The Nation Newspaper

Category: Ropo Sekoni

  • Generation of change: Young and old people in culture 2

    Generation of change: Young and old people in culture 2

    Serious-minded and well-planned trans-generational collaboration is needed now more than ever

    In these and other writings of Achebe, the country’s new ancestor made it clear to his readers that the responsibility or duty to create a good life for people in pre-colonial and post-colonial Nigeria rests on the shoulders of old and young alike, particularly on the shoulders of all human beings who are emotionally intelligent enough to know that good values lead to good change in the hands of old and young people alike. In other words, Achebe did not see a world divided along binary lines. He saw a world that is driven by ever-present possibility of ‘unitiveness’ or ceaseless negotiation between elements on what appears to be a divide on the surface.

    While Chinua Achebe deserves to rest in perfect peace for the many good ideas he had bequeathed to Nigeria, the call for dialogue on Thursday at Bola Tinubu’s birthday colloquium is timely, coming at a time that our nation needs to change its ways, if it is not to go the way of dinosaur, perishing by avoiding to change.

    We concluded this column last week by saying that the call for inter-generational dialogue at Asiwaju Bola Tinubu’s 2013 birthday anniversary colloquium: “Beyond Mergers: A National Movement for Change – A New Generation Speaks” is most timely, coming at a time that our country needs to change its ways, if it is not go the way of dinosaur, perishing by avoiding to change.

    Exactly a week after the colloquium, the British Council released a report that contains more dismal statistics or scary statistical interpretation about the country. Titled ‘British Council Raises Alarm,’ the report says in summary that Nigeria’s population is heading in the direction of swelling by 63 million people by 2050, with the likelihood of becoming the 5th most populous country in the world, and with the likelihood of teetering on the edge of ‘demographic disaster,’ unless the country’s stagnant economy improves rapidly enough to support its teeming population of young people.

    The British Council’s report further observes that large cohorts of unemployed and underemployed young people have the propensity to destabilize society, boost crime and foment conditions where civil conflict becomes more common. The report pontificates that any country that is not well prepared to make the best of its Baby Boom generation can find itself in the midst of ‘a demographic disaster.’ It concludes that if Nigeria fails to respond positively to employment needs of its rising population of young people, it stands the risk of getting its youth radicalized, particularly in the direction of Boko Haram and its Al Qaeda mentor.

    As is expected, Nigerians with fathomless and infectious enthusiasm have not failed to addtheir comments at the end of the British Council’s report online. Some of such comments go thus: “Our stagnant economy of 6.1 growth rate will soon be supporting UK’s stagnant economy of negative -4.6% growth rate,’ and ‘This seems devastating, but before then d youth of Naija will put things in order. Lets (sic) empower one another cos its (sic) one of the way (sic) out.’

    The call for the empowerment of the country’s youths to avoid a demographic disaster is evident in thinking of the organisers of this year’s colloquium in honour of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and in the presentations of the speakers at the colloquium. Certainly, the young Nigerians that spoke to their elders at the colloquium fully understood the problem facing the country when they insisted that senior citizens in party politics must engage them optimally if they are to drive the country from its current position of inertia and ritual celebration of percentage of growth in the last few years to an ethos of action and development that provides employment for the nation’s youth and thus predispose them to self-actualisation.

    One theme that was announced at the colloquium is that Nigeria’s young men and women less than 40 years of age are technology lovers, and like youths across the globe, more computer savvy than their parents who are currently directing the country’s politics in all the political parties. Without doubt, young Nigerians are capable of using Twitter and Facebook and other devices to mobilise citizens to participate in demands for equity and social justice, just as their counterparts in the Arab world were able to do before and during the Arab Spring. Young people thus need to be attracted to joint meetings on the way forward for Nigeria from its decades of self-paralysis.

    The responses of most of the elders at the colloquium suggest that the celebrator’s party is not just interested in creating a large party to take over power from the ruling party of today or to stiffen competition for power between APC and PDP. Elders driving the merger appear interested in more than allowing the younger generation to speak. They want the country’s youth to join them on the train of change. The elders do not seem to be interested just in the technological advantage or superiority of the youth; they are desirous of drawing young people into the new political configuration that is expected to bring new ideas and positive change to the people of the country.

    While the elders have no reason not to acknowledge the technological advantage of Nigerians under 40 years, they also must know that technology is not an end and that the technological wonders of our century is a product of ideology and culture in other parts of the world.Useful as it is, the technological skills of young Nigerians should not be the focus of trans-generational rubbing of minds. What is needed is intellectual and emotional honesty of young and old in efforts by concerned Nigerians in progressive political parties to construct a worldview that can galvanize Nigerians to acknowledge the imperative of change.

    What is most needed is the continuation of the dialogue started at the colloquium beyond the walls of the venue of this year’s festival of ideas. Young people are not to wait to be invited to join a party that is being projected as the party of change. They are expected to insist and act as co-founders of the Merger for change. Young men and women are thus not to wait until the party’s ideology is cast in stone before they engage party leaders on the way forward for the country.

    This is the time for focused trans-generational meetings on the ideology that is capable of keeping the country united and at the same time poised for the kind of economic development that can ensure equity and justice for all. Young people need to be in the boardroom of ideas that create the ideology to change Nigeria from its present paralysis to actualization of the potential of young and old as well as boys and girls. Veteran politicians and aspiring ones need to realize that political culture determines economic development or lack of it. There is no better illustration of this than today’s Nigeria. Both groups ought to create a conducive environment for collaboration on how the new party plans to move millions of the country’s youths out of unemployment or underemployment.

    Similar efforts had been made before. Chief Obafemi Awolowo in his forties joined hands with the likes of Chief Anthony Enahoro then in their twenties to prepare an ideology of Freedom for All, Life more Abundant. This ideology popularized among young and old the duty that political power puts on those in charge of governance, particularly the principle that people voted into power are duty-bound to create and implement policies that assist citizens to have a sense of fulfillment in life and not fight alienation through life as most citizens do in our own country today. Alhaji Aminu Kano also popularised similar ideology of equity and justice in his time in NEPU. The principle that government is created to serve the interest of the people it governs went from Action Group to Unity Party of Nigeria and, to a large extent, to M. K. O Abiola’s Social Democratic Party. It surfaced again in AD and later ACN and in other parties now in the process of merging.

    Serious-minded and well-planned trans-generational collaboration is needed now more than ever, more so at the instance of a new party that sets out to be a national movement for change.

  • Generation of change: young and old people in culture 1

    Generation of change: young and old people in culture 1

    Continuity and change come from collaboration between old and young persons in any society.

