claim that Nigeria is using the demand for resource control to victimize it, in order not to show appreciation for what the paper called the willingness of the North to sacrifice its own interests for the development of Nigeria: “The North sacrifices in resources and human life to develop the oil industry, and protect the Niger Delta from total eclipsing by the protagonist of the Biafra contraption.”

Claiming further that the contribution of petroleum to Nigeria’s economy is exaggerated, the North wants the country to remember that its contribution to agriculture is more substantial than the funds allocated to the region from petroleum earnings. For example, it claims that the funds allocated to the region’s largest state, Kano, come to an average of N462 per person per month and that it is other self-generated “sources that provide the bulk of the revenue for sustenance than the revenue received from the Centre.” If Kano is able to generate more revenue than what it takes from the Federation Account, perhaps, the North needs to re-examine its opposition to federalism. Most proponents of federalism base their argument on the premise that subnational governments are in a better position to bring development to citizens.

With respect to contributions to the economy of the country and of states, figures for 2005 available at the Federal Ministry of Finance demonstrate that no other activity brings as much to the Federation Account as petroleum: 88.1% of revenue to the Federation Account came from mineral resources during the first four months of 2005. If this figure is accurate, this shows that the contribution to the federation account is not exaggerated and counters the North’s claim about “fallacious assumption that oil is the major contributor to the national income.” The North also needs to examine some other points about federal allocation to states. For example, in November 2013 revenue allocation to the regions is as follows: North West N28,330.739.1; North East N21,366.583.3; North Central N25,935,033.7 with the North earning 56.9% while the South earns N132, 727,401.15 43.02% distributed as follows: SS N19,989.106.9, South East N16, 433.120.2; and South West N20, 672.818.3. In addition, Local governments during the same month in 2013 received the following allocations: North West N34,269,981.8, North East N21,387,387.1, North Central N23,250,883 adding up to N78,908.252.6 2, or 54.9% in contrast to the following allocations to the South: South-South N21,684,502, South East N16,404.741.38, South West N26,856.234.4 with a total of N64,945.477.98 or 45.1%. If these figures from the Federal Ministry of Finance are accurate, then the oil-producing areas are making substantial contribution to the development of the North in a way similar to the North’s claim that it made substantial contributions to the development of the South between 1914 and 1946.

The North’s desire for further strengthening of the current Centralist constitution, designed to provide additional advantages to the “owner of 80% of the country’s land mass” appears to have forced the North to accommodate a lot of omissions and contradictions in its “Key Issues before the Northern Delegates to the 2014 National Conference.” One of such omission is the North’s claim that it helps the economy of the South by sending cattle to the region. Was the North not paid for the cattle it sent to the South? When the North claims to have contributed cattle tax revenue to the federation account, it must have forgotten that it was the buyers of the cattle sent from the North to the South that paid such taxes, along with the cost of the cattle supplied to the region. A similar omission is the claim by the North that it supplies agricultural produce to the South, as if it gives such produce to the South free of charge.

One contradiction is the North’s call for an immediate end to all forms of special initiatives for the South: Ministry of Niger Delta, NNDC, at the same time that the North calls for special assistance from the federal government for agriculture in the North. How is the call for special grazing corridors and reserves all over the federation for cattle farmers from the North devoid of special initiatives for the benefit of the North? If the South is to take care of environmental challenges resulting from oil and gas exploitation, why can the North not find solutions to the problem of diminishing land for cattle grazing in the North? Modern animal husbandry methods in other countries have put a stop to any form of nomadic cattle breeding.In addition, the claim by the North that the federal government has abandoned funding for agriculture in the North is not supported by what has been spent on agriculture as parastatals’ expenditures so far in 2014: N17.166.3 million or 57% of total expenditure in contrast to N12.850.1 million or 42.8% in the South. The ratio of expenditures on water resources shows that N12.307.2 million or 62.9% of federal funds has been spent in the North while N7 million or 37.1% has been spent in the South.

The North’s demand “that Traditional Rulers should be accorded specific responsibilities with commensurate delegated authority for security management” and for inclusion of “traditional institutions at national, state and local levels in the areas of religion, security, and immigration matters” assumes that Nigeria is no longer neither a secular State nor a Republic. Furthermore, by invoking the 1999 Constitution to support the North’s claims, the region forgets that it is the flaws in the 1999 constitution that necessitate National Assembly’s efforts to amend the constitution as well as the convening of the ongoing national conference by President Jonathan.

For the sake of sustaining the country’s unity, it is necessary for all the regions to avoid self-celebration and denigration of other regions in their position papers at a conference that is charged to find ways to enhance the country’s unity and make it sustainable.

May 18, 2014
How close is Nigeria to federalism? (2)

Another naïve definition of federalism is the claim by the north that federalism is a system that ensures “being a brother’s keeper

Today’s piece is a continuation of the thesis that the ongoing conference in Abuja is likely to help Nigerians from all parts get to see the hidden fears of most of the nationalities or regions that constitute the republic, much more than it is likely to lead to re-inventing or re-launching Nigeria. We focused on the first regional position paper made available to the public, the document titled: “Northern Nigeria the Back Bone and Strength of Nigeria.” We concluded the first part on the note that the position paper prepared at the instance of northern governors and northern socio-political organisations chose to exaggerate the value of the North to the entire country or to the rest of the country.

Such hyperbolic self-presentation is not unexpected in a context which provides opportunities for many groups to defend and protect their interests, even when such interests are in opposition to each other. In a conference that is trying to review current ways of doing things with a hope to create new and better ways, it is normal for those who prefer the status quo to argue forcefully for such interest. It is also not unusual that each group in such context may choose to make what may amount to other interest groups as self-serving arguments. Such hyperbolic self-assessment is in harmony with the saying that war is a continuation of politics in another mode and that politics is also a continuation of war in another mode.

What is likely to make negotiations that are capable of changing the course of Nigeria’s history from the politics of self-enervation or self-paralysis difficult to accomplish are position papers that do not want to come to terms with the dynamic character of all social formations and human constructions. In addition, one thing that is likely to poison the water of amicable inter-regional or inter-nationality relations is presentation of position papers that “inferiorise” other regions or nationalities. Such positions are capable of revealing the fact that a journey that several regions believe is designed to lead to unity among various nationalities and cultures in Nigeria is a journey to make it easy for one region or nationality to dominate the other.

