The Nation Newspaper

Category: Ropo Sekoni

Obama’s avoidance of Nigeria: Scare or signal?

Today’s article first appeared in July 2009 during the second year of Obama’s first term and his visit to West Africa. The beginning of his second term is a good time to remind all stakeholders in Project Nigeria and other African countries struggling to remain democratic about outstanding issues that need the attention of patriotic Nigerians and sincere friends of Nigeria.

Image makers at the presidency are already at work to deflect attention from the shame inherent in the decision of President Obama to visit Ghana while ignoring Nigeria. A few days ago, agents in the image making and national re-branding units initiated a discussion in the media regarding new problems facing foreign leaders’ visit to Nigeria. In a response to the unsubstantiated view that the Niger Delta crisis scares foreign leaders from coming to Nigeria, President Yar’Adua said that no foreign leader had told him that he or she is afraid of coming to Nigeria because of the violence in the Niger Delta and other parts of the country.

President Obama’s choice of Ghana as the country to visit in the West African sub-region must have been informed by factors other than the battle for the soul of Nigeria between militants and security forces. For the avoidance of doubt, President Obama’s choice of Ghana over Nigeria could not have been made out of fear about security in Nigeria. American presidents before him had visited more violent-prone countries of the world. President Obama had even visited Iraq, a country that has become synonymous with violence in the last few years. His visit to Ghana and not Nigeria could not have been based solely on the readiness of Ghana to invite him. Even if Nigeria had invited him, the chances are high that he would have said NO THANKS.

If anything, the decision of Obama to ignore Nigeria in his visit to West Africa is capable of depressing or irritating Nigerians who have been under the impression that Nigeria is the giant of Africa, simply because it has one of the three largest economies on the continent. Obama must have decided to ignore Nigeria’s re-branding jingles by choosing to visit the moral giant in West Africa, the Republic of Ghana. But Nigerians who believe that a self-respecting individual should think twice before visiting a neighbour whose house has become a toxic space in the neighbourhood should have no problems with the decision of the United States to send its president to Accra and not Abuja on a visit designed to discuss with one of United States’ trusted partners in sub-Saharan Africa “the critical role that governance and civil society play in promoting lasting development.”

Without doubt, Nigeria is one of the partners of the United States in sub-Saharan Africa. It is just not considered one of the trusted partners. Why would Nigeria, Africa’s biggest supplier of petroleum to the United States, the country with almost half of the population of West Africa, and the country that had lost more lives in the course of peace keeping in Africa, home of the 35th largest economy in the world, and Africa’s largest supplier of brain and brawn manpower to the United States not be considered as one of the trusted partners of the United States? It could not have been for what Nigeria had failed to do on the international arena. President Obama must have avoided Nigeria because of what Nigeria has done to itself or has failed to do for itself.

Nigerians that are unhappy that the giant of Africa has been treated like an ant in relation to Ghana must take heart. It should not be surprising if President and Mrs. Obama had met more Nigerians (than Ghanaians) in the course of their education and their journey to power. Nigerians constitute 20% of all Africans in the United States and close to 25% of Africans that attend American universities, work in hospitals, serve as lawyers, and help even at fast-food restaurants. They also constitute one of the friendliest communities in the Americas. Obama could not have planned his visit to Ghana to embarrass Nigerians. He must have used the avoidance of Nigeria to send a message to the trustees of the country that most things are falling apart.

How many Nigerians would choose Nigeria over Ghana to visit or even do business? Even Nigerians are running away from home to establish business in Ghana and buy homes there. Nigerians themselves prefer to spend their free time in Accra rather than Abuja or Port Harcourt. Ghana is such a preferred country to visit by Nigerians to the extent that there may be more Nigerians than Ghanaians in Accra if President Obama chooses to hold a special summit on democracy in Accra during his visit.

It is true that Ghana is much smaller than Nigeria and not as wealthy as Nigeria. Nigeria would ordinarily have more resources to entertain the Obamas and the people on their entourage than Ghanaians are likely to be able to do. But Ghana has used its meager resources more prudently and more strategically than Nigeria. Even though Ghana got its independence at the same time that two regions out of the three regions in Nigeria got their self-government in 1957, the leaders that God had given Ghana had succeeded in doing better than Nigeria in many respects.

For example, Accra airport, streets, and hotels are more likely to have electricity to carry out all hospitality activities than would have been the case in Abuja or Lagos. Obama and his wife are likely to be harassed by noise pollution from German, Chinese, Indian, and British generators that supply electricity to factories and homes in Nigeria. Their chances of having asthma induced by generator and Okada fumes will be higher in Abuja than in Accra. People in Obama’s motorcades are more likely to see corpses on the roads in Nigeria than they would see in Ghana, if at all. Policemen checking “vehicle particulars” are more likely to create bottlenecks for Obama’s motorcade in Lagos or Abuja than would happen in Accra. There will be more beggars with larger bowls to collect alms in Nigeria than in Ghana. If President Obama had chosen to come to Nigeria instead of Ghana, he would have been subjected to more sound bites about the importance of democracy than he would have experienced in Ghana. But in Ghana, he would see more evidence of democratic governance and sustainable development than in Nigeria.

The beginning of President Obama’s second term is a good moment to remind him that Ghana deserves another visit to congratulate it for serving as West Africa’s poster-child for democracy and good governance. It is also the right time to remind him that it will pay the civilised world better for leaders of the free world to assist Nigeria to actualise its potential, than to ignore it or just re-echo its jingles about democracy and development.

January 27, 2013
On our nation’s unity or uniformity (2)

We said in this column last week that political and cultural leaders, particularly those from the north are fond of putting the cart before the horse of Nigeria’s unity. They often argue that all discussions must begin and end with the inevitability and non-negotiability of the country’s unity in a language that is reminiscent of military government’s famous No-go Areas. Many leaders who see themselves as owners and guardians of the country’s unity have the tendency to reduce all issues pertaining to the health of the country to their understanding of what it means for Nigeria to be united. Today’s focus is on homilies, particularly from retired or serving military leaders from both north and south about unity as the panacea to all problems facing the country.

