The Nation Newspaper

Category: Ropo Sekoni

  • On the wind of change in education from the north

    On the wind of change in education from the north

    That northern leaders from various political parties are now convinced that progress in the north depends on the level of literacy in the region is good news for the whole country

    Whose who criticise the propensity of Nigerians to have faith in miracles do not seem to understand the metaphysics of change. Change sometimes comes in the manner of miracles, without any visible connection to logic. At a time that a section of the north is killing innocent citizens in the belief that education is sin, major leaders from the north are creating revolutionary ideas about education in response to the logic of lack, lack prolongation, and lack liquidation. Perhaps, the age of Nigeria’s miracles has arrived, even before delegates start sitting to create constitutional change in Abuja.

    Although the quality of education has declined considerably in all parts of the country, the number of children in schools and colleges in most of the north has remained small in relation to the south, despite several attempts to redress the imbalance over the years. The low enrollment across levels of education has not resulted from Boko Haram’s Education is Sin philosophy. Long before the grandparents of Boko Haram adherents were born, the gap between school enrollment in the north and in the south was very wide. It was so wide in the 1970s that the federal military government designated most states in the northern part of the country as educationally backward or disadvantaged. Only two states: Rivers and Lagos were in this category from the south at that time. These two states outgrew their disadvantage, simply because their leaders took deliberate decisions to redress educational imbalance as the only way to participate in the culture of modernity.

    But most states in the north have remained disadvantaged even four decades after the federal government created several affirmative action programmes to change the culture of education in the region. Schools of basic studies were started in the region, to prepare students for tertiary education. Nomadic education was established by the federal government to give education to itinerant animal farmers. Joint Admission and Matriculation Board was created to control admission to federal universities, with a view to ensure a level playing field for candidates from the north and the south. Up till today, JAMB has different levels of scores for college admission for citizens from the north and the south, all in an effort at educational equalisation between the two regions. More recently, the federal government also initiated a new version of nomadic education, called Almajiri education. But none of these affirmative action programmes seems to have worked well to induce the culture of modernity in the north, in relation to the rest of the country.

    All the time that the federal government devoted huge resources to affirmative action, northern leaders did not show as much enthusiasm about changing the mindset of citizens and improving facilities for learning as the federal government did. The result is the widening gap between the two sections of the country even fifty years after independence. That northern leaders from various political parties are now convinced that progress in the north depends on the level of literacy in the region is good news for the whole country. Once all the states are on the same page on the relationship between literacy and development, the entire country will be on its way to solving most of the other problems that militate against peace and progress in the fledgling federation.

    New ideas about how to position the north favorably for development are now coming from within the region, without any stimulation from the omnipotent federal government that often confuses creating bureaucracies with providing education. The good thing about the new ideas from northern leaders is that they can also help the south to come to grips with changing demands for modernisation and globalisation. For example, nothing captures the theme of education in a federation better than Nuhu Ribadu’s advice: “As part of a federal system, the north can legitimately articulate its own philosophy and tools for development to achieve whatever agenda is for the north….In this journey we are making, we have to continue to evaluate and from time to time, shake up or shake off practices, norms, and dogmas that hinder our progress.”

    Another seismic change in worldview or ideology is captured by Atiku Abubakar’s recent suggestion: “We cannot significantly improve education in this country if we continue with the current overly centralised system with suffocating federal control….Federal schools should be handed over to the states in which they are locatedand the budgetary resources hitherto expended on them transferred to those state governments. In addition to decentralisation and geographical diversification we must also diversify our curriculum and educational programmes. The one-size-fits-all approach will not help us.” Just like Ribadu, Atiku is responding creatively to the realities of the north in particular while also pointing to the way out of the educational decline that has affected the whole country in the last four decades, particularly since federal government’s take-over of commanding heights of education during the era of military rule.

    Still on the theme of miracles happening when the time is ripe, the Northern Governors Forum put the icing on the cake when it announced the group’s intention, shortly before going on an investment drive in the United States last week, to take the matter of education into the hands of the rulers of the north. To show that the governors are ready to use home-spun methods to increase school enrollment and retention, they have, without apology, decided to re-establish two-year teacher training colleges that the federal government had abolished nationwide, to abolish school fees for secondary school students; and to re-establish schools of basic studies to prepare school leavers in the region for university admission.

    These ideas from the north should be of interest to politicians from the south as well. They are likely to be as useful to the south as they are to the north. Northern political leaders have, in the statements quoted earlier, set the tone for re-federalisation of education in the country. They have come to grips with major issues in the design of education provision. First, major northern leaders have recognised the umbilical cord between literacy and development. Second, they have acknowledged the relationship between culture and education. Third, the leaders have come to realise that federal bureaucracies cannot develop education effectively in a federal system. Fourth, they are ready to do whatever is necessary internally to solve a problem that is largely internal to the region.

    The unintended consequence of this paradigm shift in the north is the groundwork it has done indirectly for delegates at the national conference. By recognising the failure in centralisation of education, especially the stifling of innovation caused by an “overly centralised curriculum,” to borrow Atiku’s vocabulary, northern political leaders are signalling to their southern counterparts that they are ready for far-reaching decentralisation in the provision of education in the country.

    National conference delegates need to congratulate themselves for having the advantage of starting the conference on a note of consensus on a major area of revenue and responsibility allocation. Just as Femi Folorunso said in a recent lecture in Lagos: “Make or Break: the Imperative of Cultural Democracy in Nigeria,” delegates should accept the need to put the matter of education at all levels to the states and leave only quality assurance and specialised research to the federal government. The old approach started by military rulers to give funds and functions that should have been better left to subnational governments to the central government are now being deconstructed by political and cultural leaders from a region that has contributed more to unitary rule than any other part of the country. The call for decentralisation of education by the north is the way to go for the entire country, especially now that it embarks on re-designing itself for a future of peace and progress.

  • Making Nigeria thrive after its first centenary (3)

    Making Nigeria thrive after its first centenary (3)

    Where and when law enforcement officials and citizens speak different languages, public order and law enforcement are bound to suffer

    Last week, we encouraged delegates to the national conference to give utmost attention to discussion of full decentralisation of provision of education in the country. We argued that education and culture are interlocked and that in a multinational and multicultural society, it stands to reason that education is designed to respond to the cultural values of the diverse nationalities in the country. We concluded the piece by calling for devolution of provision of education at all levels to the regions or states while leaving the matter of standardisation, quality assurance, and specialised research in the hands of the central government. The focus of today’s article is on public order and law enforcement.

    Political discourse in the country on how to achieve public order through proper design of law enforcement has been divided into two schools since the advent of military dictatorship. Just as they did in the education sector, military rulers also destroyed the pre-military multilevel police system enjoyed in many parts of the country until 1966. The Native Authority Police used in many parts of the country was jettisoned by military rulers and the practice of a monopoly of law enforcement by the central government was imposed on the entire country. At the end of the first round of military dictatorship in 1979, citizens and political parties called for devolution of the power to deter, detect, prevent, and punish crime to the states and local governments. The civilian government between 1979 and 1984 refused to countenance such calls. Again, at the end of the second round of military rule in 1999, citizens in various parts of the country called for establishment of state police as part of restructuring of the polity.