It is difficult for any political observer to miss the fact that the position of the north at the conference gives the impression that the region is not willing to accept any changes to the current political structure. In doing this, the region overtly scrambles the chronology of Nigeria’s political history. It states that the states derived from the regions that were amalgamated by Frederick Lugard in 1914 were not independent states but just administrative provinces. This attempt to begin the history of states in the country from 1966 smacks of gross distortion of history. History books are replete with the fact that there were several pre-colonial states before 1914. Benin Empire was one, Oyo Empire was another, Hausa- Fulani Empire was another, just as the Kanuri Empire was another, just to name a few of the pre-colonial states that British colonialists met on ground when they arrived in different parts of what later became Nigeria at their instance. ‘Provinces’ created from such independent pre-colonial states have not automatically lost their right to self-determination because of changes as parts of regions to states.

The north’s view that Nigeria’s federalism does not fit into the pattern of classical federalism as illustrated by the political experience of the United States does not negate the need for other polities to search for new forms of federalism. The American states that chose to go into a federation were not any more independent at the time they came together than the pre-colonial states in Nigeria were at the point of colonisation. States derived from such regions have not lost their independence to any other state within Nigeria since their creation.

Similarly, the view that the 36 Nigerian states are mere administrative provinces that cannot serve as federating units does not tell the whole truth. Nigeria at Independence was a country of three regions, none of which was dominated by the other until 1966. That the three regions were later transformed into 36 states is a product of decades of military dictatorships superintended by generals from northern Nigeria. It is now instructive through the north’s position paper that the 36 states must have been created by such military dictators as provinces to serve the interest of the north. What is not clear is whether the provinces were actually created for the north or for Nigeria. There is a strong need for more confessional statements from northern governors and other elite groups on the motive behind creation of states between 1966 and 1998.

However, delegates at the conference have the right to ask that the 36 ‘provinces’ or clusters of them be accepted as federating units in the same way that the original three regions served as federating units until the coming of military autocrats. The purpose of the conference is not just to make cases for sustaining sectional interests; it is principally to search for how to make Nigeria a functional federation that can add value to the parts as well as to the whole. What is implied in the position of the north is that it is the former Northern Region that owns Nigeria, not only because it can lay claim to 80% of the population or land mass, but also because it has succeeded over the years in owning most of the military heads of states that turned three regions into 36 states or provinces.

Another naïve definition of federalism is the claim by the north that federalism is a system that ensures “being a brother’s keeper.” There is nothing in the history of territorial federalism or ethnic federalism that suggests that the raison d’etre of creating federations is for constituent parts to serve as brother’s keepers. If anything, all examples of federalism—in North America, in South America, in Europe, in Asia, and even in some parts of Africa—indicate that federations are created so that constituent parts can be partners, who through the process of cooperation assist each other to achieve its goals of self-development and self-preservation through harnessing of energies of the partners.

The re-definition of federalism as an opportunity for brothers to make sacrifices for other brothers to thrive sounds profound, but it is not realistic. It is reminiscent of the philosophy of even development developed by military dictators during the decades in which they created multiplicities of states and in the process changed the percentage for derivation that was in force until the arrival of military dictators. If Nigerians wanted the country to be made into provinces to be ruled by a central government, there would have been no reason for the counter coup of July 1966. General Aguiyi-Ironsi’s efforts to create a full-fledged unitary governance of the country would have been enough for everybody including the soldiers from northern Nigeria that carried out the country’s second coup d’etat.

If truly the Northern Region paid to keep Nigeria together during the period of colonial rule, it must have done it for the colonialists rather than for the colonised. That the funds for keeping Nigeria together during the colonial period came largely from the north deconstructs the historical assessment of the motivation for amalgamation of the three regions in 1914, which characterised the south as the woman of means to partner with the northern prince. In addition, the north would have had no reason to ask in 1953 for a loose federation without any central legislative activities beyond Defence and Foreign Affairs. If President Jonathan’s opening speech at the conference promised anything, it is for the conference to come up with new ideas to make Nigerians from various nationalities love to belong to the same country and live together in peace and harmony. Position papers that present any section as the centre of Nigeria and others as its peripheries is not likely to lead to an environment of good inter-nationality relations after the conference, more so if decisions at the conference only succeed in reinforcing the status quo that the north appears to be obsessed with.

To be continued

May 11, 2014
How close is Nigeria to federalism? (1)

From what has been happening at the conference since its inception, it is likely that those pessimistic about the national dialogue at the beginning may end up being vindicated

So far, discussions or deliberations at the ongoing national conference underscore the fact that those who expect that the Jonathan conference would lead to more federalism might need to start disabusing their minds. On the contrary, it is becoming increasingly clear from decisions reached at committees that the ongoing conference may very well lead to more centralism or unitarism, apart from cosmetic changes in areas not crucial to sustenance of the huge powers of the central government and the exclusive list of functions.

Recently, northern governors in collaboration with socio-political organisations in the region presented to the conference a document that seems to be strong enough to scatter the thoughts of southern delegates who had attended several South-south, Southeast, Southwest, ostensibly to mobilise the southern states in favour of the conference. In a cool, calm, and confident manner, reminiscent of Hausa-Fulani approach to national political matters before and since independence, the North brought to the conference a few days ago a paper that seems not to be devoid of suspicion and antagonism directed frontally against the South.

Despite the deflation of southern states’ contribution to Nigeria, it appears from reports of committees that the position of the North has been gaining more grounds and converts at most committees so far. It will not be surprising if many southern delegates with genuine commitment to federalism are already wondering if delegates from the south are awake at many of the committees. Some may even be cynical enough to say that most southern delegates, having enervated themselves with sectional conferences to ensure that they use the conference to further position President Jonathan for the 2015 presidential election, must have been left with no choice other than working towards ‘consensus,’ while their northern delegates continue to make unsupportable claim about being the backbone and pillar of Nigeria or the principal owners of Nigeria. More on the wild claims of the North later.