    In the last two weeks, one of Nigeria’s foremost literary and cultural critics, Biodun Jeyifo currently of Harvard University, drew the nation’s attention to the imperative of active intra-generational and inter-genera-tional dialogue. Almost unanticipated by Jeyifo, his call for constant sharing of ideas and values across age groups became two weeks after his essays in The Nation, the central theme in the festival of ideas that marked this year’s birthday anniversary of one of the country’s most daring politicians, Bola Tinubu, graphically titled: “Beyond Mergers: A National Movement for Change-A New Generation Speaks.

    The purpose of today’s column is not to celebrate or critique either Jeyifo’s insights or the conceptual energy of the young people that tried to create paradigm shifts for Nigeria’s politics at the birthday colloquium in honour of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu last Thursday. The purpose of today’s essay is to move the discourse of the imperative of dialogue across generational divides to the popular medium, with the hope of mobilising senior and junior citizens to participate actively in how their lives are shaped by those who happen to win elections and thus have the chance to rule over the lives of our people across generational and ethnic spectrum.

    Before I am accused of plagiarism, I acknowledge that my title is an adaptation of the 2008 Report of the United Nations Population Fund’s (UNFPA) titled: Generation of Change: Young People and Culture. Unlike the focus of UNFPA’s report, the focus in my series is not on the interplay between culture and subculture. It is on the belief in several African communities from time immemorial that continuity and change come from unfettered collaboration between old and young persons in any society that sets out to survive. In other words, change is created by individuals who understand their culture and appreciate the need to modify or transform it, without necessarily having to lose it altogether.

    In Yoruba society, there are sayings that repeat the importance of perpetual dialogue across generational lines. Omodegbon-agbagbon ni a fi da ile ife (It is through the wisdom of the old and the young that Ife civilization was created). Omodewo, agbawo, ohunti a bajijowogigunniigun (It is the integration of the perspectives of the old and the young that engenders excellence or balance).Owoomodeko to pepe, tiagbalagbakowoakengbe (the skills of the old and the young differ, for the reason that different problems can be solved by both groups for the sake of all.

    Since we are in the season of celebrating the life of one of the world’s best minds, Chinua Achebe, let us borrow some elements of his discourse of change in this first piece. Achebe, before he left us, created many memorable characters and scenarios that illustrate the inevitability of change and the fact that both old and young people have to serve as instruments of change, in their own common interest. For every rigid character of the status-quo, Achebe created a literary foil that exudes flexibility and embodies the realization that reality is forever dynamic. It is the same Umuofia of Things Fall Apart that produced Okonkwo, the over masculine symbol of power that also produced Obierika, a critical thinker and an intellectual that is given to weighing the pros and cons of what is on the ground and what can be on the ground.Obierika was in Umuofia almost a proto-typical embodiment of what we call Futures study today. The same milieu also createdUchendu,Okonkwo’s maternal uncle in Mbanta, his mother’s village in which he was in punitive exile for seven years. When Okonkwo relished calling Nwoye effeminate for joining the new religious movement imported by the white man, Uchendu saved the boy from being choked by Okonkwo, and thus gave Nwoye the opportunity to move from a pre-literate to literate milieu, the beginning of a new world for people of an old world.It is instructive that the burden or trauma of change affected both Okonkwo and Nwoye, but in different ways as Achebe wanted his readers to experience.

    Similarly, it is the same Umuaro of Arrow of God that produced Ezeulu, the man with monastic attachment to rituals and Akuebue, Ezeulu’s confidant that always reminded him of the need to acknowledge the inevitability of viewing life or the world as a masquerade dance, which irresistibly requires those that want to avoid becoming a dinosaur to be prepared at all times to move or change.It was Akuebue that counseled Ezeulu against being one-dimensional, especially in the latter’s assessment of his favourite son, Obika, whose death caused Ezeulu’s insanity at the end of the novel.

    Furthermore, it is the same culture that created Chief Nanga that also createdMr. Odili in A Man of the People.Odili is privileged in this novel to witness the transitioning of Nanga, a former youthful school teacher of his into a corrupt politician without qualms. Odili tries in the world of this novel to see his youthfulness as the basis of the difference between him and Nanga ideologically. Regretfully, Odili is made to realise that the right vision and values for society has nothing to do with age, when he comes to learn of Josiah’s stealing of the walking stick of a blind man in the village in which Odili teaches, for the purpose of using the stick to turn his customers into blind buyers.

    To be continued

  • Boko Haram: the road not taken

    Boko Haram: the road not taken

    There needs to be a national conference or constituent assembly involving Boko Haram

    Shortly after Boko Haram launched its terror against Nigeria, I wrote a longer version of the article below. The hope then was (as it is now) to urge our rulers to approach this new political challenge with creativity and courage, rather than over relying on the mantra of our country’s indivisibility passed down by military rulers. The new tempo of violence by Boko Haram, particularly in Kano, and the new layer of violence from Ansrul directed at foreigners that came to the country to add value, as well as the ‘Enough is enough’ response of Igbo and Christian groups necessitate the re-featuring of this article.

    There is no doubt that Boko Haram now has the reputation of being the greatest informal threat to Nigeria’s unity. The civil war was a formal threat. It was not individual Igbos or groups of them that declared war on the nation. It was the Nigerian military government in the Eastern Region that did that. In a way, the Biafran war was a government-to-government conflict. Individual Igbo men and women did not have any objection to the worldview of Nigerians in other parts of the country; they felt unsafe in northern Nigeria and were called home to safe grounds by the government of their region.

    At the beginning, the Boko Haram’s war was against Muslims who were not considered by the group to be orthodox enough, those that were found in or near beer parlours. Later, the war was taken to government institutions and international organizations, such as police stations or the United Nations office in Abuja. In its present state, BokoHaramists direct their violence primarily at Christians.

    At the infancy of the Boko Haram menace, conservative pundits described advantage and disadvantage of dialogue and discipline as mutually exclusive while liberal pundits see them as complementary approaches that are available to government. The dithering and temporizing that marked government’s response in the first year of Boko Haram’s outing grew out of the uncertainty generated by the schools of dialogue and punishment. Most northern leaders and institutions called for dialogue as preferred option, citing the UmaruYar’Adua’s adoption of Amnesty for Niger Delta militants as an enviable model for Jonathan to use.

    The road not taken so far is to recognize the imperative of apprehending the subtext of Boko Haram’s message. The surface text of the sect’s message is about the violence to government institutions and now to Christians. The subtext is that the sect wants to engage the rest of the nation on how to re-organise or re-structure the multicultural and multi-religious character of the nation. It should not be too hard for federal and state governments and their advisers to come to terms with the subtext of Boko Haram’s messages. Members of the sect want to live in a region or a country (if they succeed through terrorism) that is organized and ruled on the basis of Sharia jurisprudence and religious intolerance. In effect, the sect wants to change the nature of the Nigerian state.