    Such demands threw up an opposing school of thought, mainly in the northern part of the country. Northern governors, members of the national assembly, and cultural leaders argued forcefully against extending police powers to states and local governments. Many of them argued that Nigeria is not ripe for state police and that Nigerians are not mature enough to handle multilevel policing. Some even said that introducing state police is capable of destroying the country’s territorial unity. The two schools: those in favour of state police and those mortally opposed to it have not failed to engage each other rhetorically since 1999. Now that there is a national conference to discuss how to enhance the country’s unity and examine sources of tension capable of militating against national unity, delegates should not fail to grapple with this important matter in a sincere manner.

    Just recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives brought the debate over how best to maintain public order and make law enforcement efficient and accountable back to the front burner. Worrying about the insecurity in the country, spawned largely by the indiscriminate killing of innocent citizens by Boko Haram terrorists, the speaker raised a few posers that should catch the attention of delegates. First, he wonders if this period of growing insecurity on account of Boko Haram is not the right time to put all national security agencies including the Nigeria Police on first line charge to ensure financial independence and timely release of funds. Second, he calls for encouragement of the Nigeria Police to “institutionalise community policing as a framework for engaging local communities in a partnership for checking crime and terrorism.” Third, he asks whether it is not time for the national assembly to revisit the idea of state police in its ongoing efforts to amend the 1999 Constitution, referring implicitly to earlier decision by the national assembly to remove state police from the list of proposed changes to the constitution. The exercise, in its third year, now serves as the second window to the national conference with respect to constitutional change.

    Although the speaker has moved the debate over devolution of powers to maintain public order from the negative side closer to the positive side, his positions are still too far from the kind of reasoning that is needed in a multiethnic democracy. Choosing to approach law enforcement in a multicultural society solely from an administrative or bureaucratic angle has been on the table for long without yielding any positive results. The problem with federal monopoly over policing the diverse communities is much more than when and how the police is funded or whether the existing central police force can establish community policing, a contradiction in terms. However, delegates should take a cue from the latest concerns of the speaker about why the nation’s security is failing: inefficient and ineffective security architecture.

    Like education, public order is sustained by shared norms, social values and customs. Similarly, law enforcement also derives advantage from shared values and a common language between law enforcement agents and citizens. Individuals that engage in surveillance to prevent and unravel criminal activities function in specific languages. Where and when law enforcement officials and citizens speak different languages, public order and law enforcement are bound to suffer. Nigeria is a country of diverse nationalities and languages but security officials speak only English or a smattering of it, even when they are investigating or collecting intelligence from individuals who do not speak English. It should not surprise political leaders that there appears to be failure of intelligence and security in the country. Boko Haram may now be the most monstrous organisation. Oil thieves and kidnappers have also created (and are still creating) serious challenges to security in the country.

    Delegates should separate the discussion of national unity from that of national security. A country that is territorially united but that is unsecured (and appears ‘un-securable’) stands the risk of destroying or compromising its unity. Delegates need to recognise the paradox that has defined governance in our country for too long. The current constitution gives power to subnational governments to create laws but denies them the power to enforce such laws. State governors are referred to as chief security officers of their states, without having any authority over the police that is detailed by the central government to protect such governors. The recent experience in Rivers State of a rivalry between the governor and the former commissioner of police illustrates this anomaly most graphically.

    It is important for delegates to realise that other federations in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and the Arab world practice a multilevel police system. It is also necessary as delegates prepare for the conference to find out from citizens in their communities what type of police system they prefer. It is puerile to believe that Nigeria’s unity will be at risk if states and local governments are allowed to enforce laws, in collaboration with the central police that should be responsible for enforcing federal laws. State and local government laws need to be enforced by state and local government police.

    Delegates should note that adopting the multilevel police system in use in all federal countries and in the United Kingdom, a multiethnic state that operates a unitary system of government, is more likely to reinforce Nigeria’s unity than insisting on the present central police system that many communities and citizens perceive to be designed to promote the interests of those in charge of federal governments at the expense of states and local communities.

    Concluded

  • Making Nigeria thrive after its first centenary (2)

    Making Nigeria thrive after its first centenary (2)

    In this series devoted to raising ordinary citizens’ concerns about what ideas delegates chosen for their states should take to the forthcoming national conference, we focused last week on taxation. We argued that the practice inherited from military rule that privileges ‘fiscal equalisation’ or even development over fairness in generation and allocation of revenue should be jettisoned. Giving states spending responsibility without commensurate revenue-raising authority only leads to inefficiency or non-performance of state governments in provision of public goods and services. We called for a new taxation system that will give the power to tax to states which will give nationally-agreed upon percentage of tax revenue to the central government to cover cost of attending to its functions and that such functions should not be as wide as they are in the 1999 Constitution. We concluded that changing the taxation powers will prepare the country for an era in which non-renewable energy may no longer be profitable, even when it is still available and that it will also empower citizens and improve their efficacy in relation to participation in democratic governance. The focus today will be on how to restructure education.

    Since 1975, Nigeria has been suffering from too much federal presence in education provision. Regional universities were taken over by the federal government; colleges of technology were established by the federal government; and special secondary schools known as Unity Schools were also created and managed by the federal government. This dominant federal presence in education led to ancillary policies that affected the provision of education and left traces of decline in the quality of education. School calendar became a federal matter. It was no longer possible for states to determine when schools would be in session. In the south, schools were made to go on long vacation during the coolest months in the year, as distinct from the three short vacations that defined the school calendar until the advent of military rule.

    In addition, a raft of education bureaucracies was established by the federal government: JAMB, NECO to rival WAEC, National Orientation Commission, NUC, etc. The federal government also changed school curriculum and used its national language policy to impose second Nigerian language learning on students. The traditional practice of giving first six years of education in children’s first language or mother tongue was replaced with the use of English as the language of instruction for all levels of primary education. All these policies grew out of the military rulers’ belief that forging a sense of unity among the diverse cultures in the country would not happen until all traces of cultural diversity are erased.

    Even with centralisation of education provision and creation of education bureaucracies, the federal government had been unable for decades to spend up to 30% of what UNESCO recommends as the minimum required for countries to turn the corner into modernity. On the whole, the outcome has not justified the changes wrought by military rulers and sustained by their civilian successors till date. The quality of education in evidence in the pre-1975 era has disappeared, as public education has been ruined to the point that Nigeria has more hardly regulated private schools and universities per square kilometre than any other country in the world. More children carry credentials than before but not any skill set in the use of standard English and communication in mother tongue had yielded prime of place to pidgin across the nationalities. The innovativeness that educating children to grow up to be informed, engaged, and critical citizens induced in other countries of the world and that was part of the culture of education in the pre-military era has given way to mindless imitativeness. The result is that both foreign investors and Nigerian companies look for foreign-trained graduates, after a one-time federal minister announced that Nigerian graduates are not employable.

