Governors are raising fundamental questions germane to peaceful co-existence in the country. These include state police, devolution of power, restructuring of the polity and status of the local government. But critics have described them as oppressors in their states. Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU examines the Governors’ Forum’s battle for true federalism within the context of their opposition to council autonomy.
The Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) is not recognised by the 1999 Constitution. Membership of the association is voluntary. Its resolutions and decisions are advisory and not binding. But the body cannot be ignored by any politician. Observers believe that it is a potent force in the polity. In fact, it has now become a platform for the ventilation of grievances against the defective federal structure by the governors.
Many politicians actually fear the body, despite its lack of legal backing. Recently, Senator Smart Adeyemi (Kogi Central District) chided the NGF for frustrating the constitution amendment process. He argued that governors have not given the exercise maximum support because they are opposed to local government autonomy. Also, former Education Minister Prof. Jubril Aminu has castigated the governors for exercising sweeping powers. He described the NGF, currently led by Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi, as an oppressive body, whose wings should be clipped. Also, recently, prominent Ijaw leader and former Information Minister Chief Edwin Clark flayed the governors for oppressing the President. He said their virulent attacks were unwarranted. He also berated them for a shortfall in ethical perception, pointing out that, they have tolerated corruption by not speaking against the corrupt activities of their colleagues.
In the past, tension existed between the 36 governors and federal legislators from their states. Some of the governors labeled the lawmakers as “Abuja politicians”, who are not conversant with the situation at home. Since the collapse of party supremacy, the governors’ powers and influence increased. In many states governors decide who gets what, how and when. Party faithful worship them as thin gods and lords of manor. Parties’ executive committees at the ward, council and state levels are created in their image. They are also the chief financiers of their states’ party chapters, dispenser of appointments and resources and automatic party leaders.
The NGF’s challenge to President Goodluck Jonathan on true federalism has jolted him. The President, and his deputy, Alhaji Namadi Sambo, who are former governors, could not underrate the association. The body has instituted four cases against the federal government. The most prominent one is the revenue allocation litigation. According to the governors, the President has a case to answer over the Sovereign Wealth Fund. Akwa Ibom State Governor Godswill Akpabio, who said that a master-servant relationship should not characterise inter-governmental relations in the country, frowned at the skewed revenue allocation formula. He said it was worrisome that the 36 states share 22 percent of the national revenue and the federal government gets 52 percent. He called for the review of the formula to enable the governors discharge their duties to their states.
The governor of Ekiti, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, agreed with this view. But he expressed worry over the secrecy in governance, saying that no governor knows the amount that the country earns daily from oil. His Delta State counterpart, Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan, objected to the opposition against the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB). He said it is injurious to the people of the Niger Delta. Also, the governor said the time is ripe for the country to have state police, revised revenue allocation formula and true fiscal federalism.
Governors as godfathers
Since the aborted Third Republic, governors have assumed the status of godfathers. They dictated to the Houses of Assembly and ensured that the Speakers were under their armpit. President Jonathan was sensitive to the governors’ awesome powers when he requested them to nominate candidates for ministerial slots. That special privilege, which enraged the ruling party, further increased the powers and influence of the state party leaders, to the detriment of those outside their camps.
Tongues were wagging. Would the governors recommend to the President credible party chieftains for the critical assignment? Would they only push forward names of lackeys and stooges who cannot challenge their domineering postures in the states? Would performing serving ministers who were not in the good books of the governors make the list? Would the nomination process be fair to all? Will it lead to the appointment of credible people as ministers at this critical time? Will the ministers not become governors’ liaison officers? Answers to these questions were elusive. Those who shared this view have described the ‘council of ministers’ as governors’ liaison officers in the federal cabinet.
Analysts pointed out that the President may have unwittingly created discord in his party. They submitted that ministers who have performed creditably may not be nominated by the governors, if they are perceived as threats to their future ambition. They also pointed out that there was nothing on ground to guard against the misuse of the nomination power or privilege.
However, President Jonathan adopted the option of carrying the governors along to ensure harmony in the state chapters of the party. The goal, analysts said, was to avert the recurrent situation whereby governors, who are state party leaders, work at cross purpose with ministers who are expected to work harmoniously with them for the success of the party at elections.
The President, it was learnt, was fed up with the constant rivalry between the governors and ministers over their antagonistic political ambitions. In many PDP states, the party has often been polarised into the camps of governors and party colleagues, who are dubbed ‘Abuja politicians’ by the governors’ men. When the two factions struggled for the soul of the party in the state, the party had always ended as the main casualty. Ahead of the primaries that heralded the general elections, PDP states boiled over the contest for supremacy between governors and National Assembly members on one hand and governors and ministers on the other hand.
Are governors dictators?
As party leaders, governors are in a vantage position to manipulate the primaries to favour themselves or their anointed candidates. They have the deep purse to win the majority to their side and damn the consequence. But this combative style has always backfired. In Oyo State, although Governor Adebayo Alao-Akala and his men succeeded in edging out Senator Teslim Folarin at the primaries, the centre could still not hold as things fell apart. Former Governor Rashidi Ladoja, who suffered similar fate, left the party with his followers. PDP kissed the dust at the polls.