    It is conceivable that the federal government can muster enough force to defeat Boko Haram. But it is not likely that this will automatically kill the idea that drives the sect, particularly the sect’s obsession with religious intolerance. Just as it is with all wars and conflicts, there is always room for talk to prevent major conflict or to end it. This is why treaties are signed after full-scale wars, to usher in peace. This is also why talks are held to pre-empt wars. We went to Aburi to work against having to go to war with Biafra, but the rest is history.

    It is still not too late to call a conference of all stakeholders in the Nigeria project. It is reassuring that the federal government has emphasized the importance of unity in its rhetoric against Boko Haram. But the federal government does not need to be obsessed about national unity to the point of not seeing that Boko Haram is calling for a negotiation of the character of a united Nigeria. BokoHaramists are asking for a true situation of unity in diversity. It is not the unity part of the country’s goal that is at stake; it is the diversity part of it that appears to be at issue with the fanatic sect.

    The federal government needs to provide leadership for a national conference on how to keep the country united, rather than waxing eloquent on the dogma of indivisibility of the nation. The insistence on legalism as excuse for not having a constitutional conference has become obsolete in light of Boko Haram’s increasing violence. The legislators that claim that no other group should be allowed to create a new constitutionappear to be as helpless as the executive on the issue of Boko Haram. If Boko Haram is not contained, it appears capable of running the legislators out of town. Nigeria needs a constitutional conference to negotiate the place of cultural diversity in its territorial unity.

    There needs to be a national conference or constituent assembly at which Boko Haram and its supporters are given the chance to participate in negotiating with other ethnic and religious groups in the country a new federal constitution that addresses religious diversity, rotation of presidential power, freedom for federating units to live according to their preferred values, etc. Any group that feels it cannot participate in a federal system should be given the option to check out of the federation.

    This is the time to let sponsors of Boko Haram know that no citizen or group has the license to exploit the nation’s obsession with unity at all costs. This is not the time to believe that the mantra of indissolubility is good enough to neutralise the danger posed to the country’s unity by Boko Haram and now Ansarul. This is the time to stop playing the ostrich. This is the time to get realistic. Nigeria is certainly losing grip of its rod of unity at the instance of Boko Haram and its sister-organisation, Ansarul.

  • Our amnesty and pardon culture

    Our amnesty and pardon culture

    Having to pardon Alamieyeseigha for his role in the Niger Delta suggests that we may need to do the same thing for Onanafe Ibori if he too chooses as an Urhobo leader to help prevent young people in Delta State from stopping the flow of petroleum. 

    Two words are rife today in political governance and public communication in our country. Both are words that are used by powerful men to give the impression of solving fundamental problems in the country. These words represent policies that the federal government in particular believes can put an end to some of the basic challenges facing the country’s security-economic, political, and physical. In consonance with the proverbial Nigeria Factor, these words quickly assume magical powers capable of serving as panacea to all problems. The words are Amnesty and Pardon.

    When the youths of Niger Delta chose to carry arms to reinforce their leaders’ demand for economic justice some years back, the federal government came up with amnesty as the way to end a long-standing problem. Niger Delta militants that were fighting for more revenue to oil-producing states and communities were persuaded to receive special stipends in lieu of what should have come to compensate the Niger Delta for ecological disaster spawned by oil drilling and gas flaring. Unlike the political demands of Niger Delta leaders that were ignored for years, the militants were assuaged with amnesty payments, special scholarships, and occasional contracts to high-profile militants. For Niger Delta militants to qualify for amnesty payments, they were asked to hand over their guns to federal government agents in exchange for forgiveness for attempting to disrupt the flow of oil. Of course, the issue of economic justice to the Niger Delta remains unsolved after granting of amnesty to militants who agreed to surrender their weapons.

    Shortly after implementation of amnesty payments to thousands of militants, a new group emerged in the North, Boko Haram (Western education is sin). This group hit the ground harder than Niger Delta militants. Boko Haram has for about two years acted as terrorists in every sense of the word, killing innocent Nigerians and non-Nigerians. In response to Boko Haram, high-profile Nigerians are calling for amnesty as a way to restore peace and security to the country. The case for amnesty has been built on mass poverty and illiteracy in the North: the birth-place of Nigeria’s foremost terrorist group. It is being suggested that empowering and educating the masses in the North will pacify Boko Haram warriors and end the culture of terror in the country.

    The belief that amnesty has solved the problem of the Niger Delta must have influenced the thinking of leaders who now believe that amnesty would also end the challenges created by Boko Haram. Amnesty as panacea to the country’s problems focuses not on resolution of conflict but on assuaging the feelings of individuals by giving them material inducement to abandon the cause that led to physical struggle against the Nigerian state. It does not matter to proponents of amnesty as panacea to Nigeria’s social problems if those given amnesty actually change their orientation or if the cause that led to militancy or terrorism that is to be doused by amnesty is addressed. Apart from President Jonathan’s statement that he is not ready to negotiate with ghosts, he too seems to believe that amnesty is an option for his government to end the security challenge posed by Boko Haram. Having been a part of the government that used amnesty to address the demands of Niger Delta militants, it is not surprising that the President thinks that amnesty is an option to change the minds of Boko Haramists, once they show their faces.

    It is, therefore, surprising that the presidency is using the pardon of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha to warn the country that amnesty given to Niger Delta militants has addressed just symptoms rather than cause. Giving official pardon to Alamieyeseigha is, according to the presidency, in the interest of Nigeria’s economy: “Alamieyeseigha is a foremost leader of the Ijaw nation, and his political and stabilising influence in that region has impacted positively on the overall economy of the nation, bringing crude oil exports from the abysmally low level of 700,000bpd to over 2.4 million bpd, …Therefore, it is obvious that, Alamieyeseigha has been a major player since his release from prison in ensuring that the blood that runs through the artery of the Nigerian economy is not cut off.”

    The import of the statement above is that President Jonathan needs to pardon Alamieyeseigha, to prevent the country’s oil-dependent economy from dying. In other words, the first governor of Bayelsa must have been helpful in ending the fight of militants against Nigeria before the adoption of the policy of amnesty. We are also being told that, without Alamieyeseigha’s freedom to interact with Niger Delta militants, the flow of oil may be stopped, with the consequence of killing what holds the country together: uninterrupted flow of petroleum. The presidency is unequivocal about letting Nigerians know that President Jonathan is doing Nigeria a big favour by giving his former boss official pardon. The fact that Alamieyeseigha was convicted for crime against the state is no longer as important as the role that he can play in ensuring that militants in the Niger Delta are kept at bay.