Response from military leaders to complaints about the health of the nation falls into the same pattern with those of most leaders from the north. For example, when General Obasanjo was civilian president, he was fond of calling calls for re-structuring of the country as a means of restoring true federalism as synonymous with calls for secession or disintegration of the country. Even after his departure from power, his views on calls for true federalism remain the same. The military dictator that General Obasanjo succeeded in 1999, General Abubakar Abdulsalam, is also not left behind in the race to use sermons to keep the country united. He has said on several occasions that Nigeria has been together for too long for it to break, regardless of untoward events that threaten the country’s unity. This sermon is in preference to discussing the threats to the nation’s unity and looking for ways to neutralise such threats.

Even one of three executive presidents that is not a civil war hero like Obasanjo, Abdusalam, and others, President Jonathan, is more eloquent that retired generals in his effort to oversimplify the issues that have potential to affect the country’s unity. He has chosen the metaphor of marriage to convince Nigerians and friends of Nigeria that there can be no threat to the nation’s unity, after 100 years of marriage of proverbial Northern Prince and Southern Bride. Saying this to the hearing of Boko Haram, President Jonathan’s optimism about the age of a married couple as a guarantee against divorce is ample. Nobody should expect the president to feel otherwise, as no sane person would want a country that he rules to disintegrate. At the same time, citizens should expect more than homilies from the president.

The latest vibrant voice in support of the sermon of uniformity or the ideology of unity at all cost is the governor of the Central Bank, Sanusi Lamido. In his own variant of efforts to cover the contours of the nation’s diversity with the blanket of uniformity, Sanusi takes advantage of his exalted position to ask for banning of religious and socio-cultural organisations such as CAN, JNI, Afenifere, Ohanaeze, and other and groups that feature the country’s cultural diversity. Sanusi’s call falls into the pattern of thought that believes that muzzling signals of diversity is the best way to ensure the unity of the country. His recommendation is in sync with a view more prevalent among political and cultural leaders in the north (than among their southern counterparts) that uniformity is the answer to the question of how to manage and optimise the country’s diversity.

Our concern is not that there is no space for sermons from political and cultural leaders. Sermons are an intrinsic part of socialisation of citizens, especially of efforts in all cultures to create compliance habits in the citizenry. For example, all major religions of the world exist and thrive on sermonising. One indispensable tool of politicians and their supporters is sermonising or preaching. It is a universal practice that leaders whose interests are likely to be affected adversely by calls for interrogation of the status quo and for change by those that feel that the status quo does not promote their interests have to adopt the sermonic mode to keep what they perceive to promote their own interests. Otherwise, such political and cultural leaders resort to violence, to sustain their current advantages.

The point at issue is the danger inherent in leaders’ proclivity to use sermons as a way of skirting issues that may be fundamental to the health of our nation. It is an understatement to say that our country is at risk. It is at risk at the hands of Boko Haram forces that set out to destroy western education; impose Sharia jurisprudence on the country; and kill or maim innocent citizens with a view to browbeat the government and citizens into accepting their worldview. The nation’s health is also endangered because citizens feel that the governance of the country is circumscribed by a constitution that citizens from various sections of the country believe to have been imposed by a handful of military dictators who appear to have set out to remove most of the federal principles and practices that nurtured the country’s unity from 1946 to 1966.

It is reassuring that the most authoritative cultural leader in the north, the Sultan of Sokoto, has called on all interests in the country to respond to the nation’s security and other challenges with a high sense of realism. He has asked all parties to the Nigerian experiment to enter into heart-to-heart dialogue on how to keep the country peaceful, united, and progress-friendly. One hopes that other leaders of thought in the north and in the military will pay attention to the Sultan’s sermon on conditions for peaceful co-existence of diverse cultures in one nation-state.

The tension militating against progress in our country will not go away because articulate leaders and organisations are able to use the mantra of unity as the beginning and end of political debate, just as the call for visionary leaders may not be at variance with demands for a conducive political structure and a constitution that reflects the yearnings of citizens. Most modern democracies thrive on constitutions negotiated by citizens or those given the mandate to prepare a constitution on citizens’ citizens.

As we have argued several times in the past in this column, a major source of tension in our country today, apart from the worldview and ideology of Boko Haram, is not opposition to the unity of the country. It is the opposition of many of the country’s leaders to calls for open dialogue on how to manage the nation’s diversity in a manner that will sustain and enhance the nation’s unity. A conducive constitutional framework is (more likely than not) to enrich the qualities of political leaders with inclination for good governance.

January 20, 2013
On the nation’s unity or uniformity (1)

Those in position of authority should know that injustice in one part of the country will affect others

There is a trend in our country’s political discourse that is not receiving adequate attention. Northern leaders and sociocultural organiSations are leading a debate that is dangerous for the country’s unity but to which other segments of the country are paying too little attention. Spokesmen for the north are parading themselves as the sole protector of our federation’s unity.

Since the exit of military dictatorship and the advent of civilian rule, northern political and cultural spokesmen have occupied themselves with strange definitions of unity in a federal system. For example, Arewa Consultative Forum has been clear in its opposition to calls for a sovereign national conference to write a new constitution that reflect the wishes and desires of the peoples of our federal republic. Since the beginning of post-military rule and imposition of the 1999 Constitution by the last military dictator, ACF has affirmed that there is no problem with the current constitution that other regions have asked to be replaced with a people’s constitution.

On calls for devolution of power to states, ACF has been unmistakable in its objection to decentralisation of the country’s police system. It has argued pontifically that states (including those that are not northern) are not ready for state police or community police. ACF has even affirmed that allowing states to own police is dangerous to the country’s unity, arguing that existence of state police is capable of destroying the country’s unity.

Nowhere is the pontification of northern leaders on what it means for Nigeria to be united more evident than in the ongoing opposition of northern states to the Petroleum Industry Bill. Several organisations and political leaders in the north have been unequivocal about the danger inherent in making companies engaged in upstream petroleum operations allocate 10% of profit to petroleum producing communities. One such example is the statement of Senator DanladiSankara of Jigawa: ‘It is clear the way it (PIB) was crafted that only one section of the country is being favoured to benefit. While no one is saying the oil producing states/communities should not benefit, such benefits should not be to the detriment of other sections. We will not allow it. This country belongs to us all.’

Sankara further pontificates: ‘I don’t know how you are going to have peace where allocation of resources are so skewed in favour of one region to the detriment of other geo-political zones. The position of northern senators is in the best interest of the nation because what they stand for is equity and justice. The problem in the north is security challenges attributed to social and economic factors…. Our perception of PIB in the north is that the Bill is aimed at gradual disempowerment and impoverishment of other parts of the country. Those in position of authority should know that injustice in one part of the country will affect others.’

