The Nation Newspaper

Category: Insight

  • ‘Those calling for restructuring should give us blueprint’

    Elder statesman, Alhaji Salihu Abubakar Tanko Yakasai, speaks with KOLADE ADEYEMI on the clamour for restructuring, Nigeria, he insists should be restructured, adding that there is the need to go back to the 1963 constitution which prescribed four regions. 

    What is your take on restructuring? My take is that there are so many people who are talking about restructuring, but none of them has come out with a blueprint as to what restructuring will be for Nigerians. Of course, you see when different people are talking on an issue with different perspectives, then, you don’t know who to address; but in my opinion, I have been waiting for somebody to articulate what restructuring is all about. The first time I heard of what restructuring should be was when the former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, talked of going back to the 1963 Constitution.

    After him, when the Afenifere leaders met in Ibadan, they also talked about it. They adopted their resolution; I got their resolution, I read it and the only thing I find difficult to understand is that they said we should we go back to the 1963 Constitution.  The 1963 Constitution has four regionsNorth, East, West and Mid-West. But in Ibadan, they talked of six regions! If you are talking of six regions, you are not talking of going back to the 1963 Constitution.  That is where I disagree with the Afenifere leaders.

    I want those who are agitating for restructuring  Nigeria to come out with a blueprint in black and white so that we can keep it in the archives; so that one day when they come to change their views, then we will tell them that this is what you advocated. If we got it in black and white, you, I and everybody will know that   this is what they want. Why do I want it in black and white? I want it in black and white because the same people who are now agitating for restructuring were part of the people who agitated for the creation of more states in Nigeria way back to 1954!

    Gradually, Nigerians acceded to their demands and now, we ended up starting with one stateMid-West, and then they were supporting northerners for Middle Belt state or region; and they went to support for Calabar/Ogoja/Rivers State. Now, eventually, Rivers State was created, Calabar/Ogoja was created as South-East, and later they were separated to Akwa Ibom and Cross River States. So, now, gradually people started to demand for more states until we reach the present stage of 36 states.

    In my opinion, many of the states created were unjustifiable, because why should there be an Osun State from Oyo State? They are the same Yoruba speaking people, the same religious backgroundMuslim or Christians, they speak the same language, they have the same culture. Why should there be two states there? Why should there be a Jigawa State in Kano, whereas the people speak the same language and of the same culture? Why should there be a Zamfara, Kebbi, and Sokoto states separately, when the entire people are the same people?

    The origin of the agitation for the creation of states was for the minorities to be free from the domination of the majority. Now, if you create state in Oyo for instance, you created Osun, who is oppressing who? They are all Yoruba! But be that as it may, now, I personally, not on behalf of anybody, on my own behalf, Tanko Yakasai, I support the return to 1963 Constitution. And I appeal to all Nigerians to lend their support to the 1963 Constitution. You see, I want to appeal to Nigerians to understand that until we give Afenifere what they are looking for, if care is not taken, they will put this country into trouble. They did it beforeit was the Western crisis where human beings were set ablaze alive that gave the military excuse to stage a coup de tat in 1966.

    Now, unless care is taken, this issue which is to me a non-issue can easily spark off crisis in this country. And nobody knowsthere are anti-democratic forces in Nigeria, whether you like it or not, and they can easily penetrate the military, use money and gave the military the lee way to scuttle the nascent democracy that we have started. So, please, I am appealing to all Nigerians to let Afenifere get what they wantrestructuringwhich is going back to the 1963 Constitution, so that we can have peace. Unless Nigerians meet the demand of the Afenifere, Nigeria will not have peace, I can tell you this because I know them very well.

    Two northern leaders, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Military President, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida are also in favour of restructuring. What do you make out from their stand on the issue?

    Alhaji Aiku Abubakar is talking of restructuring, but from my understanding what Atiku is looking for, actually, is devolution of power. What he is advocating for, whether he defines it as restructuring or anything else is nothing but devolution of powerthat is, transferring item from exclusive list to concurrent list.  I want Nigerians to understand that if you transfer any item from exclusive list to the concurrent list, you are not denying the federal government any of these powers.  All you are saying is that you are extending that power to the state to take part in it. Now, according to our Constitution, anywhere a state makes a law which is in conflict with a law made by the National Assembly, the law made by the state will be   null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.

    So, how I wish that Atiku and Babangida waited for those agitating for restructuring to articulate their positions properly before announcing their support. What they are supporting is different from what people are agitating for. But, I will appeal to the two of them, Babangida and Atiku, in the name of God, to please lend their support to the return of Nigeria to the 1963 Constitution.

    Between restructuring and Constitution amendment, which do you think Nigeria need at the moment?

    Well, the problem of Nigeria is that of leadership. Other countries that were on the same pedestal with Nigeria are now ahead of us because they got it right.  They got the type of leadership that would move their countries forward. They succeededMalaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, India, and the rest of them.  So, if people say restructure, then grant them. But my concern is that the amount of energy and time that we are spending talking about restructuring is getting into my head. It is not necessary. If all the time we dedicated to the debate on restructuring have been devoted to the development of ideas as to how Nigeria can move forward, how can we get a better leadership in Nigeria, how are we going to develop agriculture, how are we going to have sufficient power so that we can create condition for industrialization, we would have made some progress. We wasted time agitating for something which in my opinion is neither there nor here. So, let us agree and accept going back to the 1963 Constitution so that we can have peace and move forward.

    Fifty seven years after independence, what exactly do you think the leadership should fix so that the country can move forward?

    You see, let me say it again, all the countries that developed planned their programmes and decided to implement their programmes step by step to reach where they are. I was in China 57 years ago; China was highly underdeveloped like Nigeria. I was surprised when I went to China in 1960, to see university students, girls, carrying shovels, head pans and digger to carry concrete for building roads. If you go to the high hills, the driver will put off the engine of his car, and will move until he reaches the balance, then he will ignite the car, simply to conserve fuel, because they experienced fuel shortage in their country.  Now, look at the Chinese, they are the ones building roads everywhere. They have gone far; they are number one now in the whole world. They are building railways, they are building trains. They built a train that can run   350 miles per hour; and in fact, initially, they built the one that ran faster, but there was an accident, and because of that they reduced the speed. They have now built their own aircraft. Brazil, which was at the same level with us when we had Peugeot assembly plant, we started together with Brazil, but now they build their own war ship, they build ship and vessel for commercial activities. They build their own aircraft, they build their own cars, they build everything. Now, we are lagging behind, why? It is because of lack of leadership.

    So, now, let us concentrate on getting the right leadership. There are five essential ingredients for good leadershipthat is a leadership that wants to change the society to a better place ought to have these five ingredients. One of the five ingredients is capacity, number two is competence, number three is vision, number four is planning, number five is integrity. If you have integrity and you have no capacity, it is useless, you cannot do anything; if you have integrity and you have no competence, you cannot do anything; if you have integrity and you have no vision, you cannot achieve anything; you have integrity, you have no planning, you cannot achieve anything. So, this country needed a leadership that has a combination of these five very important ingredients. Now, where we are not able to have that, at least, let us have a leadership that has two most important ingredientscapacity and integrity. You see, with capacity, you know what you can do, with integrity; you know that you will tell people what you cannot do, and look for people who will help and do what you cannot do. This is what we are looking for in Nigeria, to move this country forward.

  • Restructuring is a cliché and a slogan- Junaid Mohammed

    Restructuring is a cliché and a slogan- Junaid Mohammed

    As the nation turns 57 today, a Second Republic member of the House of Representatives, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, otherwise called the “Stormy Petrel” of the North shares his views with Managing Editor, Northern Operation, Yusuf Alli, on the journey so far and the raging restructuring debate. Excerpts

    Nigeria is 57 old, what is your assessment of our journey so far?