    From the role the presidency claims that Alameyeseigha is playing to keep the country’s economy afloat, it is clear that even the over cited amnesty has not worked. If anything, it has only addressed the symptom of the problem that led youths to carry arms against the state for neglecting the oil-producing states of the Niger Delta. In addition, the fear that new militants may spring up if Alameyeseigha is not given the freedom and respect to rein in potential militants suggests that amnesty is not an effective way to respond to calls for justice in the Niger Delta. It is also conceivable that if amnesty is given to Boko Haram terrorists, it may not work beyond bribing terrorists temporarily to abstain from violence.

    The right approach to solving problems is to face the cause and not symptoms of such problems, as we have done in the last few years. We threw money at Niger Delta militants but failed to put an end to demands for principle of derivation. Instead, we were able to pay off militants at work at that time without having any way of preventing other younger people from becoming militants, thus having to need perpetually the service of Alamieyeseigha to ensure the flow of petroleum. We are also being encouraged to give amnesty to Boko Haramists, without ensuring that they denounce their desire to extend Sharia all over Nigeria; their hate of Christians in a multi-religious and multiethnic country; and the sect’s opposition to Western education or civilisation, the origin of Nigeria itself.

    We will not be able to fight corruption if we have to pardon corrupt politicians for being in a position to appease militants, just as we may not be able to fight religious bigotry if we only choose to give amnesty to citizens that have waged war against the Nigerian state and its citizens. Having to pardon Alamieyeseigha for his role in the Niger Delta suggests that we may need to do the same thing for Onanafe Ibori if he too chooses as an Urhobo leader to help prevent young people in Delta State from stopping the flow of petroleum. The federal government needs to address problems frontally instead of treating symptoms.

  • Yoruba marginalisation: To what effect? (4)

    Yoruba marginalisation: To what effect? (4)

    Eight years of Obasanjo was long enough to fix the Lagos-Ibadan highway and to de-regulate establishment of railway.

    The conclusion of last week’s piece asserts that Jonathan is largely a product of primitive geopolitical pressure or ethnic rivalry that pits the North against the South or the Southsouth/Southeast against the Southwest. It adds that the appropriation of the nation’s resources by the federal government and the geopolitical pressure by leaders of large or small ethnic groups with federal executive power on ethnic groups with small legislative strength have to be addressed by patriotic citizens and organisations, if Nigeria is to achieve its potential as Africa’s most populous state.

    President Jonathan’s marginalisation of the Yoruba region is, as we said in the first piece on this topic, a continuation and exaggeration of a political culture that has been in the country since the reign of military dictators. What is unique about Jonathan’s brand is that he combines both direct and indirect exclusion of the Yoruba region in a dare-devil manner that even military regimes found too risky to practice. Military regimes chose to marginalise the southern regions in a subtle way that justified such disempowerment on the basis of national unity that is driven by the policy of even development. Apparently, the government of Jonathan vengefully neglects the Yoruba region for voting for him in 2011, while voting for a more progressive party in state executive and legislative elections, an enigmatic show of the region’s political plurality and a sign of undependability for believers in one-party rule.

    What is important to know for those who truly believe in building a modern multiethnic nation that is committed to national development is that Jonathan may not be the last president that will continue a political tradition started by the military. Unless some super-human politicians or extraordinary individuals emerge with the commitment to modernise the entire country, the average politician is not likely to be any better than Jonathan in terms of using access to federal power to improve the lot of his own nationality or region and to erect obstacles in the path of other regions.

    It is in the character of a unitary constitution and mode of governance in a multinational state for those in charge of central power to use it to bring advantages to the section of wielders of central power, more so when such government is managed by persons of average emotional intelligence. It is not fortuitous that it was under successions of military government superintended by generals from the North that the country’s federal constitution was distorted; the revenue allocation formula was abolished and replaced by donation of resources of regions to the federal government for re-distribution to states and local governments created largely for the purpose of revenue mobilization and allocation. Revenue from petroleum and gas and all manners of sales tax are collected into a central pool and distributed to states and local governments from the centre, leaving most of the resources under the control of those managing the federal government.

    In a way, President Jonathan, ruling under the aegis of a party created and nurtured by past military rulers, is continuing a tradition initiated by military rulers, a tradition that was also practiced during Obasanjo’s presidency. Eight years of Obasanjo was long enough to fix the Lagos-Ibadan highway and to de-regulate establishment of railway. None of these may happen under Jonathan or any other PDP government, unless the PDP changes its ideology from the sharing of national cake to the baking of cakes, or from parasitic to productive economy.

    Yoruba leaders and organisations that are justifiably depressed by neglect of their region may be running on an empty tank if they throw their energy in the direction of appealing to President Jonathan to stop his government from creating and reinforcing policies that disempower the Yoruba. What is required is a commitment on the part of Yoruba cultural leaders and organisations to the cause of re-federalisation of Nigeria.

    It is instructive to know that in the few years that there was federalism in the country, no region complained about marginalisation. Leaders from the North focused on the region’s comparative advantage to develop the region. So did the East use its own regional resources to create an enabling environment for its own residents to compete effectively with the Southwest, which in those days was the most endowed in terms of natural and human resources. This is why the Yoruba region was able to sustain its development projects without having to whine because someone in charge of the federal government had chosen to keep resources away from it.

    How many of the states in the Yoruba region today can do without manna coming to it from revenues appropriated from the Niger Delta into the central purse in Abuja? Marginalisation did not start with Jonathan. It started from a fiscal policy that collects revenue from the states into a central purse to be allocated to states by political parties and government leaders in charge of the central purse. Marginalisation of the Yoruba region is not only about SURE-P’s isolation of three Yoruba states from projected rail lines that are to cover the rest of the country; it includes having a constitution that prevents the Yoruba region or any other region that so wishes to establish rail transportation for its citizens.

    Political and cultural leaders that are unhappy about Yoruba exclusion under President Jonathan should not derail their argument by getting involved in puerile political thinking. Merger of political parties has nothing to do with a political structure and system that is designed to give political and economic advantage to some sections of the country at the expense of others. If anything, a political situation that pits APC against PDP may be able to move the country out of the culture of sectional dominance than can be readily imagined. A merger of parties that have expressed preference for functional federalism is more likely to avoid neglect of sections of the country than a party that prides itself as the only party committed to the present political structure that promotes direct and indirect marginalisation of the Yoruba region.

    Similarly, bemoaning the absence of good leadership rather than the absence of good structure is capable of prolonging the struggle against marginalisation. In the period between 1954 and 1966, the leaders of the three regions had different personalities. But the existence of freedom of each region to develop according to its preferred values and in its own pace resulted in a competitive federal system that brought the best out of the three regions and increased the country’s productivity. The bold and right action against marginalisation of the Yoruba is for leaders of thought in the region to separate their partisan political interests from the larger interest of Yoruba civilisation by agreeing to join cultural and economic forces to struggle for restoration of federalism in the country. It is important for the Yoruba region or any other region to know that whether it is APC or PDP that is in power in a truly federal Nigeria, no section of the country will be pushed to become a cry-baby, such as the Yoruba is fast becoming during the era of President Jonathan.