Of course, there are many Nigerians that did not invest any emotion in the conference from the start. Such people did not share the overflowing optimism that some of us uncompromising federalists shared about national dialogue, whenever or wherever it is convened. From what has been happening at the conference since its inception, it is likely that those pessimistic about the national dialogue at the beginning may end up being vindicated. That should not be totally unexpected in anything that has the character of a game of chance. The organisers of the conference chose to select delegates of their choice, rather than asking federating units to send their representatives. The organisers chose to legislate that decisions would be on consensus and that where this fails, conference decisions should be made or unmade by the wishes of 31% of delegates. This is a layman’s way of interpreting the rule that no decision can be taken at the conference except it is passed by at least 70% of votes.

Furthermore, the organisers of the conference tied the hands of delegates except the bold and no-nonsense ones from the North with the injunction not to say anything that problematises the territorial unity of the country at the conference and for delegates to note that the indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria is a given. Citizens had been told that this no-go area was a consensus from those that members of the presidential advisory committee consulted. President Jonathan on his part admonished conference members to be open to “table thoughts and positions on issues, and make recommendations that advance togetherness,” further enjoining delegates not to “approach these issues with suspicion and antagonism,” in order to ensure a stronger, more united, peaceful and politically stable Nigeria.”

If there had been firm ground rules (rather than presidential admonitions) about the language of position papers, the North would not have become victorious at many committees after insulting the rest of the country with the imperial language that subtends its position paper. Without doubt, a paper with the subtitle of “Northern Nigeria: the Backbone and Strength of Nigeria” smacks of gross insensitivity to the feelings of nationalities and states outside the orbit of the North. The people being referred to subtly as the Asiniwaye or Efulefu of Nigeria unfortunately include the Yoruba, age-old trading partners of the Hausa, Kanuri, and other nationalities in the North many centuries before the amalgamation of Nigeria by Frederick Lugard.

The North’s position presented a few days ago at the conference has achieved some significance, even if and when restoration of federalism fails. We observed in this column a few weeks ago that if the conference does not achieve anything, it would enable some nationalities to unearth their political or even cultural subconscious. Northern governors, Arewa Consultative Forum, and other organisations consulted before the crafting of the North’s position paper have clearly exteriorised the innards of the region’s political assessment of Nigerians who are not part of the communities indigenous to the North, thus elevating the threat of domination of one section by another.

Is anyone surprised that any of the fractions of the South has not taken the North up on its view that non-northerners in the country are backseat passengers on the journey to build a peaceful and politically stable Nigeria amalgamated to the North to support northerners as conductors of the train to Nigeria’s destiny? Those who have studied the sociology or anthropology of most of the nationalities in the South would have no problem coming to terms with the fact that there would have been so much fractiousness in the ranks of the South since the presentation of the North’s position.

Despite the assurance from President Jonathan that he did not convene the conference in order to gain any political mileage for his bid to run in 2015, the South would have been meeting in various caucuses on a paper that has made it clear to millions of children born in the South that they are second-class citizens in the country of their birth. Different quarters in Abuja would have been hosting meetings about not jeopardising the interest of the president by being too vocal and thus angering the North to boycott the country’s “mother of all conferences.” Certainly, given the ontological plurality of perspective among the Yoruba, that nationality would have been fragmented into groups of pro-Jonathan and anti-Jonathan for president in 2015 and of other groups of individuals who prefer to see themselves as apolitical professionals to the extent that there would be no serious group to counter bogus claims in the position paper of the North.

If southern delegates are too busy pursuing consensus to respond to claims by northern governors and socio-cultural organisations, their citizens outside the conference should come to their aid to ask northern governors some questions. Given the fact that most of the resourceful Mid-west region was also part of the theatre of war, like the part that later became the South-south, it is rational to ask of the presenters of the North’s position the following questions: 1) Where is the evidence to support that the North is the backbone and strength of Nigeria? 2) When the North was financing the civil war solely, what was the Western Region doing with its enormous resources from cocoa, palm kernel, and rubber? 3) Did Chief Awolowo, the finance minister during the civil war, tell the Yoruba region not to contribute funds to a war in which many of the commanding officers at the end of the war were Yoruba officers? 4) In 1960, it was common knowledge that the federal government of Nigeria owed the Western Region thousands of pounds in loan. What factors turned the fortunes of the North round so radically a few years later to the extent that it b ecame the only region to fund the civil war?

To be continued

May 4, 2014
False terror alert: matters arising

The federal government should make new efforts to improve intelligence needed to fight Boko Haram

It is an understatement to say that any mention of Boko Haram these days creates panic among peace-loving Nigerians. This situation has become aggravated since the spreading back of Boko Haram violence to Abuja to bomb a crowded bus terminus—material, men and women. The scare induced by the terrorist Islamic sect got worsened when over 200 innocent girls of mixed ethnic and religious backgrounds experienced mass abduction over one week ago in Chibok, Borno State recently on the eve of their school-leaving examination. Though Boko Haram appears to be aiming at becoming ubiquitous, crying the wolf of Boko Haram where none exists, as happened in Lagos, Ogun, and Oyo States a few days ago, has added another source of tension and instability to living in Nigeria. The phenomenon of false terror alert calls for additional responsibility on the part of the government and its media.

Though the menace of Boko Haram may have lingered longer than expected, it is obvious that the federal government, constitutionally charged to end such menace, has not shied away from efforts to engage physically and rhetorically the scourge from the sect. There is no day that messages of optimism and hope do not emanate from the presidency and the military agency that is deployed by the president to bring the violence of Boko Haram to an end. Recently in Nyanya, near Abuja, President Jonathan assured the nation, while consoling victims of bomb blast at the hand of the sect, that terrorism would soon be over. So does the military commander in charge of the offensive against terror continually assure citizens that the military would soon obtain the release of abducted girls and end the problem of terrorism, wherever it exists in the country.Using its own arsenal, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has been calling for periodic fasting and praying against terrorism.

