The Federal Government of Nigeria on May 14, declared a state of emergency in three states north-eastern states. The comments I want to make are not directed to ‘fire brigade’ action. I am more interested in the perhaps less exciting subject of constitution making. And the angle from which I am approaching this matter is that Nigeria has been in crises right from the beginning. Certain individuals only recently were reported to have threatened ‘fire and brimstone’ should they fail to have their way in matters that concern all Nigerians. I refer the reader to the comments as contained in The Guardian editorial of Monday, May 13, under the title ‘Kuku, Asari-Dokubo and the limits of blackmail’. The comments responded to the threats made by these named individuals, “against the background of the fragility of Nigeria’s security today…” It was pointed out that, such threats that there won’t be peace in the land if so-and-so did not happen, is not new; that supposedly respectable persons had also in the past adopted the practice of blackmail.
A lot of commentators point to constitutional imbalances as the cause of our crises and, in consequence, argue for a constitutional conference to address the problem. I agree with this conclusion, however, reject one thesis in particular, put forward in making the case for a new constitution. My interest therefore is to draw attention to one or more misconceptions that have attended the argumentation in favour of a constitutional re-balancing.
The case for a national self-reflection of a fundamental sort indeed makes itself in the light of the on-going crises. Not intending to rehash the substantive arguments for a constitutional conference, I would nonetheless refer to some of the matters that have been adduced as grounds for it, and for negating it. I am in doing so rather inspired by this dictum of Francis Bacon that “Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion”. It would seem to follow that we should guard more vigorously against confusions. Whatever the case, the important point is really for the need for some vision on the part of our leaders. A clarity of vision requires first and foremost an understanding of where one is coming from and, secondly, where one wants to go. I wish in this regard to disavow some of the propositions put forward by Professor Ogundowole of the University of Lagos in his essay titled: ‘Conference of the sovereigns is inevitable’, in The Punch newspaper in May 8-9.
The case for a properly executed conference for the purpose of instituting a sound basis for a stable and viable future should be made with the acute awareness that there are no easy answers to the task of building a modern political community. If there should be one single cause for the general malaise in Nigeria, I would put my finger on immorality, social and political. But then morality is an abstract concept, which, without more may not help us in our search for solutions to concrete problems. However, because ideas, it has been said, rule the world and, according to the philosopher Shelling, the only thing that infuses action with “energy and ethical significance”, the specific political-constitutional question(s) confronting us can only be approached initially abstractly. Political morality: what is it? An unavoidable question, which is to be considered in context.
Constitutionalism as a principle, the idea of limited government or a government under the rule of the law is a derivative of the idea of political morality. A glaring example of a practice opposed to political morality is the case referred to above of certain individuals using blackmail to gain political advantage. The openness to negotiation and compromise and the preparedness for talks, coupled with the humility required to engage others in reasonable arguments, are the hallmarks of the practice of political morality.
The argument is made that it lies within the province of the elected representatives of the people to choose to or not to deliberate about the all-too-familiar fundamental constitutional questions. In regard to this, it is worth emphasizing that whilst errors and confusions may be excusable, dishonesty is quite a different matter. Anyone capable of intellectual dishonesty and lacking a sense of personal integrity is not fit to hold a public office at any level of political life. The National Assembly’s claim to sovereignty is in respect to law making only; in like manner, the legitimate powers of the Federal Government and state governments are in respect to governance respectively of the Nigerian State and the states. But sovereignty as such, i.e. unlimited and unqualified, derives, as it is stated in the Constitution, from the peoples of Nigeria. The simple explanation (which most Nigerians can understand) why the National Assembly is not apt to make this new constitution is that the questions to be addressed are much more fundamental than the power to make laws, execute and adjudicate on them.
Regarding the question of the structure of Nigeria in relation to the constitutional question, I will for the sake of brevity restrict myself to only one issue raised in Professor Ogundowole’s essay. I agree of course entirely with the conclusion as it relates to the desirability of a properly convened national constitutional conference. However, I do shrink from the unmitigated focus on the nationality question. Problematizing national identities can only lead to uneasy relationships amongst different groups. My position is not to deny or erase ‘the reality’ of different nationalities, corresponding to different cultural, ethnic and other identities. The point to note is that most, if not all, modern states are characterised by a multiplicity of different identities, including that of ethnicity. It is the challenge of statecraft to seek to find the possibility of a common life amongst different peoples.
In as much as I am strongly committed to making the case for a constitutional conference, I believe too in the imperative of the right culture of politics – the ideal of a political morality. There can be no substitute for it regardless of the unity or diversity of any nation-state. I assume that Nigerians want to live in and be part of the modern world. Modernity requires the capacity to be outward-looking and to assume different identities. Our politics must be able to transcend identity politics. If one should think that I am being utopian, I would be quick to raise my hand in acknowledgment. But I ask this – how else do you bring about any positive change through politics, without some sense of idealism – as opposed to some spurious realism.
Professor Ogundowole has faith only in what he describes as the individuation of nation states. Taking this doctrine to its logical conclusion would mean that we ought to have over 250 nation states in Nigeria. He referred to the case of the United Kingdom, and is enamoured of the Scottish Independent Party’s drive for independence. However, some Scots are making the case for independence on grounds other than their scottishness, namely, economic and other arguments. A union that has lasted over 300 years could not have been a terribly dysfunctional and an unhappy arrangement.
• Oti, BL, LLM, Solicitor, wrote from Manchester, England