It is not only Sankara that has spoken against any effort to give more funds to oil-producing communities in the Niger Delta, to rectify decades of damage and neglect suffered by that region under series of military regimes that robbed the region of the 50% allocation to derivation that was provided for up to the republican constitution of 1963, the last constitution in the country without the imprimatur of military governments. Chairman of the Northern Governors Forum has been reported to have hinted of plans by governors in the north to reject the PIB for not taking the special interests of the north into account.

An unidentified northern politician has been reported in the media to have said in respect of the provision for special allocation of funds to petroleum producing communities: ‘This section will make several billions of naira for the development of the Niger Delta, in addition to the funds provided to the Niger Delta Development Commission and the Ministry of Niger Delta. You can see that the country is finished. That bill is meant to take care of the people of Niger Delta alone. We won’t support it.’

All the foregoing references to opposition of northern leaders to calls for policies that can sustain federalism are not intended to question the right of leaders of and from the north to express their views on national issues. What is worrisome is the manner in which they confuse their sectional interests with the interest of the nation or federation as a whole, particularly the tendency to present the North as the sole custodian of the nation’s unity.

Anything that is perceived not to be in the interest of northern leaders is viewed as dangerous to the country’s unity. Just as decentralising the central police is viewed as capable of destroying the unity of the country, so is allocating funds to communities in the Niger Delta to compensate for environmental degradation considered by spokesmen for the North as capable of finishing or destroying the country.

Leaders from the North, the region which produced most of the country’s military dictators that destroyed its federal system and ended provision for 50% of revenue to regions of derivation give the impression that they are mandated to protect and promote the vision of military dictators in a post-military democracy. The policy of even development,which served as the guiding philosophy for military dictators to end the regime of 50% allocation on the basis of derivation, is not an inherent aspect of federalism. It is the same policy that led to the creation of 36 states and 774 local governments and the policy of distributing revenue from petroleum and gas to these units with little or no consideration for the damage that exploitation of petroleum has caused and continues to cause for the communities concerned.

Northern political leaders need to familiarise themselves with policies and development in other federations around the world. In most federations, each federating unit is encouraged to develop on the basis of comparative advantage, not on the basis of even development that is fueled by sharing of revenue, as it has been done in Nigeria since the end of the civil war. Any section of the country that suffers because of exploitation of natural resources deserves to be given special consideration. The principle of equity and justice supports this. It does not support giving what should be used to protect such communities to all other regions, simply because such regions also belong to the same country with communities degraded by exploitation of natural resources.

January 13, 2013
Jonathan’s marginalisation of theYoruba?

President Jonathan should have nothing but gratitude for Yoruba people

A startling revelation came from Afenifere Renewal Group a few days ago. It is to the effect that the Jonathan administration is marginalising Yoruba people in recruitment into the public service. According to Afenifere Renewal, 45 cadets were recruited from the Southwest (a region with about 25% of registered voters in the country) for training at the Customs Training College in Kano. On the contrary, the Southsouth, the region that has the incumbent president got 91 recruits while Southeast had 68 and the Northcentral had 157. The only region whose share is not revealed is the Northwest, the region with the biggest block vote, according to the last INEC registration report.

If the information about Yoruba marginalisation has come from several other organisations, this column would not have bothered. But with such information coming from Afenifere Renewal Group, a traditionally fast thinking but slow talking organisation, lovers of diversity in unity in Nigeria have reasons to be startled, as some of the readers of this column have demonstrated in several telephone texts to me. The good part of the saddening statistics about recruitment to Customs Service and retrenchment of Yoruba workers from the ministry of aviation is that the word marginalisation is not new in the country.

The Igbo people have consistently accused the rest of Nigeria of marginalisation since the end of the Nigeria-Biafra war. Some of their best minds have even claimed that the war was prosecuted to achieve marginalisation ‘of the aggressive and dominant Igbo people.’ Even after an Igbo had become vice president to ShehuShagai in 1979, Igbos still claimed to be experiencing peripheral status in the scheme of things. And when the Igbo constituted the team that drove Nigeria’s economy under General OlusegunObasanjo: the Okonjo-Iweala, Soludo, Ekwesili operators of Nigeria’s fiscal machine, Igbos continued to cry marginalisation.Leaders from the North first started to worry about marginalisation only after the end of zoning and the coming of Jonathan as president in 2011. Such allegation by the North was more atmospheric than specific. While the claim by the Igbos was perceived as a device to shoot for the presidency, the complaint by northern leaders is viewed as another way for the North to complain about the loss of federal power to Jonathan, after the death or killing of zoning.

What is startling about Afenifere’s revelation is that a nationality known to be proud, self-reliant, and taciturn about marginalisation has been pushed far enough to hang its toga of pride and self-reliance and competitiveness. Under the pressure of Yoruba youths, their elders have been forced to come out to cry foul about being disempowered. Readers must also be reminded that this is not the first time that the Yoruba would cry about marginalisation. In the days of SaniAbacha, hard facts were revealed aboutAbacha’s policy of disempowering Yoruba people via retrenchment and refusal to hire them into the public service. People perceived by Abacha henchmen to be NADECO soldiers, police, and public servants were purged or prevented from coming into federal institutions. At a time that the Yoruba should say that the rest of such policy is history (especially under a post-military government that the Yoruba lost more blood than any other Nigerian nationality to make possible), the Yoruba are, according to data at the disposal of Afenifere,victims of marginalisation under a regime that should have no reason to punish the Yoruba.

There is a Yoruba proverb that says Oro to bakojaekun erinlaarin (there are some serious problems that are better mitigated by laughter). It is proper for Afenifere to take the matter up with the Federal Character Commission. That is one of the objectives of the commission. But Afenifere also needs to assuage the feelings of the youths that are putting pressure on it to learn how to laugh some of the pain off. It is better for the Yoruba region and for the country to prevent Yoruba youths from acquiring the kind of anger and alienation that motivated formation of Boko Haram. Afenifere Renewal needs to assist Yoruba youths in identifying some talking and counselling points.

