Efforts at producing reliable statistics for national planning have failed because the periodic headcounts have always hit the rocks. Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU writes on the politics of population census and its implications for the polity.
Seven years after the 2006 census was conducted, the controversy trailing the exercise has not ended. The headcount is inconclusive. Recently, the Census Tribunal ordered the National Population Commission (NPC) to conduct fresh census in the pre-existing 14 local governments (now 40 local governments and Local Council Development Areas) in Lagos State to correct the previous defective exercise.
After a critical assessment, the NPC Chairman, Mr. Festus Odimegwu, had declared that the last figures were inaccurate. Barely a week after the remarks, the National Census Tribunal nullified the results in 14 local government areas in Lagos State. The nullification followed massive complaints by 19 local governments. They are Agege, Alimoso, Amuwo-Odfin, Apapa, Badagry, Epe, Eti-Osa, Ifelodun, Ifako-Ijaye, Ikeja and Ikorodu. Others are Kosofe, Lagos island, Lagos Mainland, Mushin, Ojo, Oshodi-Isolo, Somolu and Surulere. After considering the petition, the tribunal ordered a recount in the old 14 councils.
Lagosians have argued that the figures allocated to the state by the NPC under the chairmanship of Chief Samaila Makama reflected a wide margin of error. The melting pot was credited with barely nine million, unlike the old Kano State, now consisting of Kano and Jigawa, which had 14 million. The population of both states was 5.8 million in 1991, while that of Lagos was 5.7 million. Sensing credibility problem on the part of the commission, Lagos State had conducted a parallel census during the 2006 exercise. Its enumerators registered 4.9 million buildings, both residential and official.
The state, according to the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, arrived at almost 18 million people, which is not a departure from the United Nation’s projection. He said the cancellation of the figures has vindicated the Lagos State government’s resolve to base its physical and economic plans on a projected population of 17,553,924 and over 21 million currently.
Already, the NPC is planning for a new census in 2016. However, it must now hold a supplementary headcount in Lagos before the next exercise. The puzzle is: “Can the commission learn from the past mistakes?
Like the periodic general elections, census has become a trigger for passion in Nigeria. Both census and voters registration are often rigged by the manipulators. But census generates a greater passion. What normally comes into the front burner are the age-long crises of identity, integration and distribution in the diverse, multi-ethnic social formation. These factors have remained the most formidable obstacles to nation-building in a supposedly African giant groaning under a skewed federal arrangement and flawed revenue distribution mechanism. Therefore, despite the fact that census is a national affair, it connotes different interpretations to the antagonistic component units constituting the fragile federation.
According to economic experts, during the census, many people feel that they are counted, not as Nigerians, but as citizens of tribes and ethnic nationalities. The politics of census has also thrown up educated warlords, who understand the implications of the exercise for governance. Census is critical to political calculation, especially, the sharing of political offices and economic formulation in a country where people have refused to develop a national outlook. Therefore, experts contend that the census war is always at the root of the politics of state and local government creation. It is also at the root of the delineation of state and federal constituencies and distribution of national revenue and social infrastructure.
A political scientist, Boniface Ayodele, submitted that census may not succeed in Nigeria for a long time. Although it is desirable and non-negotiable, he pointed out that the exercise has become an opportunity for competition by the regions, states, local governments and towns. “A region that wants more states, a state that wants more federal constituencies, a local government that wants more wards, and communities pressing for separate local governments hinge their hope on the census outcome”, he pointed out. The University of Ado-Ekiti teacher said that the implications of a flawed census are grave. He said planning with false figures could be counter-productive.
In many communities, there is mobilisation for the exercise. Some people return to their states of origin to participate in it in community interest. Critics have alleged that indigenes cooperate with traditional rulers and community leaders to contribute “census expenses” or “census fund” to rub the hands of enumerators, supervisors and other officials. The objective, analysts argue, is to have an advantage over rival towns, communities, states and regions when the results are collated. “During the census period, traditional rulers, council chairmen and governors are usually apprehensive”, Ayodele said.
