The Nation Newspaper

Tag: conference

  • Give South-west youths a voice

    SIR: I wish to observe on the Yoruba leaders of thoughts meeting held in Ibadan in Thursday February 27, on the issue of the agenda to be pursued by the Yoruba at the conference. While I have no doubt that the people at the meeting were eminent Nigerians of Yoruba stock, majority of who have distinguished themselves in public and private concerns and qualified to represent Yoruba at such conference, the absence of youths or failure to give the youths prominent role to play at that Yoruba leaders of thoughts meeting was disappointing. This is because issues to be discussed at the constitutional conference are issues for the future which have telling effects on the youths and fewer effects on the elders.

    Are our elders telling us that there are no youths in the South-west who can represent the region at the constitutional conference or they do not trust them? The irony is that most of the elders at the meeting were at some of the constitutional conference convoked to usher in Nigeria’s independence as youths probably under 30s. Not only that, many of them came into public offices in their 30s and early 40s. If the Yoruba leaders of those days could breed them as successors, why is it difficult for them to breed those who will succeed them and nurture them in their life times?

    I don’t need to belabour myself in showing the ages of the governors in the South-south, South-east and northern parts of the country to drive my point home. The failure on the part of South-west elders to replicate this is acceptance of failure on their part as parents.

    It is high time South-west youths wake up from their deep slumbers and take their rightful place in the affairs of the land. Obviously, fear of the future has forced them to run away from politics and seek for civil service and other professional jobs. The irony is that those who direct political affairs would continue to lord it over them in spite of the lucrative nature of their various vocations. They would have themselves to blame if they refuse to go into politics with their sound education which the South-west is reputed.

    • Adewuyi Adegbite

    Apake, Ogbomoso.

     

     

     

  • At last, the conference

    Barring the unforeseen, President Jonathan will today inaugurate the National Conference. Already names of its leadership and the 492 delegates have been unveiled. With these developments, the stage is now set for the various interest groups to engage each other on the best approaches to a stable federation. This is more so given that even after living together for 100 years, fissiparous and centrifugal tendencies have of recent been on the ascendancy.

    The pressure has been so much so that even ardent advocates and supporters of Nigerian unity have had cause to rethink that position.

    When the idea was made public sometime last year, there were divergent responses from those who spurned it and others who thought it was a thing whose time had come. Issues were raised regarding its propriety especially given the fast approaching general elections. There were other matters relating to nomenclature, mode of representation, legitimacy of its decisions and above all, the sincerity of the superintending government.

    Yet, many others felt events today make it compelling that we talk, if anything, to renew confidence in our commitment to live together. The inauguration will put paid to the debate regarding the desirability of the conference or not. Coming at a time of waning confidence in our capacity to live together, the conference will create the needed ambience for aggrieved sections to articulate their positions and seek accommodation within a common milieu.

    This is especially so given that one issue at the centre of the current tension in the country has been which section of the country should take a shot at the presidency come 2015. The north fells it is its turn in view of the zoning order in the PDP. The defections and counter defections as well as the bad political blood now flowing among politicians have their roots in this. We have been told of agreements or no agreements to serve for a single term and all that talk. We have heard of sections threatening fire, lime and brimstone should this or that happen. There is also the Boko Haram debacle that has been aptly classified as political grievance masquerading under a religious garb. All these fissures are indicators of a centre that can no longer hold. Do we need any body to tell us that it is time to sit down and address basic questions of our existence? If after 100 years we are yet to find a common handle to national integration, is it not suggestive that we have to go back to the drawing board else we risk dire repercussions? Can’t we learn from contemporary events in countries that have passed through this path?

    The point here is that Nigeria does not seem to have an alternative than to sit down and realistically craft the architecture of a stable and sustainable federal order. What we currently operate is federalism in its most aberrant form. Though extant regulations on the conduct of national affairs do exist, but they have not served the collective interests of the disparate groups that make up this country. Thus, the recurring decimal these issues have become.

    The main concern of those genuinely committed to Nigerian unity should be how to generate consensus on the vexed issues of our federation and incorporate them into the ground norms governing the country. That is the challenge. It is not enough to parrot Nigerian unity, its indivisibility and sacredness. It is not sufficient to decree Nigerian unity a- no-go-area as Jonathan and the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs have done.