    It is a very difficult question but to some extent, I can give my personal experience. I will try to answer. First, I believe it is worth congratulating ourselves because we have survived as a nation which was born in 1914 and subsequently had her independence on 1st October, 1960. The contradictions which afflicted the Nigerian state were enormous and any other country would not have survived. But suddenly we survived. It is a cause for congratulations. Having said that, I think it will be unfair, unreasonable and unrealistic to underestimate the problems which Nigerian state have been confronted with and are still confronting as a state today. It is the problem of lack of elite cohesion. Nigerian elites have been fairly irresponsible. They have been unhistorical in most of what they did and more often than not, they have converted public service in the form of politics to a form of personal aggrandizement due to primordial instinct and agitations for their tribe, religion, zones and regions. That has been inimical to the development of Nigeria as a country and that has been very unfortunate. It is unfortunate more so because Nigeria was born in 1914 with enormous potentials. The fact that we failed miserably to convert the potentials to existential and developmental reality has been a very unfortunate development. As you said, the hope we have, after the latest spate of agitations, is for Nigerian leaders to still comeback to the drawing board and begin to describe how realistically we can move the nation forward in terms of development. The context of development will be how to deal with the problems of poverty, under-employment, under-development, delivery of essential services in education, health care, security and the rest. These are very important aspects and I believe they ought to engage the energy and intelligence of Nigerian elites instead of wasting our time raising up agitations,  since a couple of half a decade or so,  in which at the end of the day nothing has been resolved.

    Is it possible to have permanent solutions to Nigerian Problems?

    No, not all. No nation has permanent solutions because if you don’t have permanent problems, manifesting in definite permanent way, there is no way you can have what you called permanent solutions. But you can resolve problems as they arise by being on the alert and being realistic and reasonable. You don’t reduce people you disagree with by calling them names, castigating them, and saying that they are beggars and so forth. By doing so, you are not creating the necessary avenue and understanding of a reasonable exchange of views, intercourse and dialogue. It is not every time someone disagrees with you genuinely, otherwise you strictly start abusing him. That is the tendency I have noticed over the years. I had been in public service and I have been around for over 40 years. So, I believe problems will always arise but goodwill, consensus in trying to concede and do give-and-take will always solve so many problems no matter how daunting.

    Let’s return to the drawing board. Does it amount to restructuring?

    No. I should have asked you to define for me what restructuring is because so far, in the course of this latest agitation, I have not had a single explanation or rendition of what is called restructuring. If we are saying that we have had the problems we are now having today in Nigeria because we did not restructure, you should be able to tell us what restructuring is. This is a very old concept in having dialogue and contestation. It is as old as the Roman Empire and before then, the Greek City states. If you want to commence a discussion, you will want to do so by defining your thoughts. At least those thoughts are defined, and at least there is agreement among the people who are participating in the discussion. What are the basic terms, those are what you will deal with but any attempt to engage in throwing big planks does not solve any problem. It is unlikely to solve any problem so, I will want to know for those who are agitating for this position to tell us what restructuring is and at least tell us, why is this time around, it is so unique to our existence. There has been nothing like that since 1915 to 1960 or from 1960 to date. Unless I hear another, you won’t want to waste my time trading water.

    So you don’t subscribe to restructuring?

    I want to know what it is. I still want. Yusuf tell me what restructuring is and maybe I will make up my mind on what I agree with.

    Like true federalism, state police, etc?

    Apart from state police, which can be understood and we have to explain this, I don’t know what you are talking about on true federalism. Federalism first is the way of governing the society. It is not unique to Nigeria or any country. It is a way of governing a society which has something to call for in terms of devolution of powers at the local level. At higher level, you concede certain powers to some sections at the state level. It is not something you come and contest. You look at specific issues. For instance, do we allow each state to have its own land? No. It will be suicidal. Do we allow each state to print its own currency? Madness! It doesn’t make any sense. What of the regulation of banking and currency in any society? You have to have certain level of federalizing currency, banking management, how you control debts, and regulating interest rate in an economy. These are all very important issues but you have to treat them one by one and decide what you want to do with it and how it affects our national life.

    Since you said you want true federalism, tell me which one is false federalism? For instance, for the sake of this discussion, I will name certain countries including the US, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Britain, Russia, China which are federations. You can see they are vastly different. Why? Because at each instance, the citizens of  these countries (in just their basic laws in their constitutions ) decided what areas to cede to the national government and what areas to reserve in various second and third tiers of government at the state level. You know what you call them here -the local government. So, we have to be very careful. We should know what we are talking about and I don’t like wasting my time on issues which have not been properly digested. Let me tell you, restructuring is a cliché and a slogan. It is very easy for Nigerians to adopt it. We want true federalism, we want resource control. You have to be able to define restructuring. That’s one thing I find very difficult to understand. So we have to be very careful.

  • Towards a reinvention of Nigeria: Prospects and pitfalls

    Towards a reinvention of Nigeria: Prospects and pitfalls

    (Remarks by Prof. Adebayo Williams at the maiden edition of Soapbox NG organised by the Initiative for Dialogue and Development in Abuja on  September 28)

    Preamble and protocols

    Chairman, illustrious members of the High Table, distinguished Nigerians in the hall please permit me to quickly establish the order of protocol. First, I want to thank the organisers of this Maiden Edition of Soapbox for a wonderful idea of bringing together compatriots from diverse political cultures and different fields together to rub minds about the problems confronting the country and to proffer solutions for the way forward.

    In the dire circumstances in which we have found ourselves, a soapbox is not a box for soapy sentimentalities. I shall therefore dispense with sentiments in the analysis and solutions offered. It is curious that for a nation of normally voluble and verbally talented people, we seldom hold genuine dialogue among ourselves. Threats, recriminations, diatribes, infantile tirades, hate-suffused ethnic propaganda and summary state clampdown have become the currency of personal and group exchanges as well as the denominator of national dialogue.

    We can surely not continue like this. We must find within ourselves the inner strength and resolve to discover the lost soul of Nigeria for the sake of posterity and for the salvation of the Black race. It is in the nature of nations to experience periodic crises as new challenges of development surface. No nation or human society is exempt from conflicts. Many of these crises arise from old errors of political engineering, fresh lapses of statesmanship and totally unforeseen circumstances. What is important is to find the will and the wisdom to overcome the hurdles.

    For example, when we glibly mouth a return to the regional arrangement of the First Republic ——-which many believe remains Nigeria’s golden age— we tend to forget that regionalism or Regional Federalism was a product of arduous but fruitful dialogue, negotiation and compromise among our First Republic political leaders under the watchful supervision of the colonial masters. They were compelled by historical circumstances to appreciate differences arising from different political orientation and cultures to forge a nation united in and by competitive diversities.

    In the event, an Obafemi Awolowo, from a background of federating Yoruba fiefdoms, was nudged into dropping his classical and Utopian notion of federalism to adopt a more pragmatic version. Zik, the quintessential Black intellectual who saw the whole Black race as his oyster, was weaned away from his romantic unitarist worldview to accommodate federalism tailored to local needs while Ahmadu Bello, the arch-royalist with a conservative proto-theocratic notion of the nation, was persuaded to drop the confederalist vision with which he sought to develop his more politically cohesive but educationally underdeveloped region in protective isolation from the rampaging south.

    Succeeding and subsequent generations of Nigerians hardly appreciate this feat of political engineering and sacrifice by the three titans of the First Republic. It saved Nigeria from looming dismemberment or summary Pakistanization. In a tribute to political skills and collective brilliance, they managed to insert federalism into the Nigerian union without firing a single shot. We must discard the romantic notion that Nigeria started out as a federal state. The forcible amalgamation of diverse nationalities was a colonial unitarist fiat imposed on conquered people and not an association of freely federating people.