On the whole, government leaders at all levels have not missed any opportunity to tell citizens to accept that the security of the country is not the responsibility of government alone, but of all citizens. Critics of government efforts also do not fail to draw attention to what they perceive as lapses in the fight against terror: failure of intelligence. While the government and security staff need assistance from citizens with respect to intelligence, so do citizens need adequate information from the government in respect of terror attacks. The need for information by citizens includes government’s preparedness to defuse false terror alert. Just a few days ago, half of the southwestern region of the country was thrown into confusion as a result of false alert. The chaos on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway that lasted for hours brought home to citizens some intelligence deficits that require immediate remediation by government and its security agencies.

A major aspect of the fight against terror in other countries is readiness on the part of the government to prevent the media, especially social media (which includes the use of telephone texts in Nigeria) from doing anything to further terrorist goals. The dynamics of the terrorist enterprise includes sophisticated use of disinformation, such as citizens fell victims to a few days ago, when someone initiated mass circulation of falsehood about the cause of traffic snarl on the Lagos-Ibadan highway. The fact that it took government’s traditional media several hours to announce that there were no Boko Haram merchants of death on the highway illustrates that the government has not taken (and is not taking) as much advantage of digital age communication systems as leaders of Boko Haram or their sympathizers.

If political leaders and governors use Facebook and Twitter to establish communication with citizens, and governors use text messages to campaign for second term in office, then there is no good reason for the federal government not to have established a Terrorism Information Centre that is capable of providing a warning system to citizens and to disabuse the minds of citizens of disinformation planned by terrorists, their supporters, sympathizers, and even innocent citizens who take advantage of instant mass communication made possible by texting via cell phones to send inaccurate information. Although there is no evidence about the origin of the recent false terror alert about Boko Haram across the Southwest, it is not out of place for the government to investigate this. Such disinformation could have come from agents or allies of terrorists to test the effect of such alert on citizens. It is also capable of strengthening terrorist groups while at the same time creating avoidable panic among citizens.

Since the federal government is in the process of getting assistance from other countries in the fight against terror within its borders, those negotiating for such help need to ask for support to use current technology to ensure adequate and timely information sharing between government agencies and citizens. Borrowing models from such countries may also be an advantage to government and the citizenry. America’s Homeland Terror Warning System is a case in point. Government provides citizens with information on traditional and digital communication channels regarding the level of threat from terrorists as many times as it perceives that such information is needed by citizens.

Three years after the emergence of Boko Haram should have been enough for the federal government to change the architecture of communication between the government and citizens. All highways ought to be provided with digital bulletins that can be used to inform citizens about movement of traffic and cause of traffic snarls when they exist. If such system had been in place, it would have been easy to counter the false alarms sent to thousands of telephones about the wolf of Boko Haram a few days ago. Traffic management being done by Federal Road Safety Commission on federal and non-federal highways should go beyond stopping drivers to check their papers. It should include using this agency to feed information into digital highway bulletins as the need arises. Such need arose a few days ago on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, but the ubiquitous red-capped traffic police was of no use to reduce the pain of citizens. Neither was the National Emergency Management Agency able to respond to the situation in a timely fashion, to mitigate the pain caused by inaccurate information from anonymous sources.

Given the negative impact of the false alarm of the past Wednesday on movement of citizens and goods, it is conceivable that terrorists may want to add the use of modern communication gadgets including the Internet, cell phones, and social media to their strategies and tactics to create panic in places where terrorists do not have substantial presence. The federal government that is solely in charge of security and law enforcement thus needs to face the new challenge posed by use of cell phones to dis-inform citizens and, in the process, cause pains for citizens while stalling traffic and disrupting normal economic activities.

The federal government should make new efforts to improve intelligence needed to fight Boko Haram and also to prevent disinformation about Boko Haram that is capable of paralysing the country’s economy and inflicting avoidale pain on citizens.

April 27, 2014
Pork galore after white paper on Oronsaye’s report

Two years after the sitting of the Oronsaye committee, the federal government is still struggling with itself on what to do to achieve good governance

Two years after the committee on rationalization and restructuring of federal government parastatals, commissions and agencies, the country has come to find out that nothing has changed. Less than 10% of agencies and commissions recommended for rationalization got the nod of the President. Federal government’s final response to the call for rightsizing the bloated public service has raised many questions about governance in our post-military ethos.

Most of the agencies and commissions that the Oronsaye committee recommended for abolition or merger were created by military rulers. The thinking during the decades of military autocracy was that increasing the powers of the federal government vis-à-vis those of the regions or states was the best way to ensure the country’s territorial unity. Military dictators also believed that the more agencies, commissions, and authorities, the more pork would be available to distribute to military cronies and civilian collaborators. An enlarged federal civil service and expanded public service in the name of agencies and commissions were believed to be sources of jobs for the boys and girls around the corridors of power.

Even after Structural Adjustment Programme and the austerity that characterized it, military rulers kept at creating federal bureaucracies for any aspect of life that came to their mind.This thinking was even extended to the states, to the extent that most states today spend over 70% of their budget on servicing the public service. When President Jonathan established the committee headed by Oronsaye, the general belief was that the President had recognized the need to create a new culture of governing the country that is different from the one inherited from military rule, which equated revenue from petroleum with wealth that was just waiting to be spent. It was also believed by many citizens that the Jonathan administration was ready to start the process of de-militarizing the polity.

But the President’s comment at the 2014 budget presentation confirmed (before the final position taken by the federal government recently) that the polity is not likely to be de-militarized any time soon: “It had been hoped that significant savings would be made from the implementation of government’s white paper on rationalizing public agencies. Unfortunately, very little or no savings are likely to be made from the implementation of government’s white paper on rationalizing public agencies due to the fact that many agencies recommended for closure or merger were allowed to remain partly due to the fact that some of them are underpinned by law, which cannot be repealed in the short-run.”

Many media pundits have argued pro and con since the release of the federal government’s final position on retaining most of the public agencies that the Oronsaye committee recommended for discontinuance. Those who believe that the federal government has not been courageous enough in its final attitude to the Oronsaye committee report are on the right side of history. To continue to fund overlapping agencies from sale of non-renewable petroleum is to deliberately play the ostrich game. The era that fueled creation of numerous agencies and commissions, when the thinking among military rulers was that money was not the problem of Nigeria but how to spend it, is no longer with us. What the federal government has done in relation to public agencies is to act as if money is still not a problem.