  • Yoruba marginalisation: to what effect? (3)

    Yoruba marginalisation: to what effect? (3)

    The neglect that the Yoruba region is currently experiencing from the Jonathan administration is an intrinsic part of the de-federalisation of Nigeria by military regimes, all in the name of promoting national unity.

    Some readers have asked if enough words have not been spoken or written in the last few weeks about Yoruba marginalization and if it is not time to yield media space to other pressing national issues. Marginalisation is a national issue. It just happens that the focus today is on the Yoruba, but the practice of marginalisation of one ethnic group by another in control of central power has been with the country for long and does not show any promise of abating or disappearing until there is a major structural change in the political and economic organisation of the country.

    Hence, the four-part essay originally planned for this column on Yoruba marginalisation will be completed, despite feelings by some readers that the topic has been treated ad nauseam already. It is important for us to gbo ara wa l’agbo ye (understand each other well) on this issue, particularly as discussions in print or electronic media only start new rounds of communication for citizens in the informal sector, where Nigerians exchange ideas and feelings about the country in which nature or colonialism has put them. Those who are familiar with the informal sector know that nearly as much thinking and talking go on there as do exist in the formal sector.

    Since the issue of Yoruba marginalisation became popular a few weeks ago, several political groups and socio-cultural organisations, as well as highly informed individuals have tried to throw more light on the topic. The topic has begotten deep analysis and in some cases exaggerated conclusions that include blaming the victim. There is nothing in political action or cultural style of the Yoruba that should encourage any national leader or the federal government to marginalise the Yoruba or any other nationality for that matter.

    Plurality of perspective is an abiding aspect of Yoruba civilization. It has been this way since the beginning of Yoruba history. The Yoruba belief in life as a market place of ideas and options (graphically couched in Eyi to wu mi ko wu o ni omo iya meji fi n jeun lototo, difference in taste indicates why siblings eat separately) explains the readiness of the Yoruba to be tolerant of other cultures and to be ready to live with them without attempting to dominate them. Therefore, that the Yoruba are found in all political parties that exist in the country does not indicate disunity.

    It is, therefore, misleading to blame the worldview of the Yoruba for the marginalisation they now experience under the presidency of President Jonathan in particular and have in general experienced since the re-shaping of the Nigerian polity by military dictators. This is not to say that Yoruba individuals, like their counterparts in other cultures around the world, do not have flaws. One of such flaws is manifested by Yoruba men and women in President Jonathan’s party that is seen to have marginalised the Yoruba region. Such Yoruba PDP members have shown no concern about claims that the Jonathan administration has neglected the Yoruba region. But to encourage the Yoruba in whatever form to depart from their belief in plurality of views is to call for cultural suicide on the part of the nationality. Even if all Yoruba citizens were to suddenly alter their worldview and collectively vow to think alike on all issues and join one political party, the marginalisation of the ethnic group is not likely to come to an end.

    The neglect that the Yoruba region is currently experiencing from the Jonathan administration is an intrinsic part of the de-federalisation of Nigeria by military regimes, all in the name of promoting national unity. Direct and indirect marginalisation of one ethnic group or the other has been a part of the country’s history since 1966. At the hands of military governments, what used to be three regions (one from the north and two from the south) were changed into 36 states with 19 states from the North and 17 from the South. Over 400 of the local governments in the country were allocated to the North by military regimes under a dispensation that also allocated funds from the federation account to local governments. In effect, the revenue garnered from petroleum at the expense of the ecology of the Niger Delta was mobilized and allocated to northern states much more than to southern states, on the thinking in military circles that even development would create national unity.

    In a way, Jonathan is a victim of the policy of marginalisation and could have developed the complex of someone abused or oppressed by the Nigerian political system. Could his marginalisation of the Yoruba have ensued from a past of deprivation suffered by his people at the hands of other federal governments? But why would he punish the Yoruba for the oppression of the Niger Delta? The legislative strength of the North in the National Assembly makes any attempt to neglect the North dangerous for him politically. The cultural overlap between Jonathan’s region of origin and the Southeast makes it unnecessary to hit at the Igbo region. The only region that becomes to ignore in the re-distribution of national projects is the Yoruba region, with 22% per cent of the population but with just about 8% of the legislative strength at the federal level.

    The policy or practice of marginalisation is only a symptom of a cause that should be familiar to all observers of the country’s cultural politics. Fifty years of the advantages awarded to the North over the two southern regions by military dictators (most of whom are also from the North) had created a culture of deprivation in leaders who may not be psychologically capable of overcoming the negative effect of neglect. As things are, the country will need to have heroic individuals as presidents, if it is to bring domination of ethnic group by another that has the advantage of federal power to an end.

    For long, the ideology of even development created by military dictators and its subtext: the theology of ethnic or regional domination and exploitation have shaped the thinking of military and civilian leaders who now claim to be policemen of mainstream politics. Jonathan is largely a product of primitive geopolitical pressure or ethnic rivalry that pits the North against the South or the Southsouth/Southeast against the Southwest. But the appropriation of the nation’s resources by the federal government and the geopolitical pressure by leaders of large or small ethnic groups with federal executive power on ethnic groups with small legislative strength have to be addressed by patriotic citizens and organisations, if Nigeria is to achieve its potential as Africa’s most populous state.

    To be continued

  • Yoruba marginalisation: To what effect? 2

    Yoruba marginalisation: To what effect? 2

    Another aspect of actual marginalisation is the type that affects all Yoruba citizens. This pertains to direct and indirect neglect of infrastructure in the Yoruba region. Such neglect appears to be designed to disempower and discomfort the generality of Yoruba people. All the federal roads in the Yoruba region are in a state that destroys Yoruba business and frustrates citizens that travel on such roads. Even federal roads in Yoruba states that contribute significantly to non-oil revenue for the country are generally neglected. For example, the roads to Apapa, the country’s largest port for goods into Nigeria, Niger, and even Mali, are all neglected by the federal government. Most businesses that bring VAT revenue to the federal government from Lagos, Ibadan, and other Yoruba cities where consumers abound are slowed down by badly maintained federal roads that connect various Yoruba states: Lagos-Ibadan; Lagos-Benin; Ibadan-Ilesa-Akure; Ibadan-Osogbo-Offa; Ife-Ore; Ibadan-Ogbomoso; Agege-Abeokuta; etc. Most Yoruba states that produce cocoa, coffee, and other exportable produce are hobbled by the neglect of the roads from such states to the port city of Lagos.