Have the Yoruba destroyed their NADECO spirit? Shouldn’t the Yoruba know that marginalisation is a possible response in a winner-takes-all system midwifed by some measure of election? Is it not proper to assume that President Jonathan should be too grateful to his benefactors to want to condone marginalisation of the Yoruba? The best way to illustrate this quality of the president is his recent open display of gratitude at the Redeemed Camp in Shagamu, where he knelt down in the glare of international cameras to thank the General Overseer of the country’s leading Pentecostal movement for assisting him to win the 2011 presidential election.

President Jonathan should have nothing but gratitude for Yoruba people, not only for being a protégé of General OlusegunObasanjo before the 2007 presidential election. Most of the leaders of SNG that protested in Lagos and Abuja (including this writer) to ensure that Vice President Jonathan was given his entitlements after the passing of President UmaruYar’Adua were Yoruba. There is no way that President Jonathan would readily forget the struggle that gave birth to the Doctrine of Necessity. It was the intervention of the same SNG that made it possible for President Jonathan to know that several of those who pretended to be helping him to import petroleum for use by the masses were in fact economic saboteurs who were too glad to reap where they did not sow. It was the exposure of such saboteurs of the nation’s economy that led to attempts to prosecute some of the subsidy fraudsters.Afenifere should not for one minute believe that the president would forget this act of patriotism on the part of SNG, more so that the attempt to prosecute subsidy thieves has become a poster child in the attempt to fight corruption in the country.

Even if the president believes the claim of its image makers that opposition political parties in the Yoruba region are critical of his presidency because he belongs to a minority group, he is not likely to believe that the generality of Yoruba people did not make it possible for him to become Nigeria’s first transformation President in 2011. Thousands of Yoruba voters who should normally have voted for a progressive party in the 2011 presidential election abandoned their party’s candidate to vote for Jonathan who they know is from Otuoke, a minority group, even in the context of theSouthsouth. The President is not likely to forget this part of the history of his election so soon. There are reasons to believe this: two of his image makers, hired at different times, are Yoruba; Abati and Okupe.

Afenifere Renewal should seek a dialogue with President Jonathan, in addition to writing a petition to the Federal Character Commission. In the face-to-face dialogue, Afenifere should impress on Jonathan that Yoruba traditional‘concern for equity, fairness, and justice for all’ provides the only credible philosophical framework for transformation, rather than an excuse for marginalisation.

January 6, 2013
Constitutional amendment and its ominous signs

The way out is to accept the inevitability of constitutional conference

Lawmakers who are in the process of tinkering with a constitution that citizens prefer to replace are already warning citizens that there may be no significant amendment of the 1999 constitution at the end of the ongoing effort by the National Assembly to forestall a constitutional conference.

The recent warnings expressed by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Federal Capital Territory foreshadow serious difficulties on the part of the national assembly to get whatever amendments they suggest through the state assemblies. Senator Smart Adeyemi’s observation: “We cannot amend the Constitution without getting two-thirds of the state assemblies concurring with us. And the governors are also saying that they don’t want the autonomy of local governments,” suggests that there may be more problems to stall the amendment exercise than just the preference of governors.

It is true that governors’ opposition to removal of immunity clause, creation of states, and autonomy to state legislatures and local governments should be worrisome, not only to legislators in charge of the amendment process but also to citizens at large. But it is necessary to avoid what may amount to bashing of governors. It is necessary to know if removal of immunity is to apply to governors alone. If the president is allowed to enjoy immunity while in office, it stands to reason for governors that are equally elected by citizens to enjoy the same privilege. Creation of states is not an intrinsic part of constitution amendment. If there is anything that should be done in respect of state creation, it should be just to amend the process of creating states. If anything, state creation appears to be a distraction. There is no reason for lawmakers to be in a hurry to create states.

It is also important for federal lawmakers to listen to governors’ and state legislators’ views on autonomy for local government. It is wrong to assume that the issue of autonomy for local governments is an easy one to settle, simply because military dictators had identified local government as the third tier of government. The relationship between state and local government is a core element of the principle of federalism that is supposed to be settled by a people’s constitution, a move that the national assembly has resisted on the ground that the country’s sovereignty has been vested in the federal legislature.

The 1999 Constitution captures the vision of military dictators and not necessarily those of the federating units on the issue of autonomy of local government. And lawmakers should recognize this, instead of taking the autonomy of local government as a given. It was the three regions that were later broken into 36 states that agreed to become independent of Great Britain in 1960. Similarly, the issue of local government as third tier was not part of the republican constitution of 1963. It is therefore wrong to give any sacrosanct status to the principle of local government as third tier. This aspect of the constitution needs to be taken as part of the constitutional change that legislators hope to achieve. In other words, there is no good reason for lawmakers to view the autonomy of local government as a No-Go area for governors and citizens to challenge. The only no-go area in the 1999 Constitution should be the territorial unity of Nigeria.

A more troubling aspect of Senator Adeyemi’s fears is that the ongoing amendment may be deadlocked by opposition from more than one-third of the country’s state assemblies. Evidence already abounds that this may happen. Governors of 18 northern states, apart from the governor of Plateau State, have stated clearly their opposition to creation of state or community police. If the 18 northern governors are able to influence their state assemblies on this matter, any amendment in respect of creating multiple police systems will be killed by 50% of the country’s governors. Just as it is already evident in the open opposition of northern governors to the Petroleum Industry Bill, no recommended amendment can pass without the support of at least 24 states. And there can be no 24 states to support amendments unless at least seven of the states from the north so agree, even if all the states in the south endorse such amendments.

The preference of organisations and citizens for sovereign national conference or constitutional conference grew out of the foresight that some members of the national assembly are just recognizing, after the fact. The 1999 Constitution, particularly its provisions for changing any aspect of the constitution are filled with obstacle courses that cannot be overcome unless more than half of the northern states are ready to play ball. Northern leaders and northern sociocultural organizations have not failed to let the rest of the nation know their views on restoring true federalism. On several occasions, Arewa Consultative Forum had warned that there is nothing wrong with the current constitution and that the Forum is opposed to creation of states. It should not surprise anyone if, at the end of the current amendment process, less than two-thirds of state assemblies ratify any or all of the amendments, thus throwing the country back to provisions of a constitution imposed by military dictators in 1999.