There are also claims that the “geographical number ”has instilled unsubstantiated ethnic superiority and inferiority, following the much internalised media classification of tribes and ethnic groups into the “majority” and the “minority”. Indeed, in the march of federalism, the reliance on population strength by the dominant regions and the fear of it by the disadvantaged zones, have created the feelings of domination and resentment to marginalisaton.
In his book titled: ‘Nigeria: The Truth’, Daniel Agbowu noted that politically, each tribe has hinged its relevance and survival on the quantity of its population. “What is of great concern to all is the relative number of different tribes or nationality groupings. How many Northerners? How many Southerners? How many Easterners? How many Westerners? Indeed, how many Nigerians?”, he said.
The author submitted that “ as the Nigerian society becomes more politically sophisticated, the pre-eminence of the larger tribes is being challenged by the so-called minorities who are smarting from years of neglect and relegation”. He added: “The cry today is no longer of majority/minority dichotomy; it is one of equality of nationalities. Therefore, since democracy is a game of numbers, it is a critical factor for the survival of each nationality to enquire as just how many they are, and as to how much of the country’s collective resources they have had access to since independence and whether their future is still assured in a federal Nigeria”.
The country’s census history reveals the pattern of consistent resentment and rejection of the results by the Southern elements, who loathe the population superiority of the North, as suggested by the outcome of the result by successive census boards. According to census historians, headcounts were conducted between 1911 and 1921, but the results were not made known. The exercise followed the passage of the census ordinance in 1917 by the colonial government. But the first post-amalgamation census that was documented came in 1931. Since that year, it took place in every 10 years, although it was skipped in 1941 because of the Second World War between 1939 and 1945. The results were as follows: Northern Region, 11,343,000 (57.2 per cent), Western Region, 3,855,000 (19 percent), and Eastern Region, 4,641,000 (23.4 per cent). The 1952/53 census results affirmed the population distribution in the tree regions as: North: 16,840,000 (55.4 per cent), East: 7,218,000 (23.7 per cent) and West: 6,359,000 (20.9 per cent).
The 1962 census was the first
post-independence census. It
was conducted by a Briton, Mr. J. J. Warren, a federal census officer. It was cancelled due to public outcry. Prime-Minister Tafawa Balewa and the three premiers, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello (North),Chief Samuel Akintola (West) and Dr. Michael Okpara (East) agreed to hold a new census in 1963. The 1962 figures were first criticised, not by politicians, but by civil servants, who participated in the headcount. It marked the politicisation of the exercise. “Accusations and counter-accusations were freely traded among politicians from the three regions. Warren described the result from the Eastern Region as false and inflated, complained about the figures from the Western Region, but carried no adverse report about Northern Nigeria. Many observers believed that the scheming and scramble for more figures got to a peak because population figures formed the basis for the delineation of electoral constituencies.
The 1963 census was also marred with controversy. Complaints trailed its outcome. The North had 29,809,000; East 12, 394,000; West 10,931,000, and Midwest 2,536,000. The census tension engulfed the country. The Prime Minister further fuelled the tension when he declared that the North was now entitled to have more electoral constituencies than the whole of the South. The Premier of the Eastern Region fired back. Rejecting the census, Okpara said that it smacked of inflation of astronomical proportion, adding that the results were worse and useless. Venting his anger, he went to court to seek redress, but he lost on technical ground as the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. His Midwest counterpart, Denis Osadebey, followed suit, saying that the outcome was a stupendous joke of the year. He pointed out that women were counted in purdah without being seen. The result was nullified by the Prime Minister and the country reverted to the 1953 figures.
The fear of 1963 census gave birth to two alliances. The Southern based parties- the Action group (AG) and National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC)-teamed up under the United Progressives Grand Alliance (UPGA) to fight the Nigeria National Alliance (NNA), made up of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) and Nigeria National Democratic Party (NNDP).