    Delegates to the conference need to pay attention to education, as no substantial progress can come to the country if this sector remains as confused and comatose as it has been for decades. Many philosophers of education, from John Dewey to James Bruner and Babs Fafunwa, have demonstrated that there is an umbilical connection between culture and education. In a multinational society, there can be no federal culture. The cultures in such societies must be distinct cultures practiced by the nationalities. Such cultures must have influence on beliefs about education, the value of education, and participation styles.

    It is not unfathomable that specific cultural beliefs must have induced the philosophy of Education is a Sin being propagated by adherents of Boko Haram. There is no doubt that culture must have impact on the belief that women can marry at 12 or 13 years of age, instead of remaining to complete secondary school education. Without cultural differences, there would have been no basis for such specialised schools as Nomadic and Almajiri schools. All these point to the fact that a functional federal system, especially in a multiethnic context, does not have to aspire to have a homogenised and pasteurised education system such as the country has experienced for decades. This may be an appropriate time for delegates to look at the German constitutional model.

    All levels of education in Germany are under the control of the lander (the states or provinces). The federal government has responsibility for research and monitoring of educational standards. Germany is not politically any less united because of the devolution of education to the states. On the contrary, this allows the federal government in Germany to attend to other important aspects of post-war development of the republic. Similarly, leaving education to the lander does not diminish technological, cultural, and industrial development in Germany. On the contrary, it has made Germany the most efficient and richest country in Europe and one of the eight most successful countries in the world.

    Devolution of more revenue-raising powers (discussed last week) to the states or regions must also be accompanied by devolution of more responsibilities that include total control over education. This will allow the federal government to focus more on foreign affairs, national defence, and building effective regulatory frameworks to ensure that each state delivers public goods that improve life chances, such as education and health care. Operating a system that creates competition between half-starved states and over-funded federal government in the areas of education and health care has not produced any efficiency in the two sectors. The federal government does not have citizens that can hold it accountable for what it does or does not do. State executives are under undue pressure for the little public goods and services they are able or choose to provide from the donations they receive from the federation account.

    Putting education under the control of states will enable states to create new curriculum that can re-establish and improve mother-tongue instruction in primary school. The current system of making students learn a second Nigerian language when no system ensures that they master their mother tongues is creating avoidable confusion in a society that needs to emphasise mother tongue communicative competence and mastery of a language to participate in the global civilisation that Nigeria is now a marginal part of. More importantly, states will be in a position to find a point of intersection between culture and education in their curriculum, pedagogy, and research, the two Siamese twins of development. The education that has been made possible by the 1999 Constitution is so unanchored to any value system. An education system that is effective cannot diminish the country’s unity; it can only enrich it.

     

    To be continued

     

  • Making Nigeria thrive after its first centenary (I)

    Making Nigeria thrive after its first centenary (I)

    There is a need to create a country in which the primary stakeholder is the citizen 

    Building a country is much more than superintending its survival. It demands ensuring that it thrives. Many of us who believe mere survival is worth celebrating on account of testimonies from African countries in deeper malaise than Nigeria regarding the fact that Nigeria is doing better than most African countries should know that it is a brainless thing to use failure as benchmark for one’s output. The advantage of a humanist view of life is to strive to belong to the group that is doing well by engaging in perpetual self-amelioration.

    We could have survived several crises: civil war, inter-ethnic violence, increasing desertification, several military dictatorships, sectarian violence, etc. That kind of survival is not a sign of success. Nigerians need more than a country that is using its energy to survive crisis; they need a home in which they can thrive. As we round off the celebrations of one century of creation and survival, let us think and work towards a second century that is marked by peace, freedom, prosperity, democracy, and opportunities for all citizens. There is no better opportunity to do this than to use President Jonathan’s version of a national conference to solve all the riddles needed to defeat the Sphinx of failure that has been around the country for decades.

    It seems that all the six regions have finalised their list of delegates to the Abuja conference. According to the Governor of Niger Delta, speaking on behalf of the 19 governors from the former Northern Region, the North has prepared its position for the conference. The Southeast and South-south regions had also concluded a meeting in Calabar at which they took a position on behalf of both the former Eastern Region and a portion of the old Western Region amalgamated one century ago. On February 27, the core of the former Western Region met in Ibadan to take a position on what to carry on behalf of close to 40 million citizens in the region to the Abuja or Jonathan conference. No sarcasm is intended for calling the conference Jonathan conference. We had had in the past Richard’s, Littleton, Macpherson, and Abubakar? Constitutions. This is just giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

    There has been so much talk about the country’s unity. We have been at it for one century already. Those selected as delegates to the conference should not waste time to anchor the conference on unity. The only No-Go Area clearly spelt out by the Okurounmu Committee has already settled the issue of unity. Even President Jonathan’s recent Centenary Address has been unequivocal about the country’s unity. He has said there was no mistake about the amalgamation of 1914. Nigerians are not complaining primarily about the fact that the over one-hundred nationalities are in one huge country. They are complaining about the fact that the country is not working in a way to assist them to make sense of their lives in economic, political, and cultural terms. Many Nigerians expect that the conference would move from the decades of amalgamation under military rule and in the last fourteen years to one of federation. The issues for serious discussion no longer include the unity of the country. They require concentration on creating a functional federation and right conditions for the federation and its parts to realise their potentials.

    Despite decades of oil and gas exploration and exploitation, over 70% of Nigerians live in poverty and fear about the future of their children. If this signals anything, it is that anchoring the growth and development of a country on selling petroleum and sharing the proceeds among tiers of government from day to day may not take a country of over 160 million people out of the woods of underdevelopment and poverty. It will be worthless for delegates to go to Abuja to argue for more money to the states from proceeds from petroleum and gas. Doing this for almost half a century has not yielded any substantial progress, except that it has spawned a few billionaires whose source of income almost invariably derives from access to political power. The stupendous wealth of the few from revenue allocation that derives from revenue garnered from a ‘rentier’ culture has created resource curse, rather than resource blessing for the nation. For regions or states to dwell on a better way to share the wealth oozing from petroleum is to misuse the opportunity of a conference that is long overdue.

    The challenge is for delegates to come up with new ideas about how to generate revenue for the whole country and its federating units and how to create a social contract that gives responsibilities to those who are charged to govern and the citizens they govern. There is a need to create a country in which the primary stakeholder is the citizen. The way to do this is to borrow ideas and methods from developed and democratic countries. Taxation is the effective device in modern nation building to create a bond between the government and its citizens. Delegates should pay attention to the need to move all forms of taxation, apart from mineral royalty tax, to the states, which in turn is to pass to Abuja the percentage agreed upon to keep the federal government running well. The argument about derivation versus allocation can also be put to rest through taxation. Once the federal government collects substantial tax on mineral royalties, the remaining revenue from mineral exploitation should be reserved for the states in which the minerals are exploited.

    The reason for the federal government and other states in the federation not to share whatever is left of revenue from mineral exploitation to the states of origin of such minerals is at variance with the theory of even development or of opposition to uneven development as a source of conflict and violence. For decades, military dictators popularised the theory of even development, on which they based the policy of sharing revenue from petroleum to all tiers of government and at the expense of communities damaged by mineral exploitation. Even several governors in the post-military era have argued about too much money going to certain oil-producing states, just as apologists for Boko Haram have taken pains to theorise that poor revenues to some northern states have spawned terrorism by persons who feel alienated and pauperised.