    Having established the conceptual framework for this intervention, it is not my intention to bore the audience with a tedious regurgitation of the subsequent crises that have hobbled Nigeria’s march to authentic nationhood. What I now intend to do are threefold. First, I intend to direct attention to some curious and intriguing dimensions of the current crisis. Second and flowing from this, I intend to confront some unhelpful myths arising from the current crisis. Finally, I intend to offer a few strategic suggestions.

    New dimensions of an old crisis

    Sixty years after the advent of regional government, at no other time in their history have Nigerians been this bitterly divided and polarized along ethnic, class, regional and religious lines. Even the ruling party, a product of a pan-Nigerian clamour for good governance and accountability, the gains of national awareness and the exceptionality of the Nigerian nation have been dissipated.

    In retrospect it must be said that the Fourth Republic took off in inauspicious circumstances with the enabling constitution introduced after military departure, like an accessory after the fact. To compound this awkward learning process, a substantial segment of the north declared Sharia as the operative grundnorm in open revolt against the imperative of a secular modern state.

    Few now remember that this was a failed attempt at a forcible restructuring of the nation by those who believed that they had been visited with a political and economic misfortune. It is a miracle that this did not eventuate in a nasty constitutional conundrum. But this harbinger of unresolved national contradictions pales into insignificance when compared with the pan-Nigerian valency the renewed clamour for restructuring has assumed a decade and half later.

    Everybody and every nationality seem to have their grievances. Fear of other nationalities is masquerading as the fact of the nation. Hell is no longer the other but the other Nigerian. We now have the Yoruba Question, the Igbo Question, the Hausa/Fulani Question and the Minorities Question all embedded in the intractable National Question.

    Let us face reality. The economic dimension to this crisis is what has turned it into a political duel on to death among the fractious political class and also between them and an increasingly restive pan-Nigerian, multi-national underclass groaning under the yoke of corruption and criminal mismanagement of national resources. The fierce struggle for dwindling national resources compounded by elite mismanagement, the consequences of a mono-cultural economy, inability to compete in the knowledge economy and the destabilising ravages of globalization, have all turned contemporary Nigeria into a virtual war zone.

    Consequently, electoral defeat has not been accepted with the grace and equanimity which nourish democracy and facilitate the democratic process. On the other hand, electoral triumph has not been managed with the generosity of spirit and statesmanlike rectitude which conduce to national cohesiveness and elite reconciliation.

    The fear of economic annihilation arising from political defeat has spawned a morbid hatred for an all-powerful and aggravating centre and a resurgence of ethnic animosities on a scale that has never been witnessed in the history of the nation. The suspicion of the victors that this is a wicked ploy to destabilise the country and deny them the fruits of their electoral triumph has in turn induced a siege mentality in government circles which has led to a breakdown of elite consensus and conciliation.

    The cost of this face-off has been prohibitive for the nation. What we are witnessing is a classic instance of supposedly democratic elections exacerbating the National Question rather than ameliorating it. Consequently, it has drowned the legitimate clamour for a restructuring of the governance architecture and foundational category of the nation which preceded the Fourth Republic in an ocean of confusion and allegations of bad faith. If the alternative version of the narrative is to be believed, the call for restructuring is steeped in deliberate mischief and malice whose ultimate aim is to make the country ungovernable.

    Eric Blair, aka George Orwell, the master of Orwellian double-speak, would have been chuckling in his grave. So politicised is the language of restructuring in contemporary Nigeria that it can mean perfectly different things to different people at different places and at different times. Rather than see restructuring as a normal and natural phenomenon in the life of a nation, a historical imperative and precondition for renewal and revitalization and a sine qua non for reenergizing and liberating the diverse energies and genius of the people, those who believe they hold the unitarist ace of permanent political domination see the clamour as an attempt to whittle down or dismantle their electoral dominion.

    On the other hand, there are those who view the unitarist and lopsided arrangement as conferring a structural and systemic electoral advantage on a section of the nation which reduces others to a condition of economic and political slavery which is a virtual negation of their right to ethnic self-actualization. The most extreme reaction to this is the renewed clamour for secession from the east and strident calls for a referendum which will determine the basis and further relevance of the nation should restructuring not be on the cards.

    Few voices of reason are rising above this din of national confusion and chaos. Yet unless we are ready to go to full scale war, it is obvious that both sides of the divide will have to change tack and yield positions in a strategic national dialogue in which all fears and grievances are brought on the table and ironed out. Hysterical and hate-filled calls for restructuring will not be enough in a bitterly polarized polity. But neither will futile resistance and unhelpful demonization of the nation-wide calls for restructuring stem the tide of an idea whose time has come.

    There are opponents of restructuring who believe that no amount of structural tinkering will drive corruption away as long as the dominant political culture remains. Government at the subnational level is a mirror-image of government at the national level. According to this school of thought, except in a few instances, the restructuring of the nation to “federating” states has brought neither accelerated development nor sustained impactful governance to the people.

    If the quarrel had been over what manner of restructuring, it would have been easier to deal with. But there are those who claim not to understand what the whole business or basis of restructuring is all about. Proponents and adherents of restructuring must show why it is in the overall national interest and not a punitive expedition against a section of the nation while adherents of the status quo must educate us about how to navigate the statist gridlock and perpetual underdevelopment that the nation has found itself in a more competitive and economically challenging world.

    Myths and Counter-myths

    As it should be expected in a divided and bitterly polarized polity, the battle for restructuring in Nigeria has produced its own enabling myths and counter-myths. Political contestations for the soul of a nation are often fought under ideological occlusions in such a way that value-laden and heavily partisan terms come cloaked with the garb of objectivity and political neutrality. In order to facilitate strategic national dialogue certain myths and counter-myths have to be properly decoded.

    The first of such myths is the widespread notion particularly in official circles that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable. This is the equivalent of a noble lie; an overstatement of insecurity which occurs when what is at hand does not approximate to what is on ground. There is no unity that is not negotiable. As a matter of fact, in order to become more united and more organic, all unity based on diversities must be constantly reinforced and renegotiated. This is the way to what the Americans call “ a more perfect union”.

    When many respected Nigerian nationalists who witnessed first- hand the brutalities and bestialities of the civil war insist that the unity of the nation is non-negotiable, what they actually mean is that the forcible unification of the nation by colonial masters cannot be negotiated. This only betrays an empire and military mind-set.

    Unification is not unity. Unification is an act of summary violence whereas unity is a sustained and affective process of emotional binding and bonding among diverse people. Unification can only produce Nigeria. It is unity that will produce authentic and organic Nigerians. As an Italian patriot famously declared: “Now that we have created Italy, it is time to create Italians”.

    It is useful to recall examples from other climes. Charles de Gaulle was not only a great soldier, he was also a great visionary statesman and a great writer to boot. When he was recalled to power by his military colleagues after twelve years in political limbo with the express mandate to keep Algeria as part of France at all costs, the great soldier weighed all the prohibitive possibilities and promptly commenced the process of Algerian independence. For his pains, he became a victim of serial assassination attempts.

    The second myth is actually a counter-myth aimed at proponents of the first myth. There are those who drive the argument to the extremity that since Nigerians did not buy into or sign on to the military constitution of 1999 which surfaced after the inauguration of the civilian administration, the Fourth Republic subsists in a condition of constitutional nullity which conduces to political chaos and eventual anarchy.

    But the objective reality remains. No country can exist in a constitutional vacuum. A constitution curtails and constraints and is often an accurate reflection of the balance of forces at play at a particular historical conjuncture. This is akin to bolting the door of the stable after the horse had fled. To the best of our knowledge, there was no widespread resistance and protests when the constitution was foisted on the nation.