In 1973, the military regime conducted its first census. It did not yield any meaningful result for planning. The chairman of the Census Board was the late Chief Justice Adetokunbo Ademola. According to the analysis, the North had 51 million and the South 28,758,696. The total population of the country was 79,758,969. As Agbowu pointed out, “of this, the six states Gowon created in the North were given 51 million while the six states in the South were allotted 28,758,969”. The analysis meant that the population of the North had jumped from 53.6 per cent in 1963 to 63.8 per cent in 1973. The Southern population had dwindled to 36.2 per cent from 46.4 per cent. The first Premier of Western Region, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, promptly rejected the figures. He said the 1973/74 headcount was a “barren exercise”. Former Head of State Gen. Yakubu Gowon consequently withheld the final figures. His successor, the late Gen. Muritala Mohammed, later cancelled the controversial results.
Second Republic President Shehu Shagari was planning for a census in 1983. He set up a census board headed by Alhaji Abdurahman Okene in 1981. But the headcount did not hold.
Following the creation of
states by the successive mili
tary governments, the fighting spirit of the regional blocs and tribal organisations were, to some extent, broken. Thus, their reactions and criticisms of the 1991 census were mild. In the 1991 census, out of an estimated 88,992,220 Nigerians enumerated, the North was credited with 46,146,743; the South had 42,845,477. The figures were disputed. In 2006, the North had 75 million and the South had 64,978,376. In addition, there were 71.7 million males and 68.3 million females. To some, the gender distribution was laughable. For the North, it showed a 62.58 per cent increase. For the Southwest, is was 49.86 per cent. Southsouth’s figure of 21,014,655 represented a 48.86 per cent.
Observers have pointed out that the 2006 exercise was a ruse. They had predicted gloom, ahead of the headcount. The polity was divided over the modalities. Christians demanded that religion should be an important element for consideration. The clergy and laity in Christendom were indirectly challenging their Muslim counterparts, who often claimed that their faithful were in the majority. Also, ethnic associations leading the agitations of the ethnic nationalities for relevance, insisted that the enumeration papers should shave columns for tribal status. Non-Muslims berated the counting of women in purdah, advising the enumerators to see the total picture of the person and not legs. The joke in many Southern Nigerian drinking joints was that, in the North, goats and sheep were counted as human beings.
In his critical analysis of the census results from 1931 to 1991, Agbowu observed that “over the 60 year period, each region has maintained approximately the same proportion of total population without regard to changes and differences in demographics, economic factors and other sociological phenomena”.
As a corollary to the “proportional representation”, Agbowu pointed out that “the internal rate of population growth for each region varies widely over the time, as well as varying significantly between regions”. The population of the West grew by 26.3 percent between 1931 and 1953. It grew by an astonishing 124.6 per cent between 1953 and 1963. But between 1963 and 1991, it slowed down by 63.6 per cent. On the other hand, the North had grown consistently and steadily by over 60 per cent between 1963 and 1991. The West and Midwest had the highest growth rate of over 70 per cent during the 60 year period, when compared with the average national rate of 65 per cent. This, to Agbowu, is a puzzle. “If the country as a whole grew at an average rate of 60 year period, one would have expected that the components, whose rates of growth, exceed the national average should show an increased proportion. But curiously, the West and Midwest have been clamped into the proportional population trap, and their growth artificially construed”, he added.
Agbowu contended that “this mathematical accuracy that maintains the proportional balance between the regions in a manner, which keeps the population of the Northern Region at a level higher than the other regions put together, defiles logic. What the census result proves is that population distribution in Nigeria is the opposite of what obtains everywhere around the world. That the population is larger in the Northern-semi-arid and Sahara belt, than the southern forested area, is a kind of reverse gradient.
Census is cumbersome and logistic problems may mar it. However, the internal politics of the country, which has always shaped the process and outcome, is more damaging. “Nigeria is afraid of counting itself. They even factor in their rigging permutations into the census preparation. We don’t know the accurate population of youths, adults, men and women, and children. Government wants to plan social policy for the aged, but data are unavailable”, said Ayodele. The university don warned that defective statistics will always result into defective planning.
What is the way out? To get it right, Ayodele suggested the use of biometric method. He also said that there should be an enlightenment that will change orientation from the desire to rig the census to the advantage of the tribes, to the appreciation of its importance for planning. “The country should have a national identity and data bank. This will eliminate false enumeration. Any other means will be an exercise in futility”.