    The question is, do we have the necessary dispositions and how much of the sacrifice that will stave off the constant recourse to parochial and primordial proclivities are we prepared to make? How prepared are we to significantly diminish the constant competition for the loyalty of the citizens by these cleavages? So it is not just a matter of sanctimony, grandstanding or precepts. It is a feeling that has to become manifest in the way sections react to such genuine issues of friction as fiscal federalism, devolution of powers, state police, revenue allocation and true federalism

    It is the overarching powers and influence of the centre that have in the main, accounted for the bitter struggles for its control, thriving corruption and the attendant underdevelopment despite the huge resources nature bountifully endowed this country. The need to whittle down these powers can only be discounted at the expense of national stability.

    But what you find when discussions commence will be a situation groups and sections hold on tenaciously to pre-determined views that are patently incapable of advancing to cause of true federalism. Then you begin to wonder if all this sanctimony about the unity and indivisibility of the country has become an end rather than a means to common good. You begin to wonder if the refrain has not become a subterfuge for holding others down.

    Yet, we are better as a united country especially given the attendant economies of large scale. The strength of Nigeria in its current form cannot be discounted both economically and politically. But that strength should not be allowed to become a liability. It should neither stifle intellect and innovation nor become another platform for the promotion of mediocrity. Sections that should ordinarily have moved notches higher in the development matrix are held down by a balancing process and tardiness that have left us in the current pass.

    It is not for nothing that regional development paradigms have now become very attractive options. Its proponents see in it a convenient way to circumvent the huge baggage and liability which the central authority has become. So when people talk of re-negotiating the basis of our common existence, it is a mark of their frustrations with the inability of the central government to deliver public goods and services efficiently and effectively to the constituent units. This category of people are no less patriotic than those who at the slightest chance, parrot national unity and its indivisibility but are found wanting when it comes to the necessary sacrifice and disposition that will sustain what they preach.

    That is why it is difficult to fault the views of advocates of all issues under the sun, including the unity and divisibility of Nigeria being discussed. Those who root for the inclusion of self-determination and the right to secession in the agenda of the conference may as well be more patriotic than others who do not want such issues mentioned.

    It is vital that these items are discussed and positions taken on them. They could become stabilizing factors out of our present logjam. Nigerian unity and indivisibility have been taken for granted for too long. It is time to subject our commitment to that unity to another test. There is the nebulous assumption that this unity will always be wielded by the force of arms. Yet, the force of arms has been most ineffective in that assignment. It is this over reliance on the capacity on force to wield sections together that has been the greatest deficit of our union. That accounts for the arrogance of some sections and disregard for mutual respect among the constituent units.

    Giving constitutional backing to the right to self-determination and secession will reverse all that. It may not necessarily lead to the disintegration of the country as being feared. But the fact of their existence will make all sections conscious of the need to sit up, live together and respect the feeling and sensibilities of the constituent units if they really appreciate their importance. It could turn out the recipe for a stable nation that is bound by love and mutual respect and not one that is sustained by ephemeral force of arms.

  • One conference, divergent issues

    One conference, divergent issues

    With the divergent issues on the agenda of the six geo-political zones for the national conference and the consensus parameter of 75 per cent, the confab may not differ from the ones before it, reports Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI.

    In spite of the skepticism in many quarters, the six geo-political zones have articulated their agenda for the National Conference, which is scheduled to be inaugurated next week in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The timing of the conference and the modalities setting it up might not be the very best, but the various zones are not taking chances. Leaders of the zones have taken the initiative to fashion out an agenda to guide delegates representing the regions at the confab, which is expected to negotiate the continued co-existence of all ethnic nationalities in harmony.

    However, given the 75 per cent consensus parameter set for the conference and the divergent issues being canvassed, the delegates would have a tough job on their hands, putting together a document that would satisfy the aspirations of the federating units.

    Essentially, the positions of the zones in the southern part of the country are not at variance with one another. For instance, South-west leaders have agreed to put on the table for discussion what is dubbed as the ‘Yoruba Agenda’. Their position is as follows: they want the Yoruba federation to maintain its six-state structure, with boundary adjustment for Ekiti in Kwara to join Ekiti State, Igbomina and Ibolo in Kwara to join Osun State. They also proposing the Westminster parliamentary system of government, power devolution from the central to federating units, resource control and revenue allocation to be reviewed in accordance with derivation instead of being based on total revenue accruing to the Federation Account. Among other things, the South-west is proposing that immunity for elected officials should be limited to civil cases only. On policing, they want regional police to be given clearly defined roles and relationship with the federal police.