    The political class and the people kept mute happy to see the new democratic dawn and having been exhausted by the military politics of attrition. Until Nigerians find the will and the critical mass to renounce some of its grosser political absurdities or its outright repeal in a situation of radical turmoil, the 1999 constitution will continue to constitute an obstacle to peace, political progress and economic prosperity in Nigeria.

    The third and final myth insists that what Nigeria needs is not the much ballyhooed notion of political restructuring but a restructuring of the mind. Without this re-engineering of the soul, the proponents insist, everything put on the decaying foundation is dead on arrival. On face value, this is full of native wisdom and elementary common sense. It is said that no straight furniture can be procured from crooked timber.

    But on deeper examination, it is a conceptual nonstarter, a red herring thrown in to destabilise the debate and render the outcome nugatory.  No restructuring of the mind can take place outside of the objective reality that conditions and in the last instance determines the state of the mind. The state of the mind is a product of the material and political reality at play at any particular time.

    For example, the military mind-set which conduces to autocracy and unitary governance is a product of historical and material forces at play at a particular conjuncture. Under grave historical pressures and antagonistic mass-momentum this mind-set gradually gave way to new realities in an involuntary restructuring of the mind.

    Former military kingpins became converted democrats with some playing the lead violin. Some of their colleagues who were farsighted enough to see that military rule had become unsustainable paid the supreme sacrifice for the enthronement of civil rule. This has not prevented many others who fought for military despotism from enjoying the dividends of democracy and reaping from where they did not sow.

    This is the way of history. In any group, class, social formation or even nation, there can be no uniform consciousness or uniformity of mental clarity.  The enthronement of democracy in Nigeria did not exempt or exclude those who fought against democracy. The beneficial advantages of a properly restructured Nigeria will also not preclude those who fight overtly or covertly against restructuring.

    Recommendations

    1 President Buhari should go immediately for the clusters of consensus and low hanging fruits by initiating a Bill for the structural unbundling of an overburdened centre through the removal of several agreed items from the current Exclusive List and their devolution to the constituting states in a way and manner that does not enfeeble or endanger the manifest destiny of the nation.

    2 The Federal Government should initiate the process for the convening of a Strategic National Dialogue of Leaders of Thought that will deliberate on the appropriate structure and governance architecture for a multi-ethnic nation with a timeline for producing a document which will serve as a basis for a major constitutional reconfiguration of the nation.

    3 This being a young country with over seventy percentage of the population under thirty years, the future belongs to the youth, the presidency should convene a Stakeholders’ Consultative Forum comprising of Youth Organizations, Student Groups, Civil Society Groups, Civic Bodies and Labour to deliberate on the state of the nation and come up with recommendations on the type of nation they want.

    4  As we have mooted in an earlier column but now dependent on the outcome of 1 , 2 and 3 above, the government should  establish a Commission for Vertical and Horizontal Integration which will take a holistic look at the class, ethnic, religious and gender divisions of the nations and come up with continuous ameliorative measures. This is the best way to put centrifugal forces in permanent focus should replace the moribund agencies foisted on the nation by military rule.

    I thank you all for the opportunity.

  • Nigeria can’t wish away restructuring -Adiukwu

    Nigeria can’t wish away restructuring -Adiukwu

    Frontline female politician and former governorship candidate in Lagos State, Chief Remi Adiukwu, in this interview with Dare Odufowokan, Assistant Editor, talks about failure of successive governments to address the unending agitation for true federalism.

    What is your take on the ongoing restructuring debate?

    Restructuring means different things to different people in Nigeria today. It is a term that is now very misunderstood. It is only due to this misunderstanding of the term that we will still be seeing people who openly oppose the call for restructuring. By the time you interview six people, you are likely going to have six diverse meanings and or explanations for the same word.

    For me, restructuring is another simple way of describing true federalism. The reorganization of the status quo, hopefully for a better result, is what I understand restructuring to mean. But this is not what some people see it as. There is no other way to better explain the term in the context of what Nigerians want and what Nigeria needs now than to equate it to true federalism.

    Is restructuring also the same as Constitution amendment?

    Not at all. I told you it is better to describe it as the return to true federalism in the socio-political arrangement of the country. That is not the same as mere constitutional amendment. It is far more than that. Constitutional amendment is one of the ingredients needed to make restructuring possible. There are others like referendum etc.

    For me, restructuring is more than just the redistribution of power, resources etc in the country. That is what this is all about to some people. That is why somebody can tell you resource control is the solution to the country’s problem. Others will say it is zoning that will solve all our problems. I don’t think so. I believe these are just part of the issues we need to consider when discussing the whole issue. True federalism will address all these and more.

    Why has it been difficult for successive governments to address the issue of restructuring in spite of unending agitation year in year out?

    The agitation for restructuring is as old as our democracy, if not older. It is strange that no government has successfully addressed the call. But if you ask me, I will say it has been a deliberate omission on their part. It is not possible to say that no government understood the call enough to address it. That was definitely not the case.

    Rather, I will say it is because the ruling parties benefit from the present arrangements. With the centre as strong as it is now, any ruling party would not be very eager to make a change. The power at the centre is quite enormous and anyone ruling will not want to whittle this down. Making the required change will need great selflessness and patriotism.

    And what Nigeria lacked all along are selfless and genuinely patriotic leaders. Unless we put such people who will look beyond personal interest and group satisfaction and consider national interest above party interest, it will be difficult to get a ruling party or government that will holistically and genuinely address the agitation for restructuring.

    How best do you think the country can handle the issue of restructuring?

    There is no better way than for us to sit down and discuss the issue as a people. That is the only way because it has become an issue in Nigeria and we cannot wish it away. It must be handled with maturity and wisdom. Let there be a referendum first and then move to other stages. For once, the people, and I mean the real people, must be allowed to say what they want.

    It is when we allow the people to talk through a referendum that we can now decide on what next to do. Let us take the many requests to the people. Let us ask Nigerians what they really want. It is when you know what the sickness is that you can proffer the right medications. We cannot continue to assume what should be okay for the people. Let us seek their candid opinion and act on that.

    Do you also think it is only the National Assembly that should be allowed to amend the Constitution?

    No, I don’t think so. The issue confronting us is more than just that. If we want a lasting solution, we must do more than the usual. We cannot continue to do things the same way and now sit down expecting different results. We must go out of our way to find the best way to address the issue holistically. It is when we do that that we can get the right answers to the many questions confronting us as a people.

    We have had several constitutional amendments in the country. Has that solved the problem? The answer is no. So, I think we need more than just that. If we say it is only the National Assembly that will amend the constitution and that will solve the agitation for restructuring, we will be engaging in great fallacy that will return to haunt us.

    What’s your opinion of Nigeria at 57?

    Nigeria at 57 is still experimenting. Infrastructure development is still at base level. Education is wobbling and fumbling. Power has not improved. One can go on and on. But the truth is that we give God the glory, we remain one. That we are still one united country is something to rejoice about. We have had so many scary situations in recent past that it is worth thanking God that Nigeria is still one country.

    You are a chieftain of the opposition party. What do you think PDP should do to reposition itself as a strong political platform?

    It is no gainsaying to say our party is repositioning itself for serious political business as a leading political party in the country. But to ensure that PDP should reconcile all factions in all states. But in the same vein, those who had proved beyond any doubts that they have no good intentions towards the party should be sanctioned.

    The party must henceforth be bigger than any individual or group within the party. Those who want to be leaders through the courts should leave the party for us to have peace. It is when we have ensured that across the country; we do not have contending factions or groups within the party that we can say PDP is truly ready to return to winning ways.

