Nigeria is at crossroads. It is beset with crises of nation-building and development, triggered by its refusal to confront the national question germane to its survival as a plural country. Will the national conference make a difference and restore true federalism? Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU examines the challenges before the 492 wise men.
Sixty seven years ago, the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, raised the national question. Which form of government would be suitable for the emerging country of heterogeneous peoples? he asked. The same fundamental question, which successive administrations have evaded, would confront the 492 delegates at the national conference, which is being inaugurated today by President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
There are indications that the conference will become a platform for the ventilation of political grievances. The conflicts of agenda and divergent views underscores the gravity of complaints, disaffection and dissatisfaction among the unequal and competing tribes under the lopsided federal arrangement. The agitations are two-fold: the scramble for federal power and disagreement over the sharing of the national revenue. Analysts have suggested that the non-resolution of these issues have led to identity crisis, dissention, feeling of marginalisation and fear of domination and cries of despondency among the reluctant component units that have failed to develop national outlook.
The agenda of the delegates underscores the gravity of the national question. Although they represents the states, they will mostly canvass regional viewpoints. Many contentious issues on the front burner at the conference are fiscal federalism, indigene/settler relationship, devolution of powers, regionalism and autonomy, security and state police, status of local government, state creation and boundary adjustment. Others are resource control and revenue allocation, zoning and rotation of the Presidency, single term tenure, and land use act, federal character, federal/state/local government relations.
In his book, ‘Path to Nigeria’s Freedom’, Awo, who reflected on the amalgam of incompatible, in-cohesive and antagonistic tribes forcefully lumped together by the first colonial governor, Lord Fredrick Lugard. “Nigeria is not a nation”, he wrote, stressing that “it is a mere geographical expression”. He observed that “all these incompatibilities among the various peoples in the country militate against unification”.
The book was published 13 years before the flag independence of 1960. In the view of the foremost nationalist, federalism was the answer. “A federal constitution is the only thing suitable for Nigeria. And for the sake of smooth and speedy progress, steps must be taken now to develop the various ethnical groups in the country along this line”, he said. Awo explained that only federalism could give birth to a situation whereby the diverse elements could progress at varying speeds towards a more closely integrated economic, social and political unity without sacrificing the principles and ideas inherent in their divergent ways of life. He also emphasised the importance of autonomy for the preservation of racial group identity and promotion of peculiar social, cultural and political interests.
“Experts can propound learned theories as to why people having different languages and cultural backgrounds are unable to live together under a democratic unitary constitution. But, the empirical facts of history are enough to guide us. It has been shown beyond all doubt that the best constitution for such diverse people is the federal constitution. This is exemplified by the constitution of Switzerland, which is acclaimed to be the best and most democratic in the world, since it gives complete autonomy to every racial group within the framework. The amended constitution of the USSR, wherein each republic becomes autonomous, is also an instance in point,” Awo stressed.
Many historians have pointed out that the practice of federalism has not been adequately explored. Although it did not adequately moderate the tempestuous relationship among the big three-Hausa/Fulani of the North, Yoruba of Southwest and Igbo of the Southeast-there was hope in the First Republic. Acrimonies and inter-tribal intrigues generally shaped the quest and competition among the tribal leaders for federal power, but the three, later four regions had a measure of autonomy in local matters. In that atmosphere of regionalism, there was healthy competition among the diverse nations cohabiting together in the larger nation-state.
A political scientist, Boniface Ayodele, noted that the “federal beat” stopped abruptly, following the displacement of legitimate authorities by soldiers. The military ruler foisted the unitary system on the supposedly federal country, igniting sporadic agitations for decentralisation and devolution of power. “What we now have and which is difficult for the leadership to reverse is the legacy of the military. This id the defective federal structure”, said Ayodele, who teaches political science at the Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti.
Almost 54 years after independence, federalism is still on trial in Nigeria. It has remained an elusive target, especially in post-military period. Efforts by the military to redesign the map and boundaries of the ethnic groups through state creation have led to more problems. The distribution of the states and local governments have generated anger because it is skewed, making the South to complain that it was aimed at confirming the dubious numerical claim by the North. In 1947, Awo had warned against creating new states without regard to ethnological factors. “The Yoruba of Ilorin, Offa and Kabba are included with the Hausas in the Northern Region. There is no justification for whatsoever for this arbitrary grouping. Certainly, these minority groups are at a considerate disadvantage when they are forced to be in the midst of other peoples who differ from them in language, culture and historical background,” he pointed out.