Fingering governors as forces that can scuttle the amendment process may not provide the total picture of problems that can militate against the ongoing constitutional amendment. Governors are protecting the advantages given to them in the current constitution in the same way in which Northern governors in particular and the ACF are protecting the advantages they perceive the 1999 Constitution bestows on their part of the country. To ignore this fact is to knowingly play the Ostrich. The way out of a stalemate is not to demonise governors or blackmail them into accepting specific provisions that affect their interest; it is to accept the inevitability of a constitutional conference that will be able to establish new ground rules that are different from the obstacle courses erected in the 1999 Constitution against any effort to amend it in favour of returning the country to the path of true or functional and sustainable federalism. This may be the only way to avoid repeating what happened to the amendments suggested to the current constitution during the presidency of General Olusegun Obasanjo.

December 30, 2012
America’s petroleum and Nigeria’s future (2)

The years of less revenue from fossil energy will strengthen the territorial unity of Nigeria

Last week’s conclusion asserts that America’s entry into the international petroleum market as a gas and petroleum exporter (as distinct from its many decades of being an importer) will force Nigerian political leaders and citizens to accept the end of miracles as the solution to national economic and social problems. In other words, the existence in the future of what does not exist now or of what exists now and may not exist in the future in the petroleum market will push trustees or guardians of Nigeria’s politics to accept that the best route to national development is an economic culture that encourages citizens to engage in production, the way it was all over Nigeria until 1966.

It is important for the country’s economic planners to replace platitudes with policies that can meaningfully diversify the country’s economy, without allowing current inflow of petrodollars to distract them from going back to the fundamental law of culture: no distribution before production. Since General Gowon was reported as saying that money was not Nigeria’s problems in the 1970s, Nigeria has been preoccupied with distribution without production. This is why it has not been able for the country to invest in infrastructure that can fuel development: energy, rail, road, water, etc. Nigeria has been dependent on the 57% of revenue from oil that accrued from oil sale for several decades. This culture of Sadaka, Awuufu, or Saraa (free loading) is best captured by the name of one of the country’s foremost agencies, Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission, most graphically in the emphasis on assembling and making ready for use that mobilisation suggests.

If after 50 years of underdevelopment of the country’s infrastructure despite decades of oil boom, America’s entry into the petroleum and gas market as exporter reduces Nigeria’s revenue from oil and gas, Nigeria may enter a critical phase that will call for new thinking on the part of leaders and citizens. Many things that have been taken for granted since 1966 will call for review, especially the country’s political structure.

Once the flow of funds to the central government declines (as surely it will once the percentage of oil and gas it can sell to other countries goes down), existing states will attempt to become development centers, rather than distribution centers that they have been since military dictators initiated the culture of creating states and sustaining them with funds from the federation account. The existing 36 states and 774 local governments will certainly have difficulties meeting their monthly bills: salaries to civil servants and other sectors of public service in particular. Retrenchment or downsizing the public sector will become imperative at the beginning for most states. But leaders that are unlucky to be in office when revenue decline occurs will have to adopt the maxim: necessity is the mother of invention. Otherwise, they may be chased out of office by angry citizens, the way it happened in many Arab countries a few years back. They will have to move from the ingrained culture of profligacy and corruption made possible by cheap oil money to providing infrastructure and support for a productive private sector.

The sudden shift of attention from the federal government as the dispenser of funds to states and local governments to states and local governments as laboratories and factories for production will renew calls for restoration of functional federalism. No state will be prepared to pass gains from the sweat of its citizens to the federal government to share among states and local governments in the name of even development. States and local governments will have to compete with each other, just as they will also cooperate with each other in their effort to respond to the new development challenges to be thrown by decline in oil revenue.

States that are currently calling for people’s constitution, restructuring of the polity, and devolution of power will be more aggressive in their demands, more so when the easy monthly or quarterly allocation from the federation account ceases to be useful to sustain the appearance of governance and government that most states have enjoyed since 1966. As each state struggles to produce what its citizens consume, it will need to have full supervisory power over its economy and polity.

The mantra that only the federal police can keep Nigeria united will be challenged more forcefully by states that require efficient and dedicated police to enforce laws and sustain public order. States will resist the usual practice of collecting VAT and fees for driving license and vehicle registration for the federal government to share among states on the basis of land mass and population estimate. States with ports will aggressively ask for compensation for port facilities in their states, rather than beg for special financial support or special status from the federal government. For example, the demand on the federal government to give Lagos a special status that will require additional funds from the federal government will be replaced by demands for a percentage of revenue from use of Lagos ports. Other states with port facilities, such as Delta, Cross River, and Rivers, will make similar demands for revenue sharing with the federal government from port revenue.

Regionalism or regional integration will become a common model of development across the country once the easy flow of revenue from petroleum and gas ceases or reduces considerably in the years beyond 2020. The current competition among states on exhibitionism in the use of public funds will give way to cooperation in design and execution of projects that can advance development in contiguous states. The reality of scarce resources that may result from revenue decline from the federation account funded largely from proceeds from oil and gas will stimulate the culture of prudence in states that do not want to go bankrupt. Citizens whose taxes become the largest source of revenue for the government will demand an end to low-class self-promotion of political leaders and their family in newspaper adverts at the expense of public funds.

The sections of the country that have sworn not to allow the country’s post-military federal government to devolve power to states will become more realistic about the imperative of restructuring, once the oil and gas revenue that has been lubricating the country’s chain of unity goes south. Such leaders will have no choice but to accept that it is only parasite without a sense of self-preservation that will depend on an emaciated host. Such states will loosen their grip on the federation and cooperate with those calling for true federalism, not out of altruistic interest but out of the need to have control over their own hard-earned resources in the years beyond today’s bountiful harvest from oil and gas.

However, the years of less revenue from fossil energy will strengthen the territorial unity of Nigeria. No state or region of the country (not even the Niger Delta) will feel strong enough to want to opt out of Nigeria. A country that has since 1966 seen itself as one united by oil will start to see itself as needing to stay together in order to grow out of poverty. But the country’s unity will cease to be nominal or symbolic; it will be one with a purpose. The country will morph into a site for what Ben Nwabueze calls ‘diversity in unity’.

December 23, 2012
America’s petroleum and Nigeria’s future (1)

Nigeria will never be the same again after the United States becomes an exporter of petroleum

Two of the regular readers of this column have asked me to comment in the fashion on the implications of the news that the United States will by 2020 become the largest producer of petroleum in the world and that many multinational oil companies are bent on reducing their investment in Nigeria’s oil exploration and exploitation. I would have preferred to ignore this request on the ground that I am not an economist and thus not intellectually equipped to make economic forecasts, if my readers had not given me the permission to give their question just a commonsensical approach, given my lack of expertise in economics.