    How do you see the reconciliation effort in PDP?

    The reconciliation process, so far, is quite encouraging. The States are happy with the way and manner the Committee is handling the reconciliation process. Our people in Kwara and Osun States are indeed so happy and satisfied about the reconciliation effort that they posted pictures on social media. We saw factional leaders coming together to take pictures.

    The same thing is happening in many states across the country. The members are abandoning factional leadership and returning to the PDP. This is helping to unite our party and if we continue along this laudable line of action, soon, we will no longer hear of factions in PDP. We need reconciliation very seriously. It is the way to go.

  • ‘Restructuring not the same as true federalism’

    ‘Restructuring not the same as true federalism’

    Restructuring in my view means re  adjustment, re- alignment, re- positioning or re- designing. Like all man  made structures or entities,  countries are prone to mal- adjustment and mis- alignment over a period of time, especially multi- ethnic, multi- national, lingual and multi- religious entities.

    Nigeria being an agglomeration of many nations, has over time developed some structural misalignment which requires re- alignment to enhance the smooth  running of the entity to  maintain equilibrium and stability.

    Nigeria has been disequilibrated over a period of time by the inequity and imbalance embedded in the distribution of power and resources exemplified in the lopsidedness in the powers exercised by the central government to the detriment of the component units (the states and local governments).

    The true meaning of federalism suggests two levels of government exercising powers that are coordinate and co-equal.

    In the Nigerian example, the central government is super  ordinate to the regional (state) governments and is also not equal in the sense that it exercises a preponderance of power over the states, a situation of the tail wagging the dog.

    This anomalous situation has been legitimized by the 1999 constitution which was imposed on the country by the military. Instead of a federal state, the 1999 constitution brought about a unitary state created in the image of a military organization with its hierarchical command structure and a super- ordinate- subordinate relationship.

    The revenue allocation formula was structured to favor the federal government which takes away 52.6%, while the states and local governments take 26.7% and 20.6% respectively  a situation that makes them perpetual mendicants always going cap-in–hand to beg the federal  government for hand-outs and bail-outs. Ironically, in a truly federal state,, the two levels of government (federal and state) ought to be equal, separate, independent and coordinate.

    Although, there is hardly any ideal federal state, it is a fact universally acknowledged that any nation comprising heterogeneous populations and nationalities with multiple cultures, wishing to co-habit in peace, must adopt a form of federalism adapted to suit its own situation and circumstance.

    There has been a consensus amongst Nigeria’s founding fathers that the best political- administrative system suitable for its heterogeneous population is federalism.

    Unfortunately, federalism has taken a bashing over the years and has been progressively tortured and pruned to become an administrative semi-fit, if not an aberration.

    Instead of being hinged on structural balance, it is hinged on structural \ geographical imbalance. Instead of fiscal federalism, It practices fiscal centralism. This is contrary to the original consensus which informed the Macpherson, independence and republican constitutions.

    Restructuring will therefore demand a re-ordering of relationships, a re-distribution of power and resources and a re-adjustment of boundaries of the component units of the Nigerian federation.

    Restructuring is also not the same thing as true federalism because even what some people refer to as “true” is still subject to constant re-negotiation and re-adjustment.

    This re-ordering will necessitate the making of an entirely new constitution to replace the existing one, which to all intents and purposes, is irredeemably pro-unitarism. The new constitution will transfer most items currently put in the exclusive legislative list (68 in all) to the concurrent list.

    It must also put a stop to the practice of expropriating all powers belonging to the states by the voracious central government.

    So also must the revenue allocation formula be altered in favour of states and local governments. As we confront the cry of restructuring which now reverberates across the length and breadth of the country, we must challenge the arrogance of those who keep insisting that “our unity is not negotiable. This insistence is a despicable ploy to drive our multinationality underground and homogenize our people who belong to disparate ethnicities, cultures and communities. To insist, as these individuals do, that we cannot negotiate the terms of our association, co-habitation and co-existence is to voice a plea for reaction and deny us the fundamental human right to express our humanity, and identity.

    Professor Babawale is of the Dept of Political Science, University of Lagos

  • Achuzia: I’ve great hope for Nigeria

    Achuzia: I’ve great hope for Nigeria

    Ogbueshi Joe Achuzia, ex-Biafran war hero and elder statesman, in this interview with OKUNGBOWA AIWERIE, speaks on the imperatives of restructuring. He says  a review of the 1963 Constitution by the National Assembly is the best starting point for a genuine national conversation.

    WHAT does restructuring mean to you? Restructuring means different things to different persons. For IPOB it is the right of equality within the federal arrangement and right to be called Biafrans having fought under the flag of Biafra and their children born within the period they were known as Biafra, but it must be done within the arrangement called Nigeria because we have all notwithstanding that we were not consulted invested so much in Nigeria. For me restructuring means the right to equal distribution of the commonwealth, amenities, equal participation in the polity. That is what I call true federalism. To arrive at this we have to go back to the beginning to look into the 1963 constitution that gave birth to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and see where we have gone wrong. Taking into consideration that for years since the military coup Nigeria has been under military rule and subsequent Constitution that came into force were military ordinances, so what I look forward to is the restoration of the suspended constitution and let the Federal legislature look through it or call for another Constitution or a review of the 1963 Constitution. That is the only way forward for this country. In my own view restructuring does not give room for exiting Nigeria.

    Does Nigeria needs restructuring?

    Yes. From the time the military came into governance and turned everything upside down, when they exited the system, the whole thing has to be restructured back to what our founding fathers intended the country to be which gave a sense of belonging to everybody, not a country that is ruled by fear. Military rule is rule by fear, nobody likes a gun pointed at him all the time .We are glad that the military has decided  to remove themselves from the scene, but they should have gone away with their Constitution, not leaving the constitution to start fighting one and another, instead of reconciling ourselves over the tragedy of the civil war.

    What does restructuring entail?

    You restructure a structure that is not properly put in place or you perceive is not to your taste or to your understanding of what you wanted. We do not mean restructuring of roads, of a house. We mean how we relate to the way we are governed. I want to feel that I am being governed properly without acrimony. I want to feel that whoever I voted for will bring justice to bear in his or her relationship with me, but when I perceive injustice then I cry out and in crying out the only succour I will get is through restructuring.

    Does restructuring and true federalism mean the same thing?

    They both mean the same thing, when you want true federalism, nobody federates unto him alone, and it means a consortium of a group of people. True federalism means that equity and justice has entered into the equation. If equity and justice is absent, then it is no more true federalism.

    Do you have hope for Nigeria at 57?

    I have great hope for Nigeria. If I did not have hope I would have left immediately the civil war ended in 1970, but I refused going away because I believe there is hope for this country and I went through a process of close to seven years in detention over the civil war. I came out, I refused to leave the country because I believe in the country but now I can see that instead of promises that were made that brought about the end of the war was reneged upon. It is then that I started crying foul and I started crying for restructuring.

    A section of the country say they are not scared of restructuring, but do not want to be stampeded into it, how do you respond to this?

    Anybody that says he is afraid of restructuring or does not want it, is bent on the move towards taking people’s intelligence for granted. Everybody that have any modicum of intelligence and education knows that restructuring means putting things right. It is something that has gone wrong that you restructure. Any section of the country that does not want a restructured Nigeria means they want the status quo to remain. This means the draconian military constitution to continue, then that section of the country is not a friend of Nigeria. That is myopia. These are the type of people that will steal, commit any crime to get wealth and when they acquire wealth they ensure that nobody rises and becomes an equal. If you are not afraid of restructuring then lend your voice to those who want restructuring so there will be a consensus to the move towards restructuring.

    Do you have faith in the committee constituted by the APC headed by Kaduna State Governor Nasir el Rufai on restructuring?