    It may be possible for a few states and a few million citizens in other oil-producing countries to live as parasites, but it will be difficult for an entire country of 170 million people to thrive on the culture of parasitism made possible by petroleum exploitation. The Jonathan conference must move away from further entrenchment of the culture of parasitism to creation of a national culture of productivity. Doing this will save governors and their citizens from having to wait in the fashion of mendicants for allocations from the central government that supervises or even occasionally acts as the owner of the federation account. The central government will no longer need to make a job of allocating funds to 36 states and 774 local governments. It will also throw up a central government with limited responsibilities, as distinct from a central government that prefers to act as jack of all trades.

    In addition, citizens who pay taxes from their income or business to keep the governments alive will be less alienated from governance and more empowered to monitor the government they fund. Citizens and elected officials will become partners or joint stakeholders in the project of nurturing a modern multiethnic state. It is common knowledge that most countries in which Nigeria’s rulers in the era of dependence on petroleum buy and hide mansions fuel their civilisation with tax revenue. There are just a few countries that live on and off petroleum. Such countries have small populations. Even many of such countries are becoming productive economies. U.A.E., the country that hosts at least 500 Nigerians daily, is one such example. Many other petroleum-rich countries are already planning for a civilisation beyond oil, in response to fast changes in pattern of ownership of oil across the globe. The time that Nigeria is about to re-design itself for the future calls for a new polity that is driven by a social contract anchored on tax revenue.

  • Conference modalities: citizens versus subjects (3)

    Conference modalities: citizens versus subjects (3)

    The central question that must not be ignored is whether such selected delegates have any reason to be accountable to specific nationalities

    The conclusion to last week’s piece is that though the nationalities should be the major stakeholders in the forthcoming national conference, it has been severely short changed by the modalities released by the presidency for the conference. The nationalities colonised and amalgamated (not federated) into Nigeria had been marginalised by the presidency and made to yield the position of influence to selected members of the ruling and propertied class. It is expected that pro-special stakeholders would readily remind me that all the people going to the conference have their origins in the country’s nationalities, regardless of whatever other interests they may have.

    The central question that must not be ignored is whether such selected delegates have any reason to be accountable to specific nationalities. If they have to be accountable at all, it would be to their sponsors or nominators. The possible effect of a national conference that is dominated by special interests is that the recommendations may not be far-reaching enough to achieve sustainable unity and democracy in a multinational federation. With a decree-like resolution to replace the option of a popular referendum by the provision that the conference should determine how to integrate its recommendations into the existing constitution through the mechanism of the national assembly that is currently dominated by PDP, the signs of a conference that may not achieve much are too unmistakable to ignore. Up till the eve of the conference, the ruling party has not made any statement of affirmation or rejection of the conference brought into being by the president. If the PDP is not openly committed to the conference, it is not inconceivable that the national assembly dominated by the party may ignore or water down whatever recommendations are sent to it from the conference.

    With a national conference conducted in consonance with modalities now in force, the scenarios are varied. Conference recommendations that cannot be given teeth through a referendum can produce a few cosmetic amendments that may be acceptable to a national assembly that has been interminably engaged in assembling its own amendments to the military constitution that has shaped post-military governance since 1999. If recommendations include items too radical for a conservative legislature to handle, the possibility of resorting to the national assembly’s efforts to amend the constitution will become high. Should the conference fail to garner support from 75% of delegates, then the country would be back to similar experience that obtained at the end of Obasanjo’s conference, when the regional delegates just ceased to meet after selected delegates from the Northeast and the Northwest said that they had no contribution to make because they were not aware beforehand that the conference was going to modify the architecture of governance in the country. Another scenario (God forbid) is that the conference may not be able to come up with any recommendations until the end of the year, thus getting in the way of the election and making it necessary for the president to suspend the conference until after election. In other words, the country may still be saddled with the 1999 Constitution in its entirety until the 2015 election is over. With a conference with a majority of delegates being nominees of various interest groups, citizens would have no power to call them to question nor the courage to hold the few delegates from nationalities responsible for any confusion or lack of progress.

    As discouraging as these scenarios may be, there is still no justification for nationalities to be absent from the conference. The possibility that a conference or any meeting may fall through does not provide sufficient condition to stay away from it, as doing so makes failure automatic and immediate. Nationalities that believe that there is a need to create a new constitution to drive the country’s diversity in unity should prepare for the conference with determination to make it a success, despite the bleak scenarios identified earlier.

    If for nothing else, the conference will provide another opportunity for the country’s nationalities to exchange their frustrations about the near failure of the Nigerian state while proffering suggestions on how to turn the corner from failure to success by identifying without apology elements of a flawed political structure that the 1999 Constitution represents. For too long, many nationalities have minced words about what is wrong with the country and what should be done to move the country in the right direction. The conference may encourage all nationalities to let each other know what each would accept or reject in terms of how to move the country away from a unitary model that has hobbled it for decades. All these may not at the end of the day amount to creating a new constitution, but they will give ample chance to nationalities to externalise their political subconscious and exteriorise hidden fears and suspicions that undermine a culture of peace, progress and sustainable unity. If at the end of such honest discussion of the worries and desires of each nationality nothing concrete happens, at least a more solid ground will have been laid for future national conferences.

    Most of the countries that have succeeded in creating federal constitutions have taken time to get there. Belgium started as a unitary and centralised polity in 1831. It evolved into a federal state in 1970, improved its constitution to enhance its federalism in 1993 and has amended its constitution 29 times since 1994. Switzerland, another federal state as a confederation as far back as 1833, created opportunities in 1866, 1872, 1874, and 1999 to transform its constitution to a federal one. Germany has improved its federal constitution several times between 1948 and 2006. United Arab Emirates became a federation in 1971 and have amended its federal charter twice in 1979 and 1996. Ethiopia, the world’s youngest federal state with the most radical constitution with respect to self-determination rights for nationalities, achieved a federal constitution that declared the country an ethnic federal system in 1994 after decades of unitary rule. The United Kingdom ran its multiethnic state as a centralised one for centuries until it began the process of devolution largely at the instance of the insistence of Scotland for home rule. It is largely the consistency in the commitment of citizens to constitutional changes that matters more than the opportunity given by any particular government to dialogue with or without constraints.

    While delegates selected to represent nationalities should go to the national conference with optimism and enthusiasm to end the politics of domination, often euphemistically named as politics of unity by beneficiaries of the current unitary constitution, they should not be disappointed if this attempt does not solve once and for all the country’s political problems that also spawn economic and social problems. The experience will certainly serve as another rehearsal for a conference that will restore true political and fiscal federalism.

    Concluded

  • Conference modalities: citizens versus subjects (2)

    Conference modalities: citizens versus subjects (2)

    The process captured in the recently released modalities is unapologetically undemocratic

    Let us return to last week’s metaphor of the missing goat owned by an old witch. The owner of the goat did not trust that everyone in the neighbourhood appearing interested in finding the goat meant well. She would rather that most of her neighbours looking for the goat did not find it. Is this the way things are with several individuals and agencies calling for or responding to the call for a national conference? And does the call for a national conference still have its old witch looking for its missing goat?