It is my belief that Nigeria will never be the same again after the United States becomes an exporter of petroleum. But the country will not go under because of this and may very well finally have an opportunity to escape what Michael Ross calls the Oil Curse: the view that countries that are not developed before discovering the black gold are more likely than other countries to have less democracy and less economic stability.

There should be little concern about American, French, and Dutch oil companies selling some of their business in our country’s oil sector. That there are buyers for such business indicates that the business is not dying and that Nigeria may still earn some foreign exchange from whatever oil business is sold by multinational oil companies. The minister of finance’s disclosure that foreign oil companies make 43% of the revenue from oil while Nigeria makes 57% shows that many oil companies are likely to continue their business in the country. In addition, the fact that China has already replaced the United States as the biggest importer of Nigeria’s crude oil also indicates that buyers of the Nigeria’s oil are likely to be around for years to come.

What is likely to constitute a major challenge to the country is the news that the United States will become the largest supplier of petroleum and gas by 2020 as a result of United States’ capacity to obtain light crude and gas from shale formations through fracking. The possibility that fracking may become available in other technologically advanced countries (including China and India) should be the greatest source of worry for Nigeria, especially its economy and polity.

Since petroleum export accounts for over 80% of Nigeria’s revenue, it is logical that the loss of the 12% of Nigeria’s sweet light bought annually by the United States is going to lead to reduced revenue. Already, in contrast to US import of 11% of Nigeria’s light in 2011, United States’ import from Nigeria in 2012 is put at 5%, a reduction of about 50% revenue flowing into Nigeria from the United States annually. By 2020, the United States may not need to buy one barrel of oil from Nigeria. Moreover, increase in US oil export is also likely to reduce the percentage of Nigeria’s oil imported by other countries. The news that Russia is building pipelines to make delivery of its petroleum to other countries including Germany more cost effective and faster than it used to be will certainly reduce the volume of oil imported from Nigeria worldwide. The discovery of oil in many countries, including the fact that Somalia may have more oil than Kuwait will certainly lead to a glut in the oil market and decline in revenue coming to all oil-exporting countries.

The bad side of reduction in revenue from oil for a country that is largely dependent on oil export is that there may be less money for infrastructure development. Electricity, road and rail transportation will be affected adversely by the flow of less revenue to the country. Consequently, the country’s chance of starting new industries may be hampered substantially. Such situation will fuel further migration of manufacturing companies to other countries with better infrastructure in West Africa or elsewhere on the continent.

Correspondingly, there will be less funding to education by government at all levels, since all the three tiers of government depend on revenue from oil export. The current situation of decline in the quality of education in the country is, more likely than not, to worsen. Consequently, the country’s competitiveness even within Africa will diminish, thus creating the scare of vicious cycle of underdevelopment. The rate of unemployment will also increase nationally. Economic activities in the informal sector (responsible for over 50% of the country’s economic activities) will also decline.

On the good side, there will be less corruption in the country. The demands on dwindling revenue will increase to the point that government at all levels will be more aggressive on taxation. This will increase citizens’ awareness and resistance to stealing of their taxes by their leaders. The current nonchalance by citizens about the stealing of public funds will be replaced by citizens’ anger and hunger for accountability and good governance. The attitude to public funds as deriving from manna and not from contributions from citizens as tax will disappear. Citizens will be more concerned and sensitive to those they elect to rule them; become more critical of the civil service and more aggressive in their demand for transparency and accountability at all levels of government. For example, serious struggle against emoluments to elected officials at federal, state, and local government level will become part of government-citizen relations.

Furthermore on the good side, Nigerians and their leaders will stop hoping for miracles, as the source of economic miracle in the economy will have diminished too much for responsible political to risk not countenancing, as it has been the case for decades since large-scale export of petroleum. As the country struggles with the problem of revenue decline, citizens and their leaders especially will see the sense in shifting their focus from derivation and revenue allocation to production and revenue generation from agriculture in all the states of the federation, as it used to be before discovery of petroleum at Oloibiri. State or regional governments, rather than the federal government, will become drivers of development. And the political structure and culture of the country will be more prone to transformation than it has ever been since 1966.

To be continued next week.

December 16, 2012
‘Unity symbols’ and shadow chasing

No federal legislature has a right to outlaw symbols and emblems of cultural nations within Nigeria

It appears that our National Assembly is indefatigable when it comes to cultivating self-distracting issues. If it is not contesting the site of sovereignty with citizens, it is embroiled in disagreement with the executive over which branch of government should supervise development projects in senatorial constituencies or trying to silence the CBN governor when he finds pleasure in criticizing federal legislators’ exorbitant salaries. When the assembly is not acting as a body, some of its members are quick to engage in, to use popular parlance, heating the polity unnecessarily.

For example, when the legislature finally chooses to countenance citizens’ call for constitutional reforms, the assembly brings to the fore creation of states. Some of their leaders even travel to different parts of the country to promise new states to traditional rulers. When citizens argue that it is not the responsibility of lawmakers to create a people’s constitution, lawmakers claim that as the only site of sovereignty in the country at present, they can manufacture a people’s constitution through tinkering with the 1999 Constitution that has no input from citizens.

The new game in town by federal legislators is to deny citizens their right to information. A few days ago when the Aviation Minister asked the assembly to send out journalists from the hallowed chambers during presentation of her ministry’s budget for next year, legislators quickly accepted to do. Similarly in the same week, members of the legislature refused to listen to presentation of the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The argument is that the persons representing SEC were acting on behalf of SEC’s director-general who is not considered to be on friendly terms with many members of the legislature in Abuja. Is it proper for legislators to stop the work of government because of a disagreement with the head of an agency? Should lawmakers personalize in a puerile manner whatever conflict they have with a public officer? With this decision, the lawmakers are not only creating distractions, they are also trivializing the role of government, particularly that of the executive and the legislature.

As if all these were not enough, honourable lawmakers are now in the process of spending sessions on the right of states to have flags and coats of arms in a federation. The latest game in the national assembly is the threat to outlaw flags, coats of arms, and anthems of states. The thinking of lawmakers is that state emblems can detract from national unity, an argument that clearly confuses the concept of territorial integrity (national unity) with cultural integrity of individual states.