    In addition, the Jonathan administration gave the impression during his campaign for office in 2011 that his government would deregulate or privatise establishment of rail transport system. It has not happened since he got elected. It is even being rumoured that some Nigerians selected to meet legislators during the one-day consultation over constitutional amendments last November have said (who,where and how?) that they do not want the federal government to allow states to have any role in establishment and running of rail transport. To be fair to Dr. Jonathan, he did not create most of the problems, but what can be honestly held against him is that the core of his election promise was (and still is) Transformation. Certainly, the Yoruba region has seen in the last few years more of regression than transformation in terms of infrastructure.

    We said last week that Jonathan’s main problem with regards to exclusionary government policies and practices is that he sings the promise of transformation to the nation while his government excludes the Yoruba region (more than any other region) from access to federal government jobs and federally-funded infrastructure. And this is despite the fact that the Yoruba region constitutes about 22% of the nation’s population.

    A lot has been said in the media about Jonathan’s direct exclusion of Yoruba from the federal public service. There have been reports that many of the federal ministries and agencies under the president’s watch have encouraged retirement of more Yoruba (than people from other regions) from the country’s public service and hiring of fewer Yoruba (than people of the other five regions) into the service. But very little is reported about indirect disempowerment of the Yoruba region under President Jonathan. There have been several subtle but striking efforts by the Jonathan administration to slow down development in the Southwest.

    It is obvious that Lagos State is the country’s most cosmopolitan state. It is generally referred to by politicians and regular citizens as Mini Nigeria, a state that has more people from all the nationalities in the country than any other state. It is also common knowledge that Lagos State has more Yoruba people than any other state in the federation. It is no exaggeration to say that all extended families in Yoruba section of the country have their most-endowed sons and daughters in Lagos State. In terms of intellectual and material resources, Lagos State stands out as the most developed state not only in the Southwest but also in the entire country. In effect, any effort to unhinge the economy of Lagos State is a sure way to unsettle the average Yoruba family.

    In a way similar to Obasanjo’s hostile attitude to growth and development in the Yoruba region in general and Lagos State in particular, the Jonathan administration appears to relish unsettling of Lagos State’s economy and by extension the economy of the entire Yoruba region. In the time of Obasanjo, the federal government did everything possible to stop federal allocations to Lagos State on the excuse that the state created additional local governments. In the case of Jonathan, he demonstrates insensitivity to efforts by his government to disrupt development efforts by Lagos State government.

    There is a report that the Jonathan administration is set to introduce a special petrol consumption tax that is to be collected and spent by the federal government or its agency. If more than 30% of all vehicles in the country are used in Lagos and over 50% of all vehicles in the country are used in the Southwest, it is clear that any effort to introduce petrol consumption tax that is to be controlled by the federal government is tantamount to denying the Southwest of additional revenue that should come to the region from such consumption tax. As if the loss of revenue by Lagos State and other Yoruba states via federalisation of VAT and issuance of driver’s licence and vehicle registration is not bad enough, President Jonathan’s government is eager to impose another consumption tax that may not be used to service the communities from which such tax is collected. The parlous state of so-called federal roads in the Southwest does not indicate that revenues collected from petrol consumers in the Southwest and put under control of the central government in Abuja would be used readily to fix the roads in the region. Such policy to further de-federalise the country is more damaging to the economy of the region than direct reduction of Yoruba presence in the federal service. Using petrol consumption tax to rob the Southwest of funds that should be used for infrastructure development and improvement of the welfare of citizens in the Yoruba region is an indirect way of additional disempowerment of the region.

    Shortly after complaints by several groups about marginalisation of the Yoruba, the Jonathan administration announced its intention to build another sea port in Badagry. Lagos State may be the largest state in the country in terms of population but it is the smallest in terms of land area. The federal government under Jonathan has ignored requests from Lagos State for special status to enable the state improve the welfare of the teeming population of migrants from other states. Even efforts of the Lagos State Government to get the Jonathan administration to guarantee a foreign loan to enable the state provide modern mass transportation to move over 18 million Nigerians that live in the state in a safer and more orderly manner have been rebuffed by the current federal government.

    It is, therefore, amazing that the same federal government is suddenly interested in building another port in Lagos State. Is this a part of the strategy to respond to charges of marginalisation, just as the superficial repair of Lagos-Ibadan and Lagos-Ore roads were put on the federal list of must-do items before 2012 Christmas to ward off complaints of neglect of the Southwest? How much space does Lagos State have for it to host another port in a country that is in a position to establish elsewhere several sea ports that can carry some of the burden that Lagos has carried for over a century?

    Lagos State needs special intervention to make existing wet and dry ports in the small state run well, without having to damage business and residential opportunities in the state. The state needs to be given derivation benefits for existing wet and dry ports that have taken so much of the state’s limited land area. It is in the interest of Lagos State for the federal government to make ports in other parts of the country work and create jobs that can reduce the exodus of migrants to Lagos every minute. Lagos is already suffocated. What the federal government needs to do is to reduce the suffocation through special grants and policies that assist the state to improve its mass transit system, not another port that shrinks the place for indigenes and residents or damages roads that the state has built for the benefit of its residents.

    Without listening to calls from Lagos State for Jonathan’s government to repair the road to Apapa and Tin Can ports, the Jonathan administration is planning surreptitiously to make nonsense of the investment Lagos State has put into modernisation of the road between Badagry and Oshodi. This is after heavy trailers going to other parts of Nigeria and even to Niger and Mali have made the road between Apapa and Ibadan dangerous for vehicular movement. If President Jonathan wants to reduce the burden on Lagos State, it should revive the rail line to Apapa and thus reduce the wear and tear on Lagos roads, not to use excuse of another federal sea port in Badagry to damage the soon to be commissioned Oshodi-Badagry road.

    Apart from praying for federal governments under leadership of men and women that can respond to the demands and challenges of administering Nigeria’s multiethnic state in a way that gives each nationality a sense of belonging, it is also possible to provide structural changes that can reduce fears of marginalisation of any of the groups in the federation. Such structural changes will immunize the federation against leaders or federal governments that may lack the sensitivity needed to run a truly united multiethnic federation.

    To be continued

     

  • Yoruba marginalisation: to what effect? 1

    Yoruba marginalisation: to what effect? 1

    Yoruba marginalisation as a theme of public debate is gaining more attention by the day. Afenifere Renewal Group first raised the issue formally a few months back. Just a few days ago, a group of older Yoruba professionals and politicians (than those in Afenifere Renewal) held a press conference on the topic, at which the group’s spokesmen reeled out details of efforts by the Jonathan regime to neglect and relegate Yoruba interests to the back burner of Nigeria’s socio-economic process. Members of the Ikenne front for Yoruba unity had also visited President Jonathan to complain about non-inclusion of Yoruba politicians in top-notch positions in his government. Media pundits have also come on board to analyse and find reasons for this condition of the Yoruba under Jonathan’s presidency.