    When the matter of national conference came into public knowledge at the instance of the late Alao Aka-Bashorun, the call was for a sovereign national conference to address modalities for restructuring Nigeria or restoring a truly federal system to Nigeria. In the mouth of NADECO activists during the resistance to the annulment of the 1993 election won by the late Chief MKO Abiola and the military tyranny that followed this at the hands of General Sani Abacha, the call for a sovereign national conference gained more mileage and became a central theme in the anti-military or pro-democracy activism of 1994 to 1998.

    Even after the emergence of a post-military government led by General Olusegun Obasanjo, NADECO leaders in and out of government nursed the hope that transition from military to civilian rule would eventually lead to holding of a sovereign national conference to address the problems militating against a union of affection,(distinct from a union of coercion) crafted for over three decades by successions of military dictatorships. Obasanjo came in and organised what he called a Political Reforms Conference which was dead on arrival, largely because it was based on assembling representatives of the country’s nomenclatural class. President UmaruYar’Adua did not pretend to be interested in any national conference. He was satisfied with the way Nigeria under his rule was structured and believed that good leadership would solve whatever problems were inhibiting peace and progress in multiethnic Nigeria. And until October 2013, President Goodluck Jonathan was not convinced about the need to have a national conference. In short, there was no government leader with serious interest in looking for the proverbial goat of national conference.

    When President Jonathan finally became converted to the cause of a conference, his conversion speech on October 1, 2013 gave away the vagueness of what he hoped to achieve with a meeting: “Fellow Nigerians, our Administration has taken cognisance of suggestions over the years by well-meaning Nigerians on the need for a National Dialogue on the future of our country. I am an advocate of dialogue. When there are issues that stoke tension and bring about friction, it makes perfect sense for the interested parties to come together to discuss. In demonstration of my avowed belief in the positive power of dialogue in charting the way forward, I have decided to set up an Advisory Committee whose mandate is to establish the modalities for a National dialogue or Conference…”

    There is palpable evidence in the diction of President Jonathan that he was not clear about what he wanted the conference to achieve, especially in relation to the calls for a national conference for the purpose of restructuring that preceded his conversion. Given the decision of President Jonathan not to be specific about what his dialogue is expected to address, it should not surprise anybody that the modalities for the conference submitted by the Advisory Committee has shied away from giving full recognition to citizens of the nationalities that the British coloniser fought or negotiated treaties with. Choosing to focus on representatives of the nomenclatural class seems to be an appropriate response to President Jonathan’s preference of dialogue to conference in his speech, a clever tactical lexical move.

    Like President Jonathan, many leaders and organisations purporting to be spokespersons for their nationalities pick their words carefully with respect to the holding of a national conference. For example, leaders of the Arewa Consultative Forum have said repeatedly that they have no agenda for any conference, because they have not requested for any conference and would only respond to issues about the unity of the country. Its parallel organisation, the Northern Elders Forum, also states unequivocally that there is nothing wrong with the current constitution imposed on the country by the last military dictatorship. This means that two-sixths of the country is already noncommittal about the conference, if the words of leaders of ACF and NEF are anything to go by. It is difficult to know the reach of a new organisation, Northern Elders Council, but it should be reassuring to conference advocates that there is an organisation in the core north that has no philosophic objection to a national conference. The position of the North-central is not as vocal or clear as that of the organisations that claim to represent the interest of the whole north or what ACF often refers to as one north.

    The only groups and individuals that are noticeably interested in a national conference and a new constitution are largely groups from the south of the country. South-south spokespersons are calling for a conference of ethnic nationalities, if their public presentations at the interactive sessions are to serve as basis for evaluation of their position. It is therefore not surprising that a minority report emanated from a committee member of South-south origin.

    On the side of the Southeast region, two groups have already emerged, the traditional Ohanaeze and the Igbo Leaders of Thought under the leadership of Prof Ben Nwabueze. The Ohanaeze is pleased with the modalities announced recently by the Secretary to the Federal Government while the Igbo Leaders of Thought would prefer representation on the basis of nationalities and the ratification of conference recommendations through a popular referendum, rather than giving the responsibility to the national assembly that has been amending the constitution for almost three years to no avail.

    Similar to the fragmentation in the position of the Igbo, the Yoruba appears to be having two schools on the conference. The position of APC as a nation-wide political party is not a Yoruba position, just as the unspoken position of the PDP is not the position of any nationality or region in particular. The Yoruba position is represented by two public meetings; one in Isara in the home of Pa Olaniwun Ajayi and another one at the former Western House of Chiefs in Ibadan. It is too soon to know which of these two groups would uphold the Yoruba tradition of egalitarianism in the matter of who should be qualified to choose delegates to discuss matters of national or community interest. But one thing that is clear so far is that the call for another meeting in Ibadan after the meeting in Isara suggests that the Yoruba, like the Igbo, are divided on the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Committee on modalities for the conference including the erection of No-Go area that is likely to limit frank discussion at the Jonathan conference.

    In a situation in which most of the regions have no solid positions on conference modalities released by the federal government, it should not surprise anyone if the conference fails to accomplish the kind of re-structuring that motivated Aka-Bashorun, BekoRansome-Kuti, Abraham Adesanya, Bola Ige, Pa Onasanya, Ndubuisi Kanu, Baba Omojola, and many other leaders of NADECO to call for a sovereign national conference to demand a people’s federal constitution for the country. It is a common axiom that democracy is not just about product but also about process. The process captured in the recently released modalities is unapologetically undemocratic. It is, however, possible that there are millions of people who are ready to expect a democratic product from a nondemocratic process. Just like the missing goat, it is the nationalities that own the goat; all other interest groups are neighbours of the owner of the missing goat.

    To be continued

  • Conference modalities: citizens versus subjects (1)

    Conference modalities: citizens versus subjects (1)

    Any constitution making for a democracy requires listening to all citizens as equal partners or stakeholders in the project at hand.

    It is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards… unlimited powers. Election, in this case, becomes separated from representation, and the candidates are candidates for despotism.—Thomas PaineThe Rights of Man (1791)

    Chief M.K.O. Abiola used to love a proverb during his struggle for restoration of his mandate after the annulment of the 1993 presidential election. The proverb goes thus in English: The goat of an old witch got lost. The witch was looking for the goat frantically and so were several members of the witch’s community looking for the goat. Neighbours of the old hag told her that she was lucky with the kind of neighbours she had, given the enthusiasm with which each of them was looking for her lost goat. The old woman replied: “I know my reason for looking for my lost goat and I know that each of the other persons looking for the goat has his or her own reason for doing so, but I may very well be the only person looking for the lost goat with no ulterior motive.”

    Abiola’s proverb summarises in many ways the responses to the holding of a national conference since it was mooted by President Jonathan, and more, recently since the release of the modalities for the conference by the federal government. Responses from different parts of the country indicate that the national conference is like the lost goat of an old witch, the whereabouts of which elicited a battery of interest group actions from various parts of the community. To continue with the analogy of the lost goat, Abiola did not find his lost goat. Nigeria will have to do things right if it is to find the lost goat of its federalism. So far, the conference modalities released by the federal government leave no hope that the country is moving any closer to solving the problem that has hobbled its development since the erasure by military autocracies of the federal constitution on the basis of which the country obtained independence in 1960.