    Initially, I would said I have no faith in it, but after reading what former governor Bola Tinubu wrote over the issue of restructuring of the polity, I now feel that maybe a sense of decorum and sanity is being brought into the affairs of APC in which case if El-Rufai is a true member of APC he would have been listening to Tinubu who is a leader of the party.

    Do you think it is right for the federal government to proscribe and declare IPOB a terrorist organisation?

    First of all, on the issue of IPOB, one should ask is it an organization? Is it a people? The word is an acronym, when you say the Federal Government is proscribing them who are the government proscribing, what organization is it proscribing? IPOB is not an organization, it is a movement of people, an identity of a people in other words when something is done by the Arewa people  or like when those Arewa youths issued an ultimatum to the Igbo  does it mean that it is all the Arewa people that are responsible ? No. The government is wrong. The government should first investigate and find out what they are trying to proscribe. Nnamdi Kanu, from my own understanding, is a boy that grew up within Biafra and after Biafra or possibly he may not have been born in those turbulent periods. Is he the one to lead his fathers? He said he has a group and the group was registered .The federal government should tell us if it is the registered IPOB group of Kanu or anybody that fought in Biafra, that lived in Biafra for the three and half years that Biafra existed. It is those people that lived there and fought there under the flag of Biafra within that period, it is the remnants and their children are the ones that call themselves the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), so I have not understood yet where the government is going. For me at 95 years I have nowhere else to go than this place. I was born, grew up in this land and I grew up to learn that I am a Nigerian, but the military incursion made me understand that my own portion of Nigeria at that time is called Biafra, just as for the first time I heard that the other portion in the North is called Arewa while the other side in the West call themselves Oduduwa, all these groups are indigenes of those territories. So I am an indigene of the territory of where I belong albeit a member of the Nigerian federation. As a federation IPOB is not a threat to the country that some youths out of youthful exuberance chose to go and register an organization. There are so many organizations with different ethnic appellations do that means it is the totality of the people there that are part of that registered organization. Well, for me a nonagenarian, I am not going to say I am a politician preparing to run for an election even you want a referendum, referendum to do what? If it is referendum for restructuring, I will participate, but if it is a referendum to exit Nigeria I will not participate .I think that whoever pushed the federal government into such a precipitate action has done a disservice to the country.

  • What manner of restructuring?

    What manner of restructuring?

    As major stakeholders, regional socio-political groups and prominent Nigerians, including conservative opponents of the idea, suddenly join the call for restructuring of Nigeria, Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, Assistant Editor, Dare Odufowokan, South-South Regional Editor, Shola O’Neil and Sunday Oguntola, report on the different concepts of restructuring, issues behind the debate, confusion over the true meaning of the concept in Nigeria and what many believe would amount to actual restructuring of the country 

    SUDDENLY, restructuring of Nigeria, a concept that had been stoutly repelled by the political leaders and the elite over the years, has become a popular sing-song of the high and the mighty. Before now, only the radical elements and activists said Nigeria’s socio-economic and political problems would only be resolved through genuine restructuring of the country.

    But with Acting President Yemi Osinbajo’s tactful endorsement of restructuring debate on Thursday, July 6, 2017, observers said President Muhammadu Buhari-led Federal Government has finally come to accept that it is time for Nigerians to sit down in any agreed form to discuss how to restructure the country.

    Speaking through the President’s Special Adviser on Political Matters, Senator Babafemi Ojudu, at the official presentation of a book entitled, ‘Nigeria: The restructuring controversy,’ written by a former Inspector-General of Police and serving Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Dr. Mike Okiro in Abuja on Thursday, Osinbajo assured that the current federal government will utilize the outcome of the ongoing restructuring debate to come up with a new national policy.

    “We can assure you that all of the contributions being made across the country, whether from the north, from the south, east or west; the government of President Muhammadu Buhari is taking note of all the contributions you are making, and very soon, we are going to come out with policies that would take care of some of the issues that are germane in this debate about restructuring.”

    The Acting President added: “We want everyone to continue with this debate across the country, in boardrooms and conferences. This is what we need and not war. We are going to observe and take note of all your opinions, and be rest assured that we are hearing you loud and clear and that something will be done accordingly to make this country respectable and peaceful.”

    Unlike what obtained in the past, within the last two months, virtually every strong political voice, including former conservative opponents of the concept and apex socio-cultural and political organisations of ethnic nationalities, like Afenifere and Ohanaeze, have publicly endorsed the call for restructuring of Nigeria. One of the latest advocates, former Military President, General Ibrahim Babangida, described restructuring as a political action ‘whose time has come.’

    Coming even as the ruling political party, the All Progressives Congress, which earlier denied promising restructuring of the country, finally accepted it is an action that would be done, some observers said all that remains is to resolve the confusion over the real meaning of restructuring and what would amount to genuine restructuring.

    Long route to acceptance

    Call for restructuring of Nigeria has been traced to decades before the country became an independent nation in 1960. Second Republic lawmaker, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, who dismissed the current call as a non-issue told The Nation that the call for restructuring is not new and may just be a distraction. According to him, “it started as far back as 1914, following the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates by the then British Government.” Expressing fear that the call may blackmail Nigeria into adopting a political system that will worsen instead of helping Nigeria, he called on the agitators to spend their energy on what he described as “more serious issues needing attention in the country.”

    Different concepts of restructuring

    One of the reasons critics of restructuring gave for dismissing the call was allegation that proponents of the concept have not provided a concise and generally acceptable description of what they mean by restructuring of Nigeria. In fact, respondents to The Nation’s inquiries on what Nigerians mean by restructuring gave varying concepts though they all revolve around the need to change the current political and economic arrangements. The definitions range from feared disguised call for separation of different parts to true federalism. As a result, the critics of the concept are quite suspicious of the real motive of the proponents.

    Dr. Junaid Mohammed, for example, waved off the concept as a mere attempt to blackmail Nigeria. The frontline northern politician, on Friday told The Nation: “We enjoy discussing non issues here in Nigeria. Each time some people are looking for a way to blackmail the rest of us in Nigeria; they start this talk about restructuring. And I have been asking them to define what they mean by restructuring in clear terms. They have not been able to. That is one reason why I say it is nothing but blackmail.

    “Until somebody can tell me what this restructuring is all about, I won’t be convinced about the call. These agitators of restructuring, like Clark, Ayo Adebanjo, John Nwodo and others have not actually told us what will be restructured and how it will be done. That was how we were told that without Sovereign National Conference (SNC) Nigeria will collapse.”

    But Ohanaeze statesman and renowned scientist, Prof Anya O. Anya, had told The Nation in Lagos on Thursday that “restructuring simply means there is an existing structure; if you make adjustment to it, it is restructuring.” He said it does not need any special definition, alleging that the people saying they don’t know what restructuring is “are just speaking from both sides of the mouth.

    “You hear terms like devolution, decentralisation, federalism and others mean restructuring. It means you are changing an existing structure to something slightly different from what you have. So, there is no point over flogging it.

    “I am of the view, as other people are that the current structure has not served the country well. And the least we can do is to take a good, hard look at it and make necessary adjustments. I don’t want to say it has to be this way or that way. It is a decision for the Nigerian people to take.”

    He added: “The truth of the matter is Nigeria needs new foundations and we must build those foundations.

    “Either people defending their ethnic, professional or political empires, none of that is relevant now because where Nigeria is, we need fundamental re-examination of all aspects of our national life in order to build a nation. We don’t have a nation now.”