It is hard to know how many of the lawmakers in Abuja or anywhere else in Nigeria are aware that Nigeria before the coming of military dictators used to have national and regional flags flying side by side. Each of the three regions used to have its own coat of arms, in addition to the federal one. There was no threat to the country’s unity because of simultaneous existence of federal and regional flags and anthems. When Eastern Nigeria decided to secede, it was because Igbo leaders believed that people of Eastern Nigeria origin were not safe in northern Nigeria and that the federal government, then controlled by military leaders from the north, were not to be trusted with securing the life and property of citizens from Eastern Nigeria.

Lawmakers have no good reason to feel skittish about the country’s unity simply because states choose to express the cultural diversity of the country. Lawmakers’ attempt to suppress expression of the country’s cultural diversity undermines the country’s motto of unity in diversity. Furthermore, serious lawmakers should have the humility to seek information about other federations in the world before inducing tension between federal and state governments. Our federal legislators need to know that they are operating in a post-military era and that not all the policies and practices bequeathed by military governments can be sustained in a democratic system.

Legislative aides (if any) need to tell lawmakers that most of the countries that operate federalism do have a tradition of at least two levels of symbols of allegiance: federal and state. For example, each of the 50 states in the United States flies two flags daily; the American flag and the flag of each state. Even cities and companies fly their flags daily along with federal and state flags. The same applies to Canada. In South Africa each of the nine provinces has its own flag and coat of arms.

Furthermore, Brazil has 27 state flags in addition to the national flag. Switzerland allows its 26 cantons to have flags and coats of arms. Each canton has a constitution that complements the federal constitution. So does Belgium host 18 flags: one for the country, three for the regions and the rest for the country’s 14 provinces. There are also coats of arms for each level of government. Argentina has one national flag, 23 provincial flags, and a flag for the city of Buenos Aires while Germany has 16 state flags while Austria has nine state flags and coats of arms. India, a co-member of the Commonwealth, has 28 state flags and coats of arms, in addition to the national flag and coat of arms. There are 14 state flags in Malaysia, etc. Nearer home, Ethiopia, a federation, does not have state flags but has provision for secession in its national constitution.

Similarly, there are multiple flags and coats of arms in the country that created Nigeria, the United Kingdom. Apart from flags in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to complement the Union Jack, many cities in England, Scotland, and Wales have flags to accentuate their identities. Yet Britain has not broken into pieces because of symbols and emblems to express Britain’s cultural identity.

Nigeria cannot afford the myopia or intolerance that is illustrated by the call of lawmakers for abrogation of state flags, coats of arms, and pledges. The world has been (and still is) changing faster than the military dictators that reconstructed Nigeria into a unitary system were (and still are) capable of imagining. Despite frantic efforts by leaders of sections of the country to dampen the spirit of cultural identity in a federation, Nigeria must prepare itself for change from the blanket of uniformity draped around it by military dictators through the 1999 Constitution. Lawmakers and cultural leaders who refuse to acknowledge the inevitability of change take the risk of going the way of the dinosaur. No federal legislature has a right to outlaw symbols and emblems of cultural nations within the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

December 9, 2012
New road-side policing?

Citizens need to be properly educated about the role of FRSC and VIO

A few months ago, the current Inspector-General of Police did what most Nigerians had considered impossible. He put an end to police roadblocks across the country. At the beginning, most Nigerians did not believe he would have the courage to keep toll-collecting police officers off the highways and intra-city roads. But as soon as it became clear that the no-nonsense IG was ready to fire road-blocking police officers, Nigerians heaved a sigh of relief and praised the IG for his braveness. A few months after this micro revolution, citizens are back to harassment by new groups of uniformed men on highways and city roads.

Members of the Federal Road Safety Commission appear to have succeeded members of the Nigerian Police Force on road-side duties. FRSC red-capped men and women are now as ubiquitous on all roads between towns as the federal police withdrawn from the road a few months ago. Just like the police before them, FRSC officers stop moving vehicles on the highway and on streets within towns that are clearly not federal roads. Like the NPF men and women, FRSC officers dutifully ask for driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, insurance papers, fire extinguishers, etc. They even stop and delay drivers whose tail lights are out.

I rode with a brother recently. He was flagged down on the Lagos-Ibadan highway around noon. After producing every document requested of him by the FRSC men, he was told that the passenger-side rear light “was not working.” My brother responded that this must have just happened and that he would fix it in Ibadan. I expected the FRSC men to give him a warning, but they quickly handed my brother a N2000 ticket, asking him to turn in his driver’s license. Of course, several mini-buses that were stopped did not experience much delay. They were quick to stretch their hands to the men in red caps. My brother blamed me for refusing to sit at the back. He was right; all the cars with one or two persons at the back were ignored by the officers. I quickly learnt my lesson and chose to sit at the back (at the so-called owner’s corner) on our way back.

On our way back from Ibadan the same day, we saw a new set of road policemen. These were Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO). Like the FRSC officers we saw in the morning, they too were there to ensure safety on the road. Five or so buses were stopped in front of us. Even though we were not flagged down, I got down out of curiosity to ask one of the bus drivers what the problem was. The VIOs were asking commercial bus drivers the same set of questions that we were asked in the morning by FRSC officers. One of the officers came to ask me for my identity and why I had stopped without being asked to do so. I told him I just wanted to know what they were doing on the highway. He told me with a stern look, “doing our job and please do not block the traffic sir.”

Even on Ikeja roads, FRSC and VIO are competing for attention or business. It is not uncommon to come across these men and women within half a mile on the same road on the same day in Ikeja, particularly on Olowopopo Avenue and Agidingbi Road. As if the FRSC and VIO are not enough menace on the roads, men of the Nigerian Customs are also stopping moving vehicles on Funsho Williams Avenue, Ibadan-Ife and Sagamu-Ore roads, to name a few. In their own case, Customs men claim to be searching for smuggled goods. They ask drivers to produce their customs papers, even when the vehicles carry proper registration documents. One Customs officer even accused me between Araromi-Obu and J-4 of driving a car that must have been undervalued, saying “the amount paid on the car was rather small.” I assured the officer that I bought the car in Nigeria from someone who had used it in the country for more than two years before I bought it. I was luckier than other road users. The chubby customs officer released my papers.