    When President Jonathan suddenly announced on the occasion of the anniversary of the country’s independence in October his wish to convoke a national conference, various interest groups joined the debate about the rightness or wrongness of his decision. By setting up an advisory committee to assist him to plan the conference and in the process consult with Nigerians as citizens (not as subjects) to find out their wishes, various interest groups became enthused about the conference. Consequently, several citizens’ organisations and individuals participated with gusto at the interactive sessions with members of the advisory committee in several cities across the country. It is now not clear if the modalities released by the Secretary to Government a few days ago reflect the wishes of Nigerian citizens or only the interest of the managers of the country.

    Now that the president has accepted to invite less than 110 representatives of ethnic nationalities to a conference of 492 delegates to discuss the country’s constitution, it is no longer too soon to find out whose interest the conference is designed to serve. Is the conference meant to serve the interest of stakeholders/super citizens or the interest of subjects/minor citizens? Up until the Macpherson Constitution, the colonial government prepared constitutions for Nigeria without any reference to citizens of the nations amalgamated to form Nigeria. People in Nigeria were not considered citizens then by the colonial masters but only as subjects for whom a constitution must be written by their masters or owners. Is Nigeria returning to that model over half a century after independence? Or, is the presidency adopting the political culture of giving limited suffrage to citizens without wealth as it was the case with the development of suffrage in Britain and the United States centuries ago? This question has become necessary in view of the undue weight placed by the federal government on stakeholders who range from former heads of state to military officers, former speakers of legislatures, traditional rulers, and professional bodies at the expense of the citizen’s right to choose his or her representative.

    It is obvious that most of those in the category of stakeholders include those who contributed, collaborated, or condoned the re-construction of Nigeria away from the federal system of government upon which the country became an independent country in 1960. Is the thinking of the federal government shaped by the notion that it is largely the group that created the problem to be solved that can solve it effectively and that regular citizens are not central to the search for how they want to live together as diverse cultures in one country? Is the thinking in the presidency that those in power are not likely to achieve anything if they do not pander to the desires of those being referred to as stakeholders? Is it that most Nigerians at the interactive sessions with the advisory committee members indicated preference for a conference dominated by members of the nomenclatural class, referred to as stakeholders in the statement on modalities for the national conference? Or, do the modalities reflect the federal government’s unique way of responding to the country’s plurality?

    Whatever the motivation for the modalities may be, there is little doubt that the relegation of ethnic nationalities to the back burner in a conference that is to work out how to make the country’s unity sustainable is the wrong way to go. The refusal by the federal government to allow regular citizens in the various nationalities elect all the representatives to a meeting to compare notes on how to make Nigeria peaceful, stable, and united may be tantamount to taking the wrong turn at the beginning of an important journey that is time-sensitive. Let us borrow the late Prof. Sam Aluko’s analogy to assess the decision to hold a national conference dominated by super-citizens or stakeholders as distinct from citizens: For a man who is going to Okitipupa from Ife to turn in the direction of Ibadan and thereafter chooses to speed up, the faster he goes the longer it will take him to get to his destination. Electing to convoke a conference of stakeholders in which representatives of ethnic nationalities are in the minority is similar to making the wrong turn and then choosing to speed up thereafter.

    Any constitution making for a democracy requires listening to all citizens as equal partners or stakeholders in the project at hand. It is when choice of modalities are derived from what citizens prefer that such decisions can be deemed to be democratic, not when forces of centralism crowdout citizens’ wishes with corporatist whims. Even if the preference from the country’s managers is for territorial federalism (German type) and not for ethnic federalism (Ethiopian type), the locus of power to choose should still rest with the citizenry, not with faces of traditional or modern power or professional qualifications. There appears to be some interminable fear of ethnic nationalities in the decision to obscure ethnic representation with that of super citizens or stakeholders selected largely by the president and governors. The country has been through this route before, without being able to deal with the challenges of development and the building of a modern state.

    The evidence of a conscious or subconscious effort to avoid confronting the fact that Nigeria is essentially a country made up of ethnic nationalities is a syndrome that is over half a century old and one that has put Nigeria at the disadvantage it seeks periodically to remove through a string of conferences.

    To be continued

  • Is Nigeria sleepwalking into military-type rule?

    Is Nigeria sleepwalking into military-type rule?

    It is hard not to think that Nigeria is walking, half conscious of implications of her move, into a military model of governance.

    Just as the military governments used to do, leaders in a post-military polity are appear inured to linking any criticism or dissent to lack of unity. Military dictators used to premise their coming to power and staying in it on fighting corruption and keeping the country united. Even now, almost sixteen years after the exit of military autocracy, political and cultural leaders have almost turned national unity into a bogey. From former President Olusegun Obasanjo to current President Jonathan, governors from various political parties, and all manners of traditional and religious leaders, the theme of every speech has become how to protect and promote national unity. Everybody thinks and talks as if Nigeria has disintegrated or is disintegrating. This attitude, if not checked, can be dangerous to democracy in the country. Average Nigerians need to be allowed for now to believe they live in a country that is not at war. Fear mongering is capable of encouraging autocracy and diminishing democratic thinking and practice.

    This obsession with the discourse of uniformity in preference to the discourse of plurality of perspective is now being imported frantically by those in leadership positions into the realm of what should be a market of ideas. Only recently, the APC directed its members in the national assembly to frustrate passing of bills and budgets proposed by the ruling party in order to get the president to respond to festering political paralysis in Rivers State. Almost without thinking about the nuances of separation of powers in both parliamentary and presidential systems of democratic governance, political and cultural leaders started to shout foul, asking the APC to disown its directive to its members in the national legislature. In which country is separation of powers designed to ensure that the legislature is always friendly to the executive? The system by design calls for contentiousness between these two bodies, should the need arise for disputatiousness.

    In the parliamentary system used until the coming of the military in 1966, it was periodic contentious relationship between members of the opposition and the party in power that sharpened debates, improved conception and implementation of policies, and even prevented the ruling party from taking decisions that could have been injurious to the sovereignty of the country. Awolowo’s Action Group government benefited immensely from overt disagreement with the NCNC opposition members from Adelabu to TOS Benson. Even the government of Tafawa Balewa was saved from signing a defence treaty that would have yielded the country’s sovereignty to former colonial overlords in the talked-to-death Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact. The position of opposition party members saved the country at that time. Even in the days of the first experiment with presidential system, the periodically adversarial relationship between the NPN and the UPN drew attention to the signs of economic collapse that the president and his then minister of economic planning were trying to hide from the citizenry.