    Mr. Ayo Opadokun, Coordinator of Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER), and General-Secretary of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), told The Nation that Nigeria as structured today is a lie, insisting that there is no alternative to restructuring of the country. “We must attend to the agitations of Nigerians by responding quickly to the issue of national restructuring being campaigned for. That is why I have been saying we may need to revisit the 1963 Constitution abrogated by the military when they overthrew the First Republic. It is one document that is federal.

    “Nigeria, as structured today, is a lie. We are yet to do the right thing. We must be bold enough to do the right thing if we truly want to move forward. There is no alternative to restructuring whichever way we look at the needs of this country. There is an urgent need for the restructuring of the polity. The only way forward is for us to reason together as a people.

    “All the current agitations, be it resource control, MASSOB, IPOB, OPC, Arewa youths, name it, are all a call for us to return to what we were before 1966. It was in I966, after the first coup, that the soldiers abrogated the 1963 Constitution and replaced it with a military styled central government.”

    He also we cannot force people to keep quiet when they are dissatisfied with the situation of things. Those who are currently living as second class citizens and those who have been denied their economic rights can no longer fold their arms and watch. That is why there is so much agitation.”

    Chief Anabs Sara-Igbe, a prominent activist and traditional titleholder from oil-rich Kalabari clan in Rivers State, who gave an insight into what restructuring means to the South-South region also, told The Nation earlier in the week that only restructuring can save Nigeria. “Restructuring is the only way to stop the country from collapsing. Some people are saying secession; ours is a call for resource control and true federalism. Before the advent of military coup in 1966, the Nigerian nation adopted a constitution called a Federal Constitution.  Nigeria became a federal nation.

    “The military adopted the same Federal Constitution, but they changed the components and ingredients of true federalism in the constitution of Nigeria. Ever since then, what we have been operating is not true federalism.  If we are practicing true federalism where states would be autonomous as it is done in the US and contribute to the centre, it will make the states to be very productive and active and Nigeria would be a greater nation than what we are today. We would contribute and pay tax to the centre. That is what we are talking about in the Niger Delta.

    Niger Delta does not believe in secession; we believe in one Nigeria; we believe in the greatness of coming together.”

    Why many opposed it

    The Nation investigation shows that many of the opponents of restructuring over the years allege that proponents of the concept are indirectly calling for the break-up of the country. Some critics have alleged that most of the most vocal opponents of the concept today are from the northern part of the country. While Ohanaeze and Afenifere socio-cultural organisations, including Niger Delta leaders, have endorsed the concept, one of the most outstanding opponents of the concept remains the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF). Just late last month, the forum warned those calling for restructuring of Nigeria to have a rethink, even as it advised that the nation should preserve the present federal structure of governance.

    In a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Muhammad Ibrahim, ACF faulted the stance of organisations and individuals agitating for the restructuring of the nation. “ACF observed with regret that most of those discussions are taking place without regard to decorum or civility, as the issues are often presented as demands by one group or the other.

    “Unfortunately, in most cases, they are followed up by some ultimatum to the authorities to accept or face deadly consequences. Some groups refer to restructuring to mean true federalism, others call it resource control”.

    Earlier, sometime in April, some northern leaders also kicked against restructuring. The leaders, who were members of the 2014 National Conference, in a meeting in Abuja, spoke on the platform of the Northern Delegates’ Forum (NDF).

    They said, “The North was not given fair representation in the conference with 189 delegates despite its landmass of 70 per cent and 55 per cent of the country’s population,” the NDF said.

    Months after, things have changed so much in the country. Between April and July this year, two prominent northern leaders, former Military President, Ibrahim Babangida and former democratically elected Vice President, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, have come out openly to support the call for immediate restructuring of Nigeria. Their support, according close observers, shows that the call for restructuring of Nigeria is no longer limited to the southerners, the common Nigerians and the activists. Coming from different parts of the country, and coinciding with challenging agitations and militancy with angry reactions that have exposed the growing tension and delicate sentiment of various parts of the country, informed observers said the call for restructuring may have become the much needed unifying elixir in today’s Nigeria. With Osinbajo’s latest assurances, it seems, as Babangida said, the time has come for the much talked about restructuring of the country.

    Why we want restructuring now

    Today’s proponents of restructuring, like Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar are of the view that it will promote economic and social development.

    Delivering a formal speech at the public presentation of the Daily Stream newspaper, at the Banquet Hall, Nigeria Airforce Conference Centre, Kado, Abuja, Atiku had said “the country is truly at a crossroads, and things are made worse by the cocktail of economic, social, political and problems which we have had to contend with, and which add to the abysmally low estimation of our country even by its own citizens.

    He said “Our beloved country has been in the throes of severe and debilitating social and economic problems….My take is that we will likely continue to grapple with such problems unless we get the structures of our federalism and governance right.”

    Former Military President, General Ibrahim Babangida endorsed the call with equal passion and zeal. Speaking during the prayer to mark his 75th birthday celebration at the Hilltop, Minna, Niger State, he said of Nigeria: “If we have repeatedly done certain things and not getting the desired results, we need to change tactics and approach, and renew our commitment. It is our collective responsibilities to engender a reform that would be realistic and in sync with modern best practices.

    “For example, restructuring has become a national appeal as we speak, whose time has come. I will strongly advocate for devolution of powers to the extent that more responsibilities be given to the states while the Federal Government is vested with the responsibility to oversee our fore

  • Current agitation a non-issue – Junaid Muhammed

    Current agitation a non-issue – Junaid Muhammed

    Dr. Junaid Muhammed told Assistant Editor, Dare Odufowokan that calls for restructuring are mere blackmail of Nigeria

    Frontline northern politician, Dr. Junaid Muhammed, has described the renewed agitation for restructuring in Nigeria as a non-issue. The Kano-born politician said majority of those in the forefront of the ongoing call for restructuring see an opportunity to force other Nigerians to succumb to what he called “usual blackmail.’

    He condemned the agitation for restructuring, asking that the agitators have failed to provide a clear definition of what they really mean by restructuring in the first place. He warned them against blackmailing Nigerians into an unclear and bogus system of government, which will add to our problems rather than solve them.

    The Second Republic lawmaker posited that the call for restructuring is not new. According to him, it started as far back as 1914, following the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates by the then British Government. He called on the agitators to spend their energy on more serious issues needing attention in the country.

    “We enjoy discussing non issues here in Nigeria. Each time some people are looking for a way to blackmail the rest of us in Nigeria, they start this talk about restructuring. And I have been asking them to define what they mean by restructuring in clear terms. They have not been able to. That is one reason why I say it is nothing but blackmail.

    “Until somebody can tell me what this restructuring is all about, I won’t be convinced about the call. These agitators of restructuring like Clark, Ayo Adebanjo, John Nwodo and others have not actually told us what will be restructured and how it will be done. That was how we were told that without Sovereign National Conference (SNC) Nigeria will collapse.

    “The last time, Jonathan initiated it. He started with some southeast and southsouth people. He later involved the Southwest too. Then too, I asked them, what is restructuring? I got no clear answer. Since 1914, a lot has been done to restructure the country. And if somebody now say those are not restructuring, then they should show me heat it is.

    “I want to be told clearly what they expected to be done when we carry out restructuring. I was in the last conference put together by Jonathan. They said it is for restructuring and we went to see what they wanted to be done. It was when we got there that we realize that they already have various agendas they wanted to implement.

    ‘The southeast wanted an additional state and other regions must not be given one. They argued that they have just five states. Kano state was created at the same tike with East Central state under Ukpabi Asika before the civil war. Afterwards, that East central state have been broken into five states while only Jigawa has been created from Kano state which even back then was larger in size than East Central state.

    “So, those who got four more states are asking for more while those who got just one shouldn’t be considered for more. That is there idea of restructuring. Is that sensible? Is that democratic? Is that justice? Is that fairness? And yet these people carry on as if they are the victims. They use the cry of restructuring as blackmail.