On the side of the limited response of the federal government,Leadership of April 14 argued that it would not matter whether there are five or 500 agencies and departments once the wastage and leakage are curbed, and resources lost to corruption—foreign training, contract inflation, phantom procurement, and ghost workers are blocked while providing adequate re-orientation away from the culture of indolence, corruption and deep-rooted system of inefficiency that generally bedevil public institutions. The question is how can the culture of indolence and corruption be blocked when infrastructures for these problems are given new lease of life? Agencies that duplicate the job of other commissions should be easier to abolish than having hope in psychological re-orientation of workers in such agencies.

Just going through the names of most of the agencies on the books suggests that the latest position of the federal government on public agencies is disappointingly peripheral, more so at a time that the same federal government has overtly shown interest in restructuring the way the country is governed through the instrument of the ongoing national conference. Having waited for two years to respond to the recommendations on public agencies, the federal government might as well have passed the matter to the national conference, instead of giving another lease of life to numerous agencies that citizens see largely as pork or sources of jobs for the boys.

In a country that is actively looking at a national conference to create a system of governance that is efficient and effective, citizens cannot but wonder what the federal government still wants to keep, for example, Border Communities Development Agency for. What makes border communities any different from communities within the border? Are border communities not part of existing states? Similarly, what is it that the National Refugees Commission does that cannot be done by the National Emergency Management? Where are refugees in Nigeria coming from? When they come, do such refugees come to a federal space or to states?

What makes Gurara Water Management Authority different from other water-related agencies, such as Nigeria Integrated Water Resources Management Commission or National Inland Waterways Authority? What is the difference between National Orientation Agency and National Institute for Cultural Orientation? These two agencies are not any distant from each other than the National Council of Arts and National Troupe and the National Theatre now merged into National Council of Arts and Culture?

What is the use for National Rural Electrification Agency at a time that electricity has been fully privatized? Shouldn’t the new Gencos and Discos be given the opportunity to serve urban and rural markets at the same time? What is the purpose to be served by Nigerian Institute of Education Planners and Administrators when there are 36 federal universities? What job does National Metallurgical Development Centre do that the National Metallurgical Training Institute cannot do? There is no better way to illustrate the absurdity of the country’s obsession with bureaucracies than the decision of the federal government to keep both NECO and WAEC under the excuse that more examination bodies are better for learners or to insist on keeping separate NTA, FRCN, and VON. Another laughable decision is the federal government’s further empowerment of JAMB to include direct entries in its menu of functions. What exactly is JAMB going to do in respect of direct entries better than universities, re-process A-level results?

It is now clear that two years after the sitting of the Oronsaye committee, the federal government is still struggling with itself on what to do to achieve good governance. If it can do so, the ongoing national conference should come to the aid of the federal government.

April 20, 2014
Devolution or federalism: which way for Nigeria?

Proper relationship between national and subnational governments in a federal system should be a case of give-and-take between the two levels in a context of free negotiation between the two tiers

The conference modalities passed by the Secretary to the Federal Government to delegates and the day-to-day response of delegates to the modalities continue to deconstruct the unitary constitution upon which the central government and the President derive their powers to discuss the problems that have made the country’s unity and peaceful development precarious over the years.

Delegates are not freely chosen representatives of their people; they are nominated by the President and governors at the instance of the federal government. They cannot determine number of committees nor choose chairpersons of committees. More importantly, delegates are not free to determine what they deliberate on; they are handed a list of topics to consider by the agency that convenes and sponsors the conference. The rules to guide the conference include what they cannot discuss: dissolution of the federation. They also include what delegates can discuss: devolution, federalism, regionalism, etc.

Exercising control of the power of signification characteristic of unitary governments, the federal government even chooses concepts that delegates should examine. An example of such semiotic or semantic confusion or control is the listing of federalism under Devolution of Power and also under Political Restructuring.As trivial as this may sound or look, it has the capacity to create confusion for delegates and reduce their focus on what should be the matter at hand: freeing the country from unitary model of governance and endowing it with a federal system. It is important for citizens observing the proceedings of the conference and waiting for some results to know ahead of conference deliberations that Devolution is not synonymous with Federalism. It should not even serve as a set that includes federalism as subset.

Devolution does not automatically lead to federalism. It is, simply put, the shedding of functions by any central government – unitary or federal— to subnational government levels. A unitary government that feels overburdened or over-pressured can choose to transfer some of its functions to any subnational government without losing its superintending authority. So can an existing federal government devolve new functions to subnational governments to carry out in compliance with whatever standards the central government establishes for performance of such functions by the tier of government to which new responsibilities have been devolved. Such devolved functions are funded through grants or special allocations from the central government. France is a good example of a unitary government that devolves a lot of functions to other levels of government.China is another example. Closer to home, Ghana operates a unitary system that delegates some functions to provincial governments that are seen as subordinate to the central government. An abiding aspect of devolution without federalism is that the central government reserves the right to take back whatever functions it delegates to subnational governments. Such devolution is generally not embedded in the constitution and is not subject to negotiation between federating units.

If delegates had been elected as representatives of communities, they would not have been under any obligation to base their discussion on the paradigms handed down by the central government. They would have been given issues to negotiate by their communities. Elected delegates would have been briefed that the crux of the matter and raison d’etre for the conference is federalism, not mere devolution of responsibilities by an overarching central government. It is still not too late for delegates to be reminded of citizens’ assessment of the cause of the failure of the central and most state governments to deliver public goods that can enhance the quality of life of citizens. It is obvious that communities have no power to hold delegates accountable, having not had a hand in how they get to the conference. But it is proper for delegates to know that citizens are capable of detecting subtle efforts (via modalities handed to and adopted by conference leaders) at constraining discussion at the conference.