    It is hard to identify why any president would choose to diminish the significance of the Yoruba in a federation in which they form close to 22% of the population. But if there is no surprise in third-world politics, then where should anyone expect to be startled and confused? But this phenomenon, as volatile and dangerous for the country’s unity as it might be, needs to be understood in all its ramifications, to prevent the Yoruba from being associated with cry-baby syndrome by other regions.

    What has been observed as marginalisation can be broken into two types: apparent and real neglect. Apparent marginalisation is evident in absence of Yoruba in the political pantheon that directs the life of the country. All appointive positions are essentially political. In a winner-takes-all ethos, political appointments are restricted to trusted members of the ruling party. It is true that there are many Yoruba in the PDP that controls all political appointments, but it is also clear that those in the power house in Abuja know that such Yoruba represent mostly themselves. If they represent anybody else, it must be a tiny minority of the Yoruba nation. And this feeling is despite the fact that Jonathan won more votes than Buhari in most Yoruba states in 2011 presidential election. It is, therefore, easy for those holding the lever of power in Abuja to ignore Yoruba individuals in the PDP, just as it was when Obasanjo had more Yoruba votes than Buhari in 2003 presidential election.

    Jonathan’s men and women must know that the heart of the average Yoruba is not in the ideology that subtends policies and actions of the PDP, even though their votes came into his ballot boxes in 2011. They know that Jonathan’s party is not ready to give to the Yoruba region what it needs. They probably know that the value of the Yoruba had disappeared after the election, more so that they are sure that Transformation, which the Yoruba must have voted for had also lost its edge after the election. The current travails of Olagunsoye Oyinlola is a graphic illustration that leading Yoruba in President Jonathan’s party have more nominal than substantive value, because they are deemed to have only a handful of Yoruba voters behind them. Should it have been so? Not necessarily. But anyone that can be ignored in politics without any threat to the party’s consolidation of power is generally the first to be neglected in the competition for appointive posts. If there is any group that should complain about marginalisation of Yoruba by Jonthan, it should be Yoruba men and women in his ruling party. Is anyone surprised that Yoruba members of the PDP are not complaining about neglect?

    Therefore, marginalisation of Yoruba in political appointment cannot be held against Jonathan, more so that his party members from the Southwest are not complaining. Jonathan is only upholding the values of winner-takes-all political culture. Even if Yoruba PDP members have been appointed as some of those that actually rule the country, this may not filter down to Yoruba people. A few Yoruba were so appointed during the administration of General Olusegun Obasanjo without any noticeable impact on Yoruba life. Organisations that are sending delegations to Jonathan for redress should not worry about appointive positions. The Yoruba have gone that route before. Yoruba thrived in the days of NPC and NPN, when those that held most political appointments were largely Hausa-Fulani, Igbo, and representatives of the so-called minority groups across the country, just the way it is today. It must be added though that in the days of NPC and NPN, the leaders of the two parties did not ever think that they could take the Yoruba for granted, as it appears to be the case today.

    Actual marginalisation concerns unfair hiring or firing policy. If Yoruba people are retired unduly from the public service or are jumped over in hiring to the public service for career and professional positions in a federation to which they belong and pay taxes, there are other ways to address this issue, in addition to sending delegations to President Jonathan or creating media events about it. There is a need for individual Yoruba individuals, retired without just cause or disregarded in the hiring process, to engage the Federal Character Commission by going to court to challenge any manner of injustice against the Yoruba.

    To be continued

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • As we celebrate our country’s colonisation

    As we celebrate our country’s colonisation

    It is now common knowledge that the presidency is ready to celebrate the amalgamation of Nigeria in 1914 by Frederick Lugard. Such celebration is not just an attempt to recognise the amalgamation as a positive milestone in the history of Nigeria. It is, simply put, a bold attempt by the federal government to commemorate the country’s colonization. The question of the minute is whether observing the amalgamation can enhance the country’s unity or whether it is likely to incense citizens struggling for restoration of federalism as another attempt to justify the current unitary governance of the country.

    Given the history of several resistances against Britain’s colonisation of Nigeria in general and against Lugard in particular, as well as the huge sacrifices made by nationalist leaders that fought against colonialism and struggled for self-government in the regions and for independence for the entire country, many patriots are likely to be saddened by any effort by a civilian president that is craving, over fifty years after independence, to celebrate the raw act of colonisation of the country. It is not out of place for such patriots to ask why the federal government is not ready to leave the celebration of the country’s most challenged and challenging colonial decision to the United Kingdom’s government.

    Certainly, the British should have more reasons than Nigeria to commemorate the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Protectorates in 1914. It enabled Britain to have the most populous country in Africa today. Lugard’s courage and insensitivity to join the two protectorates made (and still does) today’s Nigeria one country that has more people than all the colonies of France, Britain’s competitor in the Scramble for and Partition of Africa. It must be a thing of joy to the British that the huge country it created out of many in 1914 is still almost as dependent on it as it was in the days of Lugard. For example, instead of generating electricity like other former British colonies, Lugard’s Nigeria relies on generators manufactured in England and clones from such places as China and India. The United Kingdom has reasons to beat its chest for the continuation of the tradition of organising census and elections it bequeathed to Nigeria. Britain should also feel good that its compromise on moving from Lugard’s amalgamation (unitary governance) to federalism in the 50s and at independence has subtly been annulled by Nigerian military dictators and surrogate civilian rulers that came in the post-colonial era.

    But if the current federal government believes that it is better positioned to lead the celebration of the amalgamation of Nigeria, it should not fail to do it in style, in consonance with the country’s flair for conducting outlandish festivals or carnivals. It should invite any of Lugard’s living relatives to give a keynote speech or serve as father or mother of the day. It should open a special register in Worcester, England, where Lugard was raised, with the aim of thanking the town for producing the father of Nigeria. There should be space in the ceremony for a London celebration, to which Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Cameron are invited to represent, respectively, King George V and Herbert Asquith, the prime minister in charge of the colonial government in 1914. If possible, these two should be invited to Abuja to serve as grandmother and grandfather of the day. If not, we should organize a London version of the commemoration to make it easy for the two to serve as co-celebrators. President Museveni of Uganda should be invited to assist its sister-country to celebrate the accomplishments of a man that served both countries as the icon of British colonialism in Africa. The Archbishop of Canterbury should be asked to celebrate a high mass here in Abuja or in London.