One point arising from the replacement of NPF with FRSC, VIO, and NC men on the roads is the increasing harassment of citizens, particularly commercial drivers. It does not make sense to save road users from the menace of one armed force and put them in the jaws of men and women of three other forces. There must be better ways for Customs men to prevent smuggled goods from entering the country. This is why there are ports of entry into the country. Customs officers checking for smuggled goods outside the airport or in places that have no borders with other countries must have ulterior motives.

Citizens need to be properly educated about the role of FRSC and VIO. Are they competing agencies? At the beginning, FRSC officers were to enforce speed limit on highways. VIO was principally responsible for ensuring that those who obtain driver’s license are certified to do so. These two agencies now behave like customs men. They wait outside their offices to ascertain that drivers have proper documents. FRSC men no longer enforce speed limit. They are not even properly equipped to do so. There are no radars to ascertain that drivers are driving within speed limit. There are no signs to indicate speed limit from zone to zone. Unlike what obtains in other countries, there is no agency that certifies periodically that vehicles are safe to be put on the road. In other places, vehicles are checked for mechanical fitness and emission control and certificates are issued for passing such inspection. Para-military men and women are not given beats on the highways to do this.

People calling for death penalty for corruption have to be careful. There may be a need for Sharia sensibility, given the enormity of corruption in the land. But too many (if not all) of our MDAs are designed to encourage corruption. For example, there is no good reason to centralize license and vehicle registration. Any surprise that FRSC is becoming another central police?

December 2, 2012
Constitution: are citizens buying a lemon?

Is there any good reason for the National Assembly to prefer input from civil society and professional groups to that of citizens?

Nigerians had bought a lemon (of a constitution) in the past. In 1999, they went to the polls to elect a post-military government without seeing a copy of the constitution that was designed to guide the doings of the government of Obasanjo and other civilians that succeeded him. The 1999 Constitution that surfaced at the swearing-in ceremony turned out later to be like a vehicle that constantly gives problems or even stops running after it is driven away from the car dealer’s lot.

The joy of the constitution so far is that it has only been giving problems constantly without having to stop working, thanks to the fact that those who make a living to protect it have made tremendous effort to do until the law of importunity from citizens’ call for a new constitution caught up with them. However, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, the real owners of the current constitution, have grudgingly recognized the constitution has problems that need to be fixed. But the federal government’s reluctance is still evident in legislative efforts to efforts amend the constitution. The just concluded public hearings across the six regions or zones (yet to be recognized in the constitution) illustrates federal government’s partial acceptance of citizens’ demand for a new constitution with direct input from citizens. It now appears that, if citizens are not extra vigilant, the amended version of the 1999 Constitution may turn out to be inferior to what is expected.

Given the nature of last week’s public hearings and the tone of the President and leading members of the National Assembly, it is not uncharitable to say that consultations with the citizenry are designed to be cosmetic or symbolic. Last week, legislators devoted not more than eighteen hours to listening to their selected or preferred audience: Civil Society, Interest Groups (whatever that means), Professional Bodies, and other interested persons. The order of the list of invitees indicates that citizens are marginalized, particularly if “Interested Persons” is meant to refer to citizens. Constitutions are not made principally for civil society organisations and professional bodies. They are largely made for citizens. Professional bodies and civil society leaders are not direct or mandated representatives of citizens. It was the citizens and the lands they inhabited in the Colony of Lagos, the Northern and Southern Protectorates that were amalgamated in 1914. It was the citizens of the country through their representatives that obtained independence from the colonial master in 1960, not just civil societies and professional groups.

It is amazing that the federal legislature chose to give civil society and professional groups primary attention at the expense of citizens, the owners of the country and embodiment of its sovereignty. Despite frantic efforts by legislators to claim to be the first set of lawmakers to consult citizens in respect of constitution making, the relegation of citizens’ direct input at the recent public hearings suggests that citizens are tagged at the end of the list principally to add some legitimacy to the National Assembly’s decision to address over 20 distinct items in a constitution that citizens prefer to be replaced, rather than retouched. Any constitution that requires over 20 items to be amended must be a flawed one. And all frantic efforts of the presidency and the legislature to avoid a constitutional conference are not as opaque to citizens as those in power think. Lawmakers need to read Senator Femi Ojudu’s recent lecture at Obafemi Awowolo University on the country’s constitutional journey since the 1940s, to know that Nigerians had in the past elected delegates to participate at constitutional conferences on their behalf.

Is there any good reason for the National Assembly to prefer input from civil society and professional groups to that of citizens? Civil society and professional groups are essentially elite groups. Like the media, civil society organisations committed to democracy are in a good position to act on behalf of the citizenry. But none of them can boast in any country to be acting with direct mandate from citizens. The voice of civil society and professional groups should be in addition to that of citizens, not in lieu of it.

Without doubt, citizens are able to see through resistance at every level of the federal government to refer any of the amendments they make to a referendum. Both the National Assembly and the Presidency are quick to ward off demands for a referendum to ascertain citizens’ wish. The argument that the National Assembly has no authority to refer its amendments to a referendum because there is no provision for plebiscite in the current constitution is not strong. Isn’t the same legislature asking for amendments to provisions on state creation and constitutional amendment? Nothing should stop lawmakers from making provisions for a referendum and asking citizens to voice their acceptance or rejection in a plebiscite.

There is a subtle attempt by those controlling the process of amending the current constitution to create distractions that can justify insignificant amendment at the end of the day. Emphasis on state creation represents such distraction. Local leaders seeking power and privilege are already falling into the trap that can lead to derailing of the amendment in a manner that re-echoes the effect of Obasanjo’s tenure elongation. Obasanjo’s attitude to the 1999 Constitution was not different from Jonathan’s, just as the attitude of the legislature during Obasanjo’s tenure did not differ from that of today’s National Assembly. In principle and contrary to citizens’ perspective, both groups believe that there is no problem with the 1999 Constitution and that the problem facing Nigeria is how to keep it united.

There is a need for more sincerity between the federal government and the citizens regarding persistent calls for a people’s constitution. Two days of public hearings between legislators from each region in a city far from most citizens in each region may not go far enough to sustain the unity that our country needs direly. Nigerians cannot afford to buy a lemon again.

November 25, 2012