What was taken away by military autocrats and sustained by post-military constitution and rulers is proper relationship between the central government and subnational governments. Federalism has been removed since 1979 from the form and content of government in the country. This cannot be remedied by mere devolution. It can only be restored through establishment or re-establishment of federal system of government. Whether this is called political restructuring or restoration of federalism, what is at issue is having a proper share of powers between the central government and regions or states as federating units.

Proper relationship between national and subnational governments in a federal system should be a case of give-and-take between the two levels in a context of free negotiation between the two tiers. Thus, the relationship between national and subnational units must be framed as constitutionally guaranteed interaction and transaction between coordinates, rather than superordinate and subordinate. The two levels are not to share just functions; they are to share sovereignty including resource sovereignty. It is not the incumbent central government that should determine unilaterally which power to transfer to regions or states. It is both levels of government that should negotiate which powers to leave for the central government for the common good and which to leave for regions or states for effective delivery of public goods and services to citizens.These are the central issues that pertain to constructing a federal polity.

Knowing that the ongoing national conference is not sovereign and does not have the power to determine what to discuss and how to turn the outcome of discussion into a constitution, the only thing left is to appeal to delegates to find time to listen to members of their respective communities about what to do to re-launch Nigeria.For example, agreeing to just transfer a few functions from the current Exclusive list of the central government to regions or states and adding 5% to funds from the federation account to subventions to states may not solve the problem that stimulated convening of the ongoing conference. Creation of states is not as much of a problem as sharing of powers between the two principal levels of governance: central and state. Turning an essentially local matter, the role of traditional rulers into a federal matter is not necessary. Nigeria as a unit does not have traditional rulers. It is local communities that have traditional rulers. Delegates must avoid spending precious time on such distractive topics as local government administration. Local government administration, like traditional rule, is a matter to be determined by states in their own constitutions. What should take delegates’ time is sharing of responsibilities and powers between federal and regional or state governments.

April 13, 2014
Devolution or federalism: which way for Nigeria?

Proper relationship between national and subnational governments in a federal system should be a case of give-and-take between the two levels in a context of free negotiation between the two tiers

The conference modalities passed by the Secretary to the Federal Government to delegates and the day-to-day response of delegates to the modalities continue to deconstruct the unitary constitution upon which the central government and the President derive their powers to discuss the problems that have made the country’s unity and peaceful development precarious over the years.

Delegates are not freely chosen representatives of their people; they are nominated by the President and governors at the instance of the federal government. They cannot determine number of committees nor choose chairpersons of committees. More importantly, delegates are not free to determine what they deliberate on; they are handed a list of topics to consider by the agency that convenes and sponsors the conference. The rules to guide the conference include what they cannot discuss: dissolution of the federation. They also include what delegates can discuss: devolution, federalism, regionalism, etc.

Exercising control of the power of signification characteristic of unitary governments, the federal government even chooses concepts that delegates should examine. An example of such semiotic or semantic confusion or control is the listing of federalism under Devolution of Power and also under Political Restructuring.As trivial as this may sound or look, it has the capacity to create confusion for delegates and reduce their focus on what should be the matter at hand: freeing the country from unitary model of governance and endowing it with a federal system. It is important for citizens observing the proceedings of the conference and waiting for some results to know ahead of conference deliberations that Devolution is not synonymous with Federalism. It should not even serve as a set that includes federalism as subset.

Devolution does not automatically lead to federalism. It is, simply put, the shedding of functions by any central government – unitary or federal— to subnational government levels. A unitary government that feels overburdened or over-pressured can choose to transfer some of its functions to any subnational government without losing its superintending authority. So can an existing federal government devolve new functions to subnational governments to carry out in compliance with whatever standards the central government establishes for performance of such functions by the tier of government to which new responsibilities have been devolved. Such devolved functions are funded through grants or special allocations from the central government. France is a good example of a unitary government that devolves a lot of functions to other levels of government.China is another example. Closer to home, Ghana operates a unitary system that delegates some functions to provincial governments that are seen as subordinate to the central government. An abiding aspect of devolution without federalism is that the central government reserves the right to take back whatever functions it delegates to subnational governments. Such devolution is generally not embedded in the constitution and is not subject to negotiation between federating units.

If delegates had been elected as representatives of communities, they would not have been under any obligation to base their discussion on the paradigms handed down by the central government. They would have been given issues to negotiate by their communities. Elected delegates would have been briefed that the crux of the matter and raison d’etre for the conference is federalism, not mere devolution of responsibilities by an overarching central government. It is still not too late for delegates to be reminded of citizens’ assessment of the cause of the failure of the central and most state governments to deliver public goods that can enhance the quality of life of citizens. It is obvious that communities have no power to hold delegates accountable, having not had a hand in how they get to the conference. But it is proper for delegates to know that citizens are capable of detecting subtle efforts (via modalities handed to and adopted by conference leaders) at constraining discussion at the conference.

What was taken away by military autocrats and sustained by post-military constitution and rulers is proper relationship between the central government and subnational governments. Federalism has been removed since 1979 from the form and content of government in the country. This cannot be remedied by mere devolution. It can only be restored through establishment or re-establishment of federal system of government. Whether this is called political restructuring or restoration of federalism, what is at issue is having a proper share of powers between the central government and regions or states as federating units.

Proper relationship between national and subnational governments in a federal system should be a case of give-and-take between the two levels in a context of free negotiation between the two tiers. Thus, the relationship between national and subnational units must be framed as constitutionally guaranteed interaction and transaction between coordinates, rather than superordinate and subordinate. The two levels are not to share just functions; they are to share sovereignty including resource sovereignty. It is not the incumbent central government that should determine unilaterally which power to transfer to regions or states. It is both levels of government that should negotiate which powers to leave for the central government for the common good and which to leave for regions or states for effective delivery of public goods and services to citizens.These are the central issues that pertain to constructing a federal polity.