    In what ways is the effort of the APC to ensure that democracy is not destroyed in Rivers State on the altar of winner-takes-all politics different from attempts by opposition party members to rein in ruling parties in other countries? Even in the United States, the Republican Party has not failed to use this checking and balancing aspect of American presidential system to shut down the government under the leadership of Barack Obama, yet the country did not need to run to the gods to beg them to save America’s unity. Currently, in Ukraine, the opposition party is challenging the government’s oppressive acts with the support of ordinary citizens, yet nobody is worrying about the unity of the country. Political paralysis in Rivers State portends serious problems for democracy everywhere else in Nigeria. The crisis in Rivers State may not be at the instance of President Jonathan. There is little doubt that the molestation of the elected government of the state has the hands of those in the service of those in power. Is the commissioner of police in Rivers State responsible to the governor or the president?

    Nigerians that are already calling for the heads of APC leaders for stalling the passing of the 2014 budget need to pay more attention to the risks involved in democratic rule, especially the system of separation of powers. There is even nothing wrong with PDP men and women of conscience in the legislature to disagree openly with the ruling party by joining forces with the opposition if they perceive that direct or indirect actions of the ruling party diminish democratic rule in any part of the country. People who are afraid that democracy will come to an end if opposition party members employ their legislative tools to resist the manifestation of tyranny, such as has been evident in the behaviour of the commissioner of police in Rivers State since the face-off between Governor Amaechi and President Jonathan, are crying wolves unnecessarily. Nigerians who feel uneasy and scared that democracy is being threatened because opposition legislators are invoking their constitutional powers must remember that it was even members of Obasanjo’s ruling party that shot down the tenure elongation bid. For the legislature to keep the executive on its toes and nudge him in the direction of needed compromise is part of the rule of the game of democratic rule.

    The thinking that Nigeria is not fully democratic yet but only in transition to democracy should not be used to silence or demobilise the opposition party. It is only recently that the sitting governor of Rivers State, the state that has been under siege for months, acquired membership of the APC. It must be remembered that the APC had been calling for fairness, equity, and justice in the handling of the political crisis in Rivers State, long before Amaechi crossed the carpet to the APC from the PDP or the new-PDP. Those that are around when dissidents are being hounded had better spoken up. Otherwise it could be their turn to be hounded when the lust for absolute power so demands. APC may not be a perfect party, like all other human constructions, but the party is not doing anything undemocratic by attempting to shock the presidency back into consciousness and reminding the ruling party that impunity anywhere in Nigeria is impunity everywhere in the country.

    Those who were in the country in the 1960s when federal power failed to prevent avoidable political crisis in Western Nigeria cannot but remember how many opportunities Nigeria had lost because the crisis in Western region was allowed to fester by those in federal power. Citizens who were of age when federal power under General Sani Abacha was used to terrorise sections of the country would not want their parents to go back to the barricades over political disagreements that can still be brought under control.

    Whichever political parties or individuals have the courage to warn of a long stick that can poke the eyes of Nigeria need not be demonised. Condoning impunity at the hands of folks in the service of those in power may be tantamount to agreeing to sacrifice the testis of the father in order to assure the survival of his sons. Such attitude includes the risk of bringing destruction to the entire family. Power in every democracy has a limit; Nigeria should not be an exception. The culture of occluding threats to stability belongs to autocratic rule. Our leaders and political pundits need to come to terms with the dynamics of pluralism in a democracy: it requires readiness to listen to the other side, in order to keep the place safe for struggle for power by all parties.

  • National conference: towards citizens’ advisory

    National conference: towards citizens’ advisory

    The president needs to pay special attention to recommendations that are likely to privilege some groups and marginalise others. 

    Now that the Main Report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue and the Minority Report of the same committee are largely available for perusal by citizens, it should not be out of place for citizens to add their voices to the recommendations contained in the two reports. In a democracy, the existence of a special committee set up to advise the president on how to go about anything should not rule out views from the general public, more so if reports from the formal advisory committee leave room for such interventions from citizens.

    As the president is still in the process of digesting the reports, it is important to draw his attention to some aspects of the main and minor reports. With respect to the chapter on Methodology, it would have been more helpful for the committee to include in the detailed description of the methods of consultation a short analysis of the memoranda submitted and how the recommendations are derived from such memoranda. For example, such analysis would have given citizens an idea of how many of the 710 memoranda opted for the use of referendum; the use of an enabling legislation that empowers the conference to determine how to transform its recommendations into a constitution, etc. Such analysis would have communicated more effectively than just leaving the memoranda in an appendix.

    Similarly, the chapter on Terms of Reference would have been more informative if it contained analysis of submissions to the committee on drawing up a feasible agenda for the proposed conference. It is not enough for the committee to affirm the commitment Nigerians expressed and exhibited throughout the exercise, it would have been more reassuring if the report had indicated the number of memoranda supporting this position. This inclusion would have further made the job of the president easier, as he would have been able to sense the percentage (even in the context of random samples made possible by the nature of the consultation across states) of states and groups that opt for just one No-go area: dissolution of the Republic. Analysis of memoranda would have given the president and citizens opportunities to tell the percentage of citizens and groups with interest in issues that are not constitutional, such as cost of governance, corruption, God-fatherism, de-militarisation of national psyche, restoring national ethics and values; institutionalising Almajiri and Nomadic education, as distinct from those that address issues of re-constitutionalising governance in the country, such as restructuring of the country, political and fiscal federalism, decentralisation of national education policy; decentralisation of national agricultural policy, etc.

    The president needs to pay special attention to recommendations that are likely to privilege some groups and marginalise others. For instance, Recommendation 6.4.3 that says “the credibility of the Conference will be enriched by nominating representatives of the main regional socio-political organisations such as the Afenifere, Arewa Consultative Forum, Ohaneze Ndigbo, Middle-Belt Forum, South-south Peoples Assembly, etc., is capable of introducing avoidable problem in terms of fairness and equity. The fact that only five regional bodies are mentioned by name in the report for special inclusion suggests that there are many others that even the committee is unable to identify, hence the use of etc in the committee’s recommendation. Surely, mentioning five is enough for anyone to believe that the chairman of the committee has no intention to favour Afenifere, an organisation of which he is a leading member.

    But many citizens and socio-cultural organisations across the country are bound to wonder about how the Conference committee arrived at the consideration that Arewa Consultative Forum is more significant than Northern Elders Forum or Arewa Youth Forum. The same point can be raised about the choice of Afenifere over Afenifere Renewal Group or Oodua Peoples Congress, both socio-cultural organisations in the Yoruba region. These five organisations are already part of at least five of the six regions or zones. What special purpose are they going to serve as special delegates to the conference? Nigeria is, first and foremost, a country of citizens, not of socio-cultural organisations. Each of the socio-cultural organisations mentioned by the committee is almost as partisan as regular political parties. Why leave out political parties while privileging partisan socio-cultural organisations?

    Still on recommendation 6.4., the president should notice the temptation to load the conference with nominees of the president—direct or indirect. So-called Interest Groups should just be given the number to send to the conference, without having to pass their nominations through the presidency. Better still, it is better to leave socio-cultural organisations out of the groups to be given special status, more so that doing this is capable of avoidable politicisation of the selection process. Not too long ago, some socio-cultural organisations went to pay special visit to the president while others did not. Choosing an organisation that did that over the ones that did not or have not paid special visits to the president can raise the issue of partiality or favouritism on the part of the president. Special delegate status should be limited to professional groups whose membership is pan-Nigerian while socio-cultural groups that are region or state-specific should be encouraged to use some of the spaces given to states or regions. Equally unnecessary is the recommendation that the president shall have the power to nominate one delegate per state, should there be any governor that is unable to identify a representative for his or her state. Why should the president be given such powers in a pro-federal system in a bid towards full federalisation of the polity?