Former Afenifere Secretary Ayo Opadokun, who hails from Offa, is bitter at the creation of the state by the military without taking into consideration the linguistic parameters. “That is why the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi are asking for the adjustment of the boundaries so that they can join their kith and kin in the Southwest, especially in Osun and Ekiti states”, he said. Opadokun maintained that when diverse tribes are lumped together in a state, it will breed friction. “The Gwari people are now in Kaduna and Niger states. Some of them are also visible in Kaduna and the Federal Capital Territory. The Nupe People are in Niger and Kwara states. Why? The Igbominas are in Kwara. Their traditional headquater is Ila-Orangun. The Ekitis are in Kwara. Look at Ijaw people. They are found in Ondo, Delta, Bayelsa and Rivers states. They are minority in several states. It is an unkind and ungodly decision made by the military”, he added.
In 2005, one of the controversial issues that created tension at the Abuja Political Reforms Conference, apart from the third term, was resource control. Apparently, there is no controversy over revenue generation. The bulk of the national revenue is from oil from the Niger Delta. The bone of contention is the distribution of the wealth, which is typically referred to as the national cake. In 1999, the vertical allocation formula inherited by the civilian regime sparked off an agitations for review. Then, the distant Federal Government had 48.5 per cent, 36 state governments; 24 percent, 774 local governments; 20 per cent, ecology; two percent, stabilisation; 0.5 per cent, derivation; one per cent and oil minerals producing development company; three per cent.
The Pro-National Conference Organisation (PRONACO), which held an alternative conference in Lagos, kicked against the arrangement. The group proposed a new fiscal formula as follows: 50 per cent to the region of derivation, 15 per cent to the Federal Government, 35 per cent to be shared by all regions, 85 per cent Valued Added Tax (VAT) to be retained by the regions and 15 percent should go to the first-line charge account. Other stakeholders called for a drastic reduction in the proceeds accruable to the government. Since the economy is not diversified, the region producing oil, the main source of income, intensified its struggle for more earnings. The Abuja conference proposed 21 percent earning for the oil-producing states. But, the report did not see the light of the day. The existing distribution formula is still being contested by stakeholders. Their grievance is premised on the fear that the federal government has financially emasculated the 36 states and 774 councils. The formula, they maintained, is anti-federal in nature.
Many believe that the neglect of the core federal principle has contributed to the fragility of the nation-state. No doubt, the enlarged national question, which involves the division of the public sector functions and finances among the two tiers, has underscored the renewed debate on fiscal federalism and devolution powers. The All Progressives Congress (APC) Interim Chairman, Chief Bisi Akande, who dissected the federal structure, lamented that all is not well. “The peculiarities of the Nigerian landscape demand a creative search for answers to Nigeria’s unique challenges through federalism, “ he said.
Echoing him, a legal scholar, Prof. Itsey Sagay (SAN), said that only true federalism can avert the collapse of the country. He observed that the foundation of the country was faulty, adding that the mistake of amalgamation was responsible. Sagay pointed out that the basis for co-existence was neither defined nor mutually agreed upon by the natives. “Nigeria represents a classic condition for the operation of a very loose federation, “ he added. But, he contented that, since the Nigeria may not embrace conferalism, “true federalism is a condition precedent for the survival of the country as a voluntary union of nationalities and autonomous communities”. The late nationalist, Chief Anthony Enahoro, aptly shared this view. He posited that any form of unitary system harboured the danger of not giving maximum expression to the peculiarities that differentiate the groupings co-habiting involuntarily and without basic, unifying agreement on the terms of co-existence.
A political scientist, Prof. Dipo Kolawole, also studied some heterogeneous countries across the globe, including the United State, submitted that they are doing well because they are practicing federalism. In addition, he pointed out that two factors also accounted for their survival. “They are federal in nature. Apart from promoting participatory democracy, partici-pation in the federal arrangement is voluntary,” he added.
Kolawole, the former Vice Chancellor of Ekiti State University, observed that, the lopsided federal arrangement has driven Nigeria to monumental crises, which its weak foundation cannot withstand. “If the Nigerian project was perceived as unworkable from the onset, the form of government to sustain it had no foundation to rest on and therefore, was bound to be a still birth. The argument is that the mode of emergence of the Nigerian federalism constitutes an albatross on its effective workability as an instrument of good governance”, he stressed.
What is worrisome to many stakeholders is that the the agitation for restructuring has often been resisted by the government. Frontline lawyer and politician Chief Ayo Adebanjo, who lamented the resistance, said Nigeria has become a struggling unitary state retarded by its colonial heritage and havoc wrecked by long years of military rule. In fact, the activist cleric, Pastor Tunde Bakare, warned that the “fake union” risks disintegration, He said that Nigeria should return to the initial agreement at the constitutional formative stage in the fifties. “Government that is centralised is satanic and evil,” he said.
A delegate, Gen. Alani Akinrinade, who fought in the three-year civil war to keep Nigeria together, said that the agitation for self-determination by the ethnic groups, are not misplaced. He explained that they emanated from long years of disillusionment, anxiety, injustice, and rejection of the existing flawed system. A retired university don, Prof, Ropo Sekoni, said that federalism collapsed when the central government hijacked the responsibilities of the states and local governments, adding that the massive inflow of petrol-dollar also made the federal government to acquire more money and responsibilities which it has poorly or improperly performed at the expense of the coordinate units.