In many states, the Houses of Assembly work hollow to the executive. The governor decides who emerges as the Speaker. Except in Lagos State, most governors loathe the idea of a fully independent legislature, supported by the House of Assembly Service Commission. Governors also determine, in many instances, who becomes members of the Houses of Assembly, Representatives and Senate. A political scientist, Boniface Ayodele, said the hands of the governors are also heavy on the local governments. “They are afraid to conduct council elections. They prefer to set up caretaker committees composed by their lackeys and cronies”, said the Ekiti State University don. In fact, some governors interfere in local chieftaincy tussles and insist on the candidature of their friends and associates for traditional thrones. “Governors are too powerful. The problem is that there is no one to tame them in their states, not even the parliament”, Ayodele added.
Governors and party supremacy
In the Second Republic, governors were regarded as primus inter pares by the members of the executive councils they presided over as Chief Executives. During that era, governors could not isolate themselves from the pack of democrats who constituted their teams. The new breed, who had blazed the trail in the Third Republic, were not rooted in the democratic culture of earlier periods, which thrived on internal democracy, constructive dialogue and wide consultation. In that era, which was generally regarded as an era of strong political culture, party supremacy was upheld and governors, ministers, commissioners, special advisers and state and federal parliamentarians were bound by party constitutions, directives, guidelines, rules and regulations. The late Kwara State kingpin, Dr. Olusola Saraki, who , alluded to the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) caucuses, submitted that these elected functionaries knew their limits because the party was supreme.
The beat changed in 1999. Immediately the governors stabilised in their offices, the buck, henceforth, stopped on their tables. During the second term of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, governors were instrumental to the nomination of scores of politicians for ministerial positions. The formula employed for their selection was devoid of equity. Those who had scores to settle with the governors were denied the opportunity, despite their qualifications, competence and service to the party. Also, in 2007, governors were completely in charge. Only the candidates endorsed by them made the ministerial list. The governors also instructed the senators from their states to ensure that they scale through the screening hurdles in the Upper Chamber. A few of them who were lucky to be appointed by the President without consultation and involvement of the governors soon fell out of favour with the governors and the party at the state level.
Lagos politician Isiaka Adekunle-Ibrahim, said governors grew wings because of the weakness of the country’s political culture. “The Governors Forum, as we have seen, is a powerful and influential political bloc. They are so powerful in the PDP and many of them often have their ways, no matter the odds”, he fumed.
Governors’ push for true federalism
However, governors have denied the allegations that they are oppressing the President. They claimed that, it is the federal government that is oppressing the states. Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi clarified that the NGF is not driven by politics. “I am not a member of the political party that is the majority in the Governors’ Forum. It is only things that we agree that we push collectively. There are lot of things that governors do that they don’t do together. So, I don’t know how anyone will come by the conclusion that we are frustrating the country, oppressing the President and not allowing the constitution review process to progress”, he said.
The governor described Nigeria as a federation, adding that, there are only two levels of government, which are coordinate and no level can lord it over the other. “In a federation, and I speak as a political scientist now, and not as a governor, we have two federating units. When you have two federating units, they are not subordinate units. They are coordinate units. That is the language we use in political science. It means that they are sovereign, and if you are a sovereign, this notion that the federal government is the one protecting the nation against the excesses of rascals, criminals at the state level, who Nigeria must be protected from, is feeding bottle federalism.
“ It is totally absurd and nonsensical because I don’t know of any federation in the world that operates that way. In the United States, the President cannot relate to the governor of California or the governor of Massachusetts, who is from his own political party that way. If he crosses the line, they will tell him that, ‘Mr. President, are you really sure of what you are doing?’ You cannot hijack the powers of a coordinate federal unit. But that is what happens here, and because governors are not the most popular public office holders, people confuse logic with logicality”, Feyemi added.
He stressed that the governors were in a battle to sustain federalism. “On the issue we have raised fundamental questions, what people refer to as state police, our argument has not be about state police. The media describe it as state police. It is about multi-level police. We have never been against the federal police. We have said that the federal police has its own role in a federation. State police has its own role. Local police has its own role. Even, the university campus police has its role in that multi-level approach to security, particularly, law enforcement. But everybody refuses to take our line. They insist on federal police. I don’t know any governor that has ever said that the federal police is unacceptable and unwanted. We have always asked for is a multi-level police force to tackle our security challenge.
“The other issue is our interpretation of the Section 162 of the constitution. We have a religious interpretation of it in the Governors’ Forum, which is why we are in court on about four cases. Sectionn162 of the constitution makes it very clear. Every penny that comes to the coffers of the Nigerian state goes into only one account, the Federation Account. Not JP Morgan, not Citibank. Because we run this federalism as a unitary state; of course, our authoritarian military past is affecting us; people do not pay fidelity to this critical issue. Monies are collected by NNPC. We don’t even know the amount. No governor in this country can tell you how much this country earns on a daily basis. There should be accountability and transparency, and nobody gives me a full picture of what we earn. Governors have raised these issues at every forum. We have four cases in the Supreme Court. The federal government has been requesting for an out of court settlements in the cases. Does someone who oppresses you go to the court to seek reprieve? We are the ones being oppressed and nobody is coming to our aid. May be, we have not sufficiently made it clear that the states are the ones being oppressed by the federal government.
“That is actually what is happening. Some people are used to collecting money in an unaccountable manner. Let us render it to the Nigerian people. We like what Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Coordinating Minister of the Economy, has been doing by publishing what goes to us. That is fine. Our people should know what we get so that they can monitor us. We too want to know the actual money earned by the Nigerian state to which we belong, so that we can also challenge it with our own independent analysis. People should support us, instead of haranguing us”, Fayemi stressed.