    In addition, if the issue of referendum was predominant in the presentations made to the committee, how did the committee arrive in chapter 9 at leaving the matter of integrating decisions and outcomes of the conference into the Constitution and Laws of the nation in the hands of the conference, more so after recommending in chapter 8 creation by the National Assembly of an enabling legislation for the conference? If an analysis of the distribution of memoranda over what to do with the recommendations of the conference had been provided, there would have been no reason for any minority report, since the crux of the matter between the main and minor reports is the issue of giving the decision to ultimate owners of sovereignty in Nigeria. Another section that may be unhelpful to anyone being advised is the last recommendation under chapter 8: “In the alternative to the above, the president may exercise his inherent powers under Section 5 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and convene the Conference.” Using such powers had been done before. General Obasanjo did this and nothing came out of the conference he called. Encouraging the president to use this option is capable of making him play into the hands of Nigerians who have expressed serious doubts about his capacity to carry the national conference to fruition. Moreover, providing an analysis of the distribution of memoranda over creating a new constitution or recommending amendments to the existing constitution would have been more helpful to anyone that needs to know the scope of what the conference should do.

    It may not be too late for the committee to let the president know the percentage of memoranda in favour of ethnic nationality representation, enabling legislation to allow the conference take its recommendations to the people in a referendum, and reserving seats for gubernatorial and presidential nominees. The resultant weight of evidence is likely to assist any advisee to opt for what majority of citizens at the interactive sessions prefer. For the president to have opted for a national conference that is not sovereign already limits the scope and power of the conference. To encourage the president to nominate up to one-third of conference delegates will be an overkill, the type that can produce an Obasanjo-type of conference.

  • National conference: what if a minority report exists?

    National conference: what if a minority report exists?

    What is left for the presidency to resolve now is the conflicting claims propagated in the media about a minority report by Chief Solomon Asemota

    Last week, we argued for immediate release of the report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on national conference, invoking principally the citizens’ right to know what a committee funded from the common purse recommended on a matter of obvious importance to lovers of national unity. From the release of the first installment of the report in The Guardian last Wednesday, it is now clear that the presidency must have been thinking about the need to let the public know what report has been derived from the various memoranda sent to the Conference Committee. What is left for the presidency to resolve now is the conflicting claims propagated in the media about a minority report by Chief Solomon Asemota.

    Ordinarily, there should have been no confusing statements about the existence of a minority report. Unfortunately, there has been. Senator Okurounmu said at the presentation of the committee’s report that there was no minority report. To support this, he reminded his audience that all members of the committee were present at the presentation of the report. Chief Asemota, who was present, did not indicate that he had a minority report. Yet, newspaper reports abound on the existence of a minority report submitted to the presidency. Given letters from readers of this column to the writer, it is obvious that the public is still largely confused about this simple but important matter.

    First, let us address the philosophy behind writing of minority reports. For too long, the concept of minority report has been an abiding aspect of the culture of democracy and democratic governance. Even in very sensitive cases of judicial adjudications, judges are allowed to submit minority report if they have good reasons to hold opinions that differ from those held by majority of members of a judicial panel. Once a committee, regardless of the subject of contemplation, includes more than two members, it is in most democracies not unusual if some committee members to choose to do a minority report, particularly if such members feel strongly about issues of divergence between them and the majority of committee members. Doing this does not diminish the main report or recommendations submitted by majority of committee members. If anything, a minority report is capable of enriching the report of the main report, as it is likely to show the sources of disagreement and their implications for proper handling of the matter at hand.

    No president or leader constitutes a committee in which individual members have no right to hold opinions that are different from those held by most members. As democracy represents a model that respects and formalises plurality of perspective, minority report on the bench or on the street underscores the freedom of individuals to hold opinion of their own on matters of significance to all. The axiom that the majority must have their way while the minority must have their say captures this aspect of democratic culture. The current confusion regarding minority report on the interactions between conference advisory committee members and citizens across the country is unnecessary. Majority members of the committee have the right to present a report that captures the views of most members while minority members also have the right to express their views.

    Given the size of the doubt about Chief Asemota’s minority report, it is only the presidency that can shed light on the matter at this point. It is important to pay attention to the intellectual as well as the political implications of such report. Intellectually, giving the public an opportunity to know the basis and degree of disagreements between the Asemota side of the committee and the Okurounmu side is a significant part of the form and method of argumentation. Secondly, constructing distinct arguments on the interpretation of the data submitted by citizens can assist the President and even citizens to choose which argument is more cogent. Kicking off from a clear understanding of what citizens prefer in terms of form, process, and content of the national conference is the best way to gain the confidence of the public on the important matter of turning Nigeria into a union of affection, rather than one of coercion constructed largely by military dictators before the advent of civilian regimes. Furthermore on the intellectual side, there are two related questions that the presidency can answer at this point: Is there a minority report? Has it been submitted or presented to the president? If the answer to these questions is no, then newspapers will become better informed on what to pass to the public on this issue. Should the answer be yes, then the presidency ought to share the recommendations of the Asemota report with the public. Not to do so will be tantamount to repressing views of a section of the conference advisory committee.

    There is a political dimension to the Asemota report, if it does exist. And the presidency ought to realize that citizens need to be assured that what they took to the conference committee is what formed the basis of both the committee’s main and minority reports. It is the citizens and various organizations that submitted memoranda to the committee that are in the best of positions to assess the degree of congruence or divergence between the preferred modalities they gave to the committee and the recommendations derived from these in each of the two reports. Keeping the minority report out of view has more negative political implication than letting citizens know the contents of the report.

    For a conference that is promised to give citizens opportunity to talk frankly about how they want to create structures to sustain the country’s unity and progress, there is no better way to start the process than to be forthcoming and upfront with citizens on the two sets of recommendations from the committee. There are already many pieces of rumour regarding what kind of conference citizens want. For example, the main report argues that there is no constitution that can be brand new, given the fact that materials from preceding constitutions are often carried over into the new one. But the main report is not sufficiently clear on the preferences expressed by citizens when committee members interacted with them. What is the percentage of the memoranda that calls for amending the existing constitution and for creating a new constitution? Retaining materials in a new constitution does not automatically justify handing recommendations from the conference to the national assembly for approval or ratification.

    In addition, what does the minority report say about creating an enabling legislation to set the conference in motion and including in the motion the use of referendum to determine citizens’ view of the recommendations? Should the minority report have a different view on this aspect of the conference, it will be necessary for citizens to know which committee report says what in respect of pre-conference or post-conference legislation by the federal legislature. While the president is not obliged to accept any of the two reports from a committee set up to advise him, it is important for the presidency to assist citizens, through full disclosure on the number and details of reports, to add their voices to the debate on how best to create a constitution that is acceptable to the majority of Nigerians.