    One thing that must not be missed in the celebration—whether representatives of the family of Lugard or the British royalty and government agree to participate in the ceremony—is making copies of Lugard’s books available as items to be included in the gift bags to be distributed at the ceremony. If this is going to be too expensive, Lugard’s favourite description of the typical African should be printed on the Programme of Events. It should not be too expensive for petroleum-rich Nigeria to include the following lines of Lugard’s favourite quote: “The typical African…is happy, thriftless, excitable person, lacking in self-control, discipline and foresight, naturally courageous, and naturally courteous and polite, full of personal vanity, with little sense of veracity… in brief, the virtues and defects of this race-type are those of attractive children.”

    Furthermore, any Nigerian that is opposed to the celebration of Nigeria’s glorious beginning with amalgamation should be declared personal non-grata and a mortal enemy of Nigerian unity. Any Nigerian that chooses to demonstrate or protest against the grand celebration of Nigeria’s Lugardian origin should be charged with treason or treasonable felony. The federal government should leave no stone unturned in its effort to convince critics of the proposed mother of celebrations that its decision is infallible. It should encourage critics to read Michael S. Roth’s The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty, especially on the thesis about how our brains convince us that our lies are true. Those charged to mould the consciousness of citizens should not fail to say that there is nothing too absurd to do on account of the unity of Nigeria, manufactured by Lugard in 1914.

  • On the road to cosmetic federalism again?

    On the road to cosmetic federalism again?

    If the preliminary result of National Assembly’s efforts to involve Nigerians in the amendment of the 1999 Constitution released exclusively by Leadership Sunday is accurate (and there is no reason to disbelieve the notes leaked to the newspaper by those in charge of the exercise), then Nigerians calling for re-federalisation of the country are about being urged to start the process of de-militarisation of the polity afresh.

    We said in this column a few weeks back that Nigerians might be buying a lemon at the end of the protracted effort by the national assembly to neutralise the call for sovereign national conference or constitutional conference. We raised issues with the process of selecting or inviting citizens to meet representatives of the national assembly in hotels in state capitals across the country; the amount of time made available for discussion; and why on earth anyone would prefer such informal consultation with citizens to a referendum.

    With the release of outcome of lawmakers/citizens’ interactions in November last year published by Leadership Sunday of January 27, Nigerians may at the end be blamed for an amended constitution that is more unitary than the one that federalists have found to be a source of inter-ethnic or inter-regional tension and of national under-development since the outing of the 1999 Constitution by General Abdulsalam Abubakar, after the presidential and legislative elections of 1999.

    In what Leadership Sunday called the highpoints of the House of Representatives’ People Public Sessions on the review of the 1999 Constitution conducted on November 10, 2012, ‘Nigerians have rejected’ the following: any mention of the country’s six geopolitical zones in the constitution as administrative or political units; abolition of State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC) and transfer of its functions to INEC; call for a provision to allow Nigerians in diaspora to vote at national elections; establishment of state police; affirmative action for women in elective offices; transfer of any responsibility from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent List; etc.

    Is the report of Leadership Sunday only about what citizens have rejected? No. As the paper puts it: ‘As widely expected, voting patterns show Nigerians want state houses of assembly to be granted financial autonomy/independence as is the case with the National Assembly….The collated report disclosed that Nigerians backed amendments’ to abolish Joint State/Local Government Account; to create a role or place for traditional rulers at federal and state levels; to award indigeneship (rather than residency) to indigenes of other communities; etc. What is unmistakable about the preliminary result of collation of responses from citizens that travelled to speak with legislators in November is that majority of such citizens largely prefer the constitutional status quo that puts centralism over federalism.

    It is not clear what the announcement in Leadership Sunday: ‘voting patterns on all the issues itemised in the template for voting during the sessions in 318 federal constituencies of the original 360 constituencies have been collated and ready for official unveiling on January 31’ is designed to achieve. Is the unveiling of an informal voting by citizens that had no mandate from their constituencies being packaged as a true reflection of the thinking of constituents on the items presented in November to selected invitees by legislators? Is voting by an infinitesimal number of invitees to public hearings in hotel rooms being designed as a substitute for direct indication of citizens’ choice? Are Nigerians being prepared by the leaked collation of votes of a few Nigerians that had the privilege to travel to state capitals to meet with lawmakers for what the national assembly is likely to recommend as amendments? What does ‘as widely expected’ mean? Who widely expected what—the legislators or Leadership Sunday? It is uncharitable to think that the national assembly would intentionally parade the views of a few Nigerians at one-day public hearing as the voice of 160 million Nigerians.

    What is not uncharitable to do is to remind members of the national assembly that fears expressed before the decision of the national assembly to initiate amendment of the 1999 Constitution may be justified at the end of exercise. When citizens called for sovereign national conference or constitutional conference for the purpose of writing a people’s constitution that is mandated by citizens and assented to by citizens through a referendum, members of the legislative assembly said that all that was needed was ordinary amendment to the 1999 Constitution. Legislators refused to include involvement of citizens directly in the process by rejecting calls for a referendum. Now the same national assembly is claiming that majority of Nigerians have taken a position on items slated for amendment, when in fact only a handful of citizens attended the hearings organised for interaction between lawmakers and citizens.

    Many citizens at that time warned that legislators elected under the constitution in contention were not elected to write constitutions and that the matter of creating a people’s constitution should be given to another group set up principally for that task. Citizens were told by lawmakers and even the president that Nigeria should settle for amendment to a constitution that citizens never saw until after the inauguration of the first post-military government in 1999. While citizens called for constitutional transformation, their leaders, elected for purposes other than writing a constitution, preached and pushed for panel-beating of a constitution that citizens thought was a write-off.

    If the leaked report to Leadership Sunday is accurate, then federalists and constitutional purists who warned that amending a constitution that had no imprint of citizens ab initio would amount to a waste of time and emotion may be more prophetic than legislators who affirmed that re-federalisation of the country was attainable through amendments. Issues that citizens have been reported to reject indicate that the 1999 Constitution authored by the military on the eve of handing power to elected governments in 1999 only needs cosmetic touches designed to enhance the powers of the centre.

    A graphic example of further de-federalisation of the polity is the so-called approval by citizens that the exclusive legislative list should remain sacrosanct. Another example is purported approval by ‘citizens’ of the provision to divorce local governments from the states that constitute them. The Federal Republic of Nigeria will be the first such federation in the world, just as it will be the first federation that is incapable of tolerating state and local government police for purposes of enforcing laws and ordinances created by states and local governments.

    Without doubt, the report released to Leadership Sunday must signal the message of a luta continua to lovers of federalism and believers in federalism as the only way to ensure sustainable democracy and development in post-colonial Nigeria.