    The South-west geo-political zone has been one of the most vociferous proponents of the national conference. Incidentally, the region, under the leadership of the main opposition party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), had initially dismissed the proposed confab, saying the region would not participate because it is viewed as diversionary and waste of scarce resources. Interestingly, the party made a U-turn at the eleventh hour and indicated its readiness to partake in the dialogue. Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi, said the APC states resolved to take part in the conference to protect the interests of their people, especially when President Goodluck Jonathan had declared that the Federal Government would nominate delegates for states that fail to do so. Each of the 36 states were expected to nominate three delegates.

    The position of the South-east is not far from that of the South-west. According to Secretary General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Dr Joe Nwaorgu, the agenda of the Igbo (South-east) for the conference is not different from what the Ohanaeze presented to the Senator Femi Okurounmu-led President Advisory Committee (PAC) on National Conference when it visited the South-east last October 27 and 29. His words: “We are prepared for the conference and we are determined to make it succeed. The issues we want resolved include: the structure of government-presidential or parliamentary, fiscal federalism, devolution of power, resource control, citizenship right, security of lives and property, and reparation over the continuous killing of our people and destruction of their property.”

    Nwaorgu said the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation picked 15 of the 30 delegates heading for the conference, while the governors nominated the rest with each of the five states having six slots. He added that the delegates were chosen in consultation with Igbo organisations affiliated to Ohanaeze such as the South-east People Development Association, Aka-Ikenga, Izu Umunna, Igbo Delegates Assembly and Igbos in Diaspora among others. “The heads of these organisations in consultation with us arrived at the list. Ohanaeze picked 15 delegates while the governors picked three delegates each,” he said.

    In the same vein, the South-south geo-political zone, the chief revenue generator for the country, also wants restructuring, fiscal federalism and 50 per cent derivation. At the moment, derivation is a miserly 13 per cent. The South-south strongly believes that local communities and states where natural resources emanate should control their wealth by, at least, 50 per cent. The region argues that if this singular issue is resolved, the national atmosphere would be convivial.

    Some ethnic nationalities and groups at the meeting where the above decision was arrived at, in Calabar, Cross River State recently, include: Ijaw National Congress, Oron ethnic nationality from Akwa Ibom State, South-south Peoples Assembly, South-south Peoples Forum and Efik Eburutu ethnic nationality. Governor Liyel Imoke, represented by his deputy, Efiok Cobham, said: “On derivation, our position aligns with the that of the entire South-South states to the effect that the constitution be amended to read that a state on whose territory oil (or other natural resources) are extracted or found be entitled to not less 50 per cent of the entire proceeds from the exploration and exploitation.”

    Another South-south proposal calls for the curtailing of “the over-reaching powers of the federal government” and making the central government more accountable to the federating units over the handling and management of the nation’s financial outlay. “Powers should therefore be devolved and the Executive legislative list should be reviewed in order to transfer certain matters to the Concurrent List.”

    All the geo-political zones in the south are in agreement that the outcome of the conference should never be subjected to scrutiny and review of the National Assembly as President Jonathan had proposed. This, they argue, would defeat the essence of the national discourse because members of the National Assembly would alter the resolutions of the conference. For the outcome not to become a subject of litigation later because it does not have a legal backing, many observers have proposed that there should be an Executive Bill to the National Assembly to enact an enabling law to legitimately back up the National Dialogue.

    As a legal practitioner and chairman, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Chapter, Monday Ubani, puts it: “My position has always been that the objectives of the national conference must be properly spelt out and that spelling out must be done through an act of the National Assembly.” He added that his recommendation even to the Femi Okurounmu-led committee was that “we must enact a law spelling out the modalities, the issues to be talked about and what to do with the outcome of the talk, so that we would know what we are dealing with.” He said constituting a national conference and leaving the conferees to determine the outcome is a recipe for disaster.

    The North is also not left out of the preparations. The 19 northern states have articulated a 30-point agenda for the conference at their recent two-day meeting in Kaduna. The meeting was part of the governors’ legwork to ensure that the North speaks with one voice at the conference. Speaking on the agenda, Governor Babangida Aliyu of Niger State said the northern governors took a