    “There was also the issue of state police which they brought to the last conference. It was roundly defeated by the constituents during deliberation but was later smuggled into the final resolution. That is one of the frauds that happened at that conference organized by Jonathan. Many of the issues they are raising now will be defeated if put to vote,” he said.

    Asked if he would rather support those calling on the federal government to implement the reports of the last constitutional conference, Junaid said he is strongly against the implementation of the report despite the fact that he was part of the talk shop. According to him, the whole exercise was a fraud orchestrated to achieve predetermined intentions.

    “Even the composition of the membership of the said conference was fraudulent. How did they arrive at the people who attend ed? They merely handpicked people who they wanted to do their dirty jobs. There are constitutional provisions for putting together such conference. Were those provisions followed?

    “At the conference, the majority became the minority and the minority became the majority. A conference to discuss the future of the country must be a realistic one. So much fraud about it all and that is why I am saying there is no basis for the implementation of the report of such a gathering. It was not based on justice, equity or democracy.

    “There are provisions for constitutional amendment in the constitution. They should follow that in whatever they want to do. The call for restructuring is nothing serious other than being a blackmail tool. You cannot amend the constitution outside the provisions of the same constitution. Nigerians should beware of blackmail,” he said.

  • ‘Nigeria as structured today is a lie’

    ‘Nigeria as structured today is a lie’

    Mr. Ayo Opadokun, Coordinator of Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER), and General-Secretary of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), told Assistant Editor, Dare Odufowokan, that there is no alternative to restructuring 

    Mr. Ayo Opadokun, Coordinator of Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER), and General-Secretary of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), which led the struggle against dictatorship during the heady days of military rule, remains unrepentant in his conviction that there is urgent need to restructure the country called Nigeria.

    The pro-democracy activist, whose organization, CODER, remains in the forefront of the call for electoral reforms, was however quick to add that only an effective restructuring, and not just any form of reforms, will save Nigeria from its current situation. And he insists that a return to the 1963 Constitution for guidance may be the first step in the right direction for the country.

    According to him, the 1963 Constitution is truly federal in nature and content. He advised that for Nigeria to have an idea of its own political history there is need for a revisit to the 1963 Constitution in our effort to restructure the country. “The 1963 Constitution is one that is truly federal in nature,’ he said.

    “We must attend to the agitations of Nigerians by responding quickly to the issue of national restructuring being campaigned for. That is why I have been saying we may need to revisit the 1963 Constitution abrogated by the military when they overthrew the First Republic. It is one document that is federal.

    “Nigeria, as structured today, is a lie. We are yet to do the right thing. We must be bold enough to do the right thing if we truly want to move forward. There is no alternative to restructuring whichever way we look at the needs of this country. There is an urgent need for the restructuring of the polity. The only way forward is for us to reason together as a people.

    “All the current agitations, be it resource control, MASSOB, IPOB, OPC, Arewa youths, name it, are all a call for us to return to what we were before 1966. It was in I966, after the first coup, that the soldiers abrogated the 1963 Constitution and replaced it with a military styled central government.

    ‘The 1963 Constitution was a truly federal constitutional arrangement with four regions. The constitution was truly federal with the center having less power and responsibilities than the regions. But you know in the military, the structure is pyramidal where the commander is at the top, controlling all other units below him.

    “This was the style of governance introduced by the military through the ‘Abrogation and Amendment Act of 1966”. With that Act, they abolished the 1963 Constitution and since that day, Nigeria ceased to be a federal republic. We have been living a lie since then. What we had afterwards was never a federal arrangement.

    “The military, through that Act, arrogated more than 66 percentage of the powers of the regions to the centre and by the time the first military government was over, more than 80 percent of the powers earlier vested in the regions were taken over by the military government at the centre. What is federal in such an arrangement?

    “In 1975, when Murtala Mohammed was trying to constitute a constitutional conference, he introduced the Executive Presidential System which is copied from the United State of America. What Murtala gave us is not a federal constitution but an Executive Presidential System. We were still not federal with such an arrangement.

    “Nigeria became independent in 1960 and became a Republic in 1963 with a Federal Constitution. That was the first casualty of the 1966 coup. The military truncated the democratic government of that era and also truncated the republic of that time. This they replaced with a Unitary System of Government. It was then rain started beating us as a country.

    “Also, we are yet to ask Nigerians a very fundamental question. We need to ask Nigerians if and how they wish to remain together as one country. Each ethnic nationality must be given the opportunity to decide whether to remain in Nigeria or not. It is a very fundamental question that needs to be asked.

    “Time is fast running out for government on this matter. We cannot force people to keep quiet when they are dissatisfied with the situation of things. Those who are currently living as second class citizens and those who have been denied their economic rights can no longer fold their arms and watch. That is why there is so much agitation.

    “Unfortunately, majority of Nigerians are ignorant of how we got into this constitutional mess that requires restructuring to correct. I keep talking about the 1963 Constitution because it was with it we became a Federal Republic. Once it was abrogated by military adventurers in 1966, we lost our identity as a republic and started living a lie.

    “Unless we revisit that and allow ourselves to be guided by it as we urgently embark on sincere efforts to restructure our country, we will be hovering in the dark, looking for solutions where there are none. What we are running today is an executive presidential system which has been forcing us to spend 80 percentage of our earnings on the bureaucracy. We are not America, we cannot afford to continue with that,” he said.

  • Niger Delta wants resource control, true federalism Sara-Igbe

    Niger Delta wants resource control, true federalism Sara-Igbe

    Chief Anabs Sara-Igbe is a prominent activist and traditional titleholder from oil-rich Kalabari clan in Rivers State. In this interview with Shola O’Neil, he expressed the desire of the people of the region for a return to the pre-1966 Nigeria, where states and regions control their resources and make remittance to the government at the centre. Excerpts

    WHAT South-South expects from restructuring: Restructuring is the only way to stop the country from collapsing. Some people are saying secession; ours is a call for resource control and true federalism. Before the advent of military coup in 1966, the Nigerian nation adopted a constitution called a Federal Constitution.  Nigeria became a federal nation.

    The military adopted the same Federal Constitution, but they changed the components and ingredients of true federalism in the constitution of Nigeria. Ever since then, what we have been operating is not true federalism.  If we are practicing true federalism where states would be autonomous as it is done in the US and contribute to the centre, it will make the states to be very productive and active and Nigeria would be a greater nation than what we are today. We would contribute and pay tax to the centre. That is what we are talking about in the Niger Delta.

    Niger Delta does not believe in secession; we believe in one Nigeria; we believe in the greatness of coming together. We believe in unity in diversity, but we are worried about the way and manner the constitution is being applied.

    So, if we can restructure to reflect true federalism, I think everybody will be happy and see himself as part and component of Nigeria and peace would return.

    On how the envisaged restructuring will operate

    Of course, our idea of restructuring is returning back to the practice of true federalism to restructure the country’s economy and sociological aspect of life to reflect what we call true federalism. Every state would be on its own as separate state of the same nation, but united.

    On the concern that some states won’t survive

    There is no state in Nigeria that is not viable; every state is blessed with one mineral resource or the other. There are some countries in the world that do not produce any mineral; they depend on agriculture and today they are still surviving on that. There is no part of this country that will not survive if we practice true federalism.  There is a limit to what the Federal Government can do.

    The present system is making some sections to be lazy because when you pamper children too much, they do not become great people. When we practice true federalism, we would know who are powerful. People are saying, ‘we have oil and gas’, but oil will be waste asset and they would now realise that that is not the best and they would also look towards the ways of agriculture and everybody will struggle to feed themselves; to raise more revenue to be able to meet with economic challenges.