Knowing that the ongoing national conference is not sovereign and does not have the power to determine what to discuss and how to turn the outcome of discussion into a constitution, the only thing left is to appeal to delegates to find time to listen to members of their respective communities about what to do to re-launch Nigeria.For example, agreeing to just transfer a few functions from the current Exclusive list of the central government to regions or states and adding 5% to funds from the federation account to subventions to states may not solve the problem that stimulated convening of the ongoing conference. Creation of states is not as much of a problem as sharing of powers between the two principal levels of governance: central and state. Turning an essentially local matter, the role of traditional rulers into a federal matter is not necessary. Nigeria as a unit does not have traditional rulers. It is local communities that have traditional rulers. Delegates must avoid spending precious time on such distractive topics as local government administration. Local government administration, like traditional rule, is a matter to be determined by states in their own constitutions. What should take delegates’ time is sharing of responsibilities and powers between federal and regional or state governments.

April 13, 2014
What did Lamido say wrong at the confab?

A national conference dedicated to renewal or reinforcement of territorial unity is not a wrong place for the Lamido and others with courage to ignore history of nationalities

I have heard our people say that we need to openly and frankly discuss our problems and seek acceptable solutions instead of allowing them to fester and remain sources of perennial conflict…. The conference is open for us to table our thoughts and positions on issues, and make recommendations that will advance our togetherness….We cannot join hands together to build a collective vision if we continue to harbor negative biases and prejudices against ourselves….Over the coming weeks, you will be confronted with complex and emotive issues, strong views will be expressed by opposing sides and some disagreements will, in all likelihood, be intense— President Goodluck Jonathan at the opening of the ongoing confab

In the last few days, the Lamido of Adamawa has been reported as threatening to walk out of the conference and as boasting before delegates that in the event that Nigeria breaks up, he has a country to go to in the Republic of Cameroons. He assured his fellow delegates that Nigeria’s disintegration would give him an opportunity to rule over the larger part of his kingdom than the portion he currently presides over within Nigeria. For saying this, some delegates have fired at him with caustic words for not acting in consonance with the grandeur of his office and for mentioning the taboo word,break-up of Nigeria at a conference that had foresworn not to mention such a word of national embarrassment.

Given the admonitions of President Jonathan at the conference, the Lamido has not done anything untoward or unwholesome. He has just expressed his feelings in an overtly emotive manner against the pedestrian or puerile behavior of delegates with opposing views to the rule to make 75% of votes the basis of majority decision.To people who are transitive carriers of culture, the Lamido of Adamawa said what is crucial at a conference designed to re-launch the country. Re-launching has to be preceded by deconstructing what needs to be repaired or transformed.

Was the emir wrong in saying that his emirate extends beyond Nigeria into the Cameroons? Nigerian History101 makes this clear. Lamido is not unique in having pre-colonial kingdoms that extend today into other countries in Africa. The Ooni of Ife and the Alafin of Oyo make similar claims about Yoruba kingdoms in the Republics of Benin and Togo. Several Yoruba monarchs hold annual festivals and rituals that demonstrate the linkage. So can the Obong of Calabar make the kind of claim made by the Lamido. Nothing can prevent the Sultan of Sokoto or Ekanem of Kanuri from making similar claims. During ShehuShagari’s presidency, AlhajiShugaba was deported from Nigeria for not being a Nigerian but a citizen of Niger Republic. Political folklore during the era of military dictatorship even cited several military leaders as having their ancestry in Chad, Niger, Mali, and Sudan. Such is the character of most post-colonial African countries. The Akan of Ghana are the same as the Baoule of Cote d’Ivoire, just as the Hutus of Rwanda also extend into parts of the Republic of Congo. So do the Tswana and Sotho extend beyond the borders of Republic of South Africa.

A national conference dedicated to renewal or reinforcement of territorial unity is not a wrong place for the Lamido and others with courage to ignore history of nationalities.To forget the pre-colonial history of Nigerian nationalities is tantamount todenialism or refusing to come to terms with reality.Denialism as a syndrome came to its head during the military era, when military rulers thought and believed that cultural amnesia would reinforce inter-ethnic unity in the country, the way it was believed, it had done in the colonial army bequeathed to Nigeria at independence by British colonial overlords.

Many highly placed civilians (some of whom General Alani Akinrinademust have referred to during his contribution on President Jonathan’s opening speech as collaborators in the military’s schemes to de-federalize Nigeria) have also promoted denialism as a way of forestalling any attempt to deconstruct the Nigeria constructed by military dictators. It is this attitude that induced some delegates to re-affirm in response to the Lamidothat they came to the conference as Nigerians and not with any ethnic toga or stigma, as if it was not obvious to citizens that President Jonathan did not allow nomination of Ghanians or Beninoise to the conference.

On the political level, denialism or burying one’s head in the sand like an ostrich in order not to confront the unpleasantness of one’s situation, had since 1966 led to categorizing issues for discussion at national conferences into No-go areas and May-enter zones. It is the continuation of this military vision of Nigeria that made it mandatory for the Okuroumu advisory group and President Jonathan himself to repeat the notion of No-go area for the ongoing conference. Nigerians are not allowed to discuss the endangerment of the unity that defines the country. Thus delegates must have been obeying their master’s voice by shrinking or freezing when the Lamido mentioned the fact that he has a country to return to, should this one collapse.

In most countries that had to review their charter of union in the past, serious-minded people had avoided playing the ostrich with such activities. It must not be lost on delegates that there is always a need to break eggs in order to makeomelette. Saying what appears unpleasant to many delegates, as the Lamido of Adamawa had done, does not automatically kill the country’s unity. It shouldn’t if there is already a good reason for the country’s existence. On the contrary, it may end up enhancing it, particularly if delegates choose to remind Lamido and others with his sense of history that a rule that allows 26% or even 31% to annul the wishes of 74% or 69% is capable of further reinforcing the status quo that made the conference necessary in the first place. Accepting a rule that allows less than one-third of voters to rubbish the preference of more than two-thirds can undermine the unity of any country that practices democracy.Delegates need to emphasize that most Nigerians do not live along the border and would not have any other country to run to should this one disintegrate and that the wish of such people requires as much protection as that of Lamido, if Nigeria is to be sustainably united.