At a lecture in Lagos, former Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Prof. Adebayo Adedeji, warned that, when true federalism, which is the strength and consolation in a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic country is axed, the result is disaster. The consequence is that, “unity in diversity”, which is the consoling slogan of federalism, is unattainable. The climax of the abuse of power by the centre, as pointed out by Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), manifested in the overriding power of declaration of state of emergency, in accordance with the whims and caprices of the powerful head of government. “When Obasanjo, a military man became the civilian President, he conducted the affairs of the state as a soldier in utter insensitivity to the core principles of democracy and federalism, which should guide his steps”, he said. Flaying the military for the ‘nationalisation policy’, Sekoni, who observed that a virulent attack against the federal structure was consistent with Obasanjo’s antecedents, blamed the former military ruler for starting off the process of “deferating” Nigeria.
In his book: ‘How President Obasanjo subverted Nigeria’s federal system’, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) stated that “the former President exercised supreme, absolute and all-encompassing power”, adding that he related to the governor as if they were his agents and subject to his direction. “His attitude towards the state governors as his subordinates, rather than as heads of autonomous governments; a carry-over from the days of his tenure as the Head of the Federal Military Government from 1976-79; is reflected in his insistence that governors must inform him, perhaps, even obtain his permission, before travelling abroad, implying a relationship of subordination, the subjection of the governors to his authority.”
He also objected to the attempt to make the states beggars by the federal government. Nwabueze said: “The mechanism for the disbursement to the state governments of the share of money due to them from the common pool of revenue, the Federation Account, as it is called, is so contrived by him as to force the governors and their officials to leave their various capitals and go physically, cap in hand, to the federal government at Abuja and hassle for it every month, a situation which creates in them an understandable docility towards the federal government as pay-master”.
Kolawole, who frowned at this, said: “Today, Nigeria is a federation of an excessively strong Central Government, supposedly partnered by ridiculously weak 36 states, with a Federal Capital Territory, supported by obviously ineffective 774 local governments. All the other 801 governments combined in Nigeria are weaker than the Central Government.
“In Nigerian Federation, Abuja dictates the pace and other governments slavishly acquiesced, thereby making a mockery of the purpose, essence and utility value of federalism as a vehicle of good governance for effective service delivery to the country.”.
A Southsouth leader, Chief Fred Agbeyegbe, condemned the federal/states power relations. “The tail (federal or centre) now wags the body (federating units or states). Even, where the states exercise legislative power, they have no enforcement machinery of their own, since the central police belongs to the federal government”, he said. The APC leader, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, shared this opinion. He said the centralised policing system is counter-productive. “It is useless giving governors the appellation of Chief Security Officers of the states when they lack the powers to ask the police command to rise to the challenge of maintaining law and order”.
Also lending his voice to the clamour for state police, a legal luminary, Kola Awodein (SAN), said: “A united central police organisation is still in place, making serious and effective policing difficult and almost impossible. The chain of control in the Nigeria Police Force today is too long and remote from the centre of operation, weakening discipline and resulting in an ineffective law enforcement process.
“The force is still poorly supported and poorly trained and motivated. Centralisation and unification have also resulted in significant delay in the administration of criminal justice. The Nigerian Police Force today is over-burdened as it is responsible for enforcing all federal, state and local government laws and regulations. This is in addition to its responsibility to investigate cases, prosecute offenders, control traffic and do other welfare activities. Little wonder that the Nigeria Police Force is more ineffective, insufficient and corrupt that it was more than 30 years ago.”
The analysis of the distributions of powers between the centre and regions at independence and later, between the federal and state governments in post-1966 showed that federalism has derailed in Nigeria. Sekoni pointed out that, in 1960, there were 45 items on the Exclusive List, while there were 29 on the Concurrent List. In 1979, federalism had already shown sign of strains. While the items on the Exclusive List had jumped from 45 to 66, those on the Concurrent List had only increased from 29to 30. Also, Agbeyegbe observed that, in the 1999 Constitution, which came into effect following the promulgation of Decree No. 24 of 1999, the Exclusive List, which the federal government could legislate upon, had increased to 68. “That means that the subject matter, which fell within the competence of the regions or states, have been hijacked. Even, the 30-item Concurrent List in that constitution gives unqualified precedence to the centre over the federating units. We are now ‘federal’ only in name”, he said.
But, is hope lost for true federalism in Nigeria? Sagay said: “Any constitution review should make the restoration of true federalism a cardinal objective”. Adebanjo said the contentious issues would be debated at the national conference. But, will the report see the light of the day? Will the conference restore true federalism?