Anyone that goes to a conference of this magnitude with morbid fear to speak his or her mind about what ails Nigeria should not have been there or would not have been there if nationalities had been allowed to elect their delegates. Nothing is likely to damage the unity of Nigeria the more than efforts to paper over the cracks by people with hidden agenda or occluded expectations from the opportunity to serve as delegate. As Nigerians love to say: “It is not over until it is over.” Should self-deception define the psychology of delegates, the desire for true federalism (as distinct from mere devolution of functions by a central government that arrogates supervisory authority over subnational governments) will continue to be a part of Nigeria’s political agenda and discourse, for as long as it takes and regardless of the number of conferences called to do so.

April 6, 2014
Confab: too soon for the Nigerian factor

Many people in the context of oral tradition simply say that the Nigerian factor is about doing the same wrong thing over and over and expecting different results each time this happens

The national conference called by President Jonathan is just in its second week, but avoidable conference-tearing noises are already emanating from delegates on voting pattern. Delegates across traditional regional divides are already up in arms about what should be the right percentage of votes to take decisions in the case of lack of consensus on any issue. Northern delegates argue that the best way to come close to consensus when it does not exist is to adopt the three-fourths of votes recommended by the president. On the other hand, southern delegates are adamant on using two-thirds majority to take decisions as it is done in most democracies.

Conference delegates have been assured that the decision on three-quarters has presidential backing, having emanated from the Okurounmu advisory committee that recommended conference modalities to President Jonathan. The leadership of the conference has called for further consultations with delegate leaders on the division on what is to constitute majority decision. The latest decision is to continue the conference while waiting for the result of further consultations, hoping that more time would calm nerves. Many Nigerians have started to express lack of surprise about the crisis over voting pattern. They have put the disagreement in the category of what is known in popular parlance as the Nigerian factor.

The Nigerian factor is a term that is used largely outside the corridor of power. The only time I heard the word in a formal sector is when money paid to me at a bank was less than what it should have been. I asked to speak with the manager who said, “I am sorry sir, it must have been the Nigerian factor.” I was too much in a hurry to ask for elaboration. But several Nigerians have attempted to define this nebulous term, in order to make it meaningful to users of the term and their audience.

One of such writers, Mike Ikhariale in an article, “The Nigerian Factor” in the Punch of December 1, 2013, defined the Nigerian factor as a syndrome that is illustrated by “incapacity or unwillingness to play by the rules” or the propensity to “make covenants we do not intend to keep.” Another public affairs commentator, Chris Ngwodo, describes the syndrome as a phenomenon that is at once social, psychic, and psychological, which embodies the potential failure of any enterprise and a behaviour that derives from “a perverse pleasure from inflicting pain on each other.” In his own definition, Tochukwu Ezukanma refers to the syndrome as “the propensity for mediocrity or the belief that anything is possible regardless of whether the input is right or proper.” Many people in the context of oral tradition simply say that the Nigerian factor is about doing the same wrong thing over and over and expecting different results each time this happens.

The noise at the national conference in the last few days over voting pattern illustrates all of the definitions identified above, especially the belief that whatever Nigerians choose to do about anything can work, regardless of structural or logical evidence to the contrary. Many average Nigerians would readily explain the resolution to defer taking a decision on voting pattern until after further consultations with the same groups that are sharply divided on the issue as a resurgence of the Nigerian factor in the conference hall. The spirit of anything is possible became evident after delegates overlooked Victor Attah’s caution on ignoring the “soul of the conference” and calling for progress without the rule that to guide decision making. It is amazing that delegates would defer making a decision on what is central to the progress of the conference. But this is a normal behaviour within the framework of making any situation, right or wrong, work.

It is surprising that members did not suggest that the principle of three-fourths majority should be taken back to the president for review. Most of the delegates opposed to the principle believed to have originated in the presidency should have asked that the recommended rule be taken back to the president for review and re-formulation. From the tone of the president at the opening of the conference, it is unlikely that he would have knowingly created a booby trap for delegates most of whom he nominated. To insist on 75% of votes for taking decisions when there is no consensus amounts to allowing the wish of 26% voters (a clear minority) to prevail, at the expense of the wish of 74% voters. Dr. Bello Mohammed’s observation that the intention behind the controversial three-fourths majority vote is to ensure that all decisions are almost consensual sounds plausible, but it is also plausible that the rule could have been designed to prevent any substantial change to the status quo that the conference is designed to review.

The threat by some delegates to walk out of the conference does not solve any problem. Even if delegates are summarily sent back home by the president, the need to discuss the sources of the tension that frustrate peace and progress in the country will still be around for discussion at another time. In other words, the demand for national conference will not disappear after a mass walk-out. What must be addressed if the conference is to make any progress is for delegates against three-fourths majority vote to appeal to President Jonathan to remove the insurmountable obstacle put in the way of decision making at the conference.

To expect that delegates who are divided on this fundamental matter will all come to a consensus on one of the two divergent principles of majoritarian decision is to act in the spirit of the Nigerian factor: anything is possible or anything can be made to work. So far, delegates have started on a right note. They have all accepted the indivisibility or indissolubility of Nigeria. In other words, nobody is pressing for deconstruction of the Nigerian State. All delegates have accepted this No-Go area, to assure each other that there is nothing to fear by anyone who means well for the country.

What is full of risk is a principle that virtually leaves no room for anything other than ideas that enjoy consensus. If there was such possibility, there would have been no basis for any national conference. A national conference has become necessary because of the unmistakable centrifugal forces that have frustrated the pursuit of peace and progress in the country for decades. If the rule purportedly passed to the conference from the presidency prevails, there may be no substantial decision on devolution, resource control, fiscal federalism, etc. Given the palpable divergence of visions about the country across the regions, it will be myopic to expect consensus on any issue that is fundamental. The hot disagreement over what constitutes a game-changing majority rule is a sign of the paralysis awaiting discussion of issues that relate to the architecture of governance.

If the conference is able to make recommendations only on issues that are not central to shared sovereignty that has been the basis of conflict since 1966, then the country will be thrown back to the era of agitation for sovereign national conference, thus making agitation for national conference a permanent feature of the polity and a perpetual source of tension. It is important to call on President Jonathan to prevent this conference from the abortion or miscarriage of President Obasanjo’s National Political and Reform Conference.

March 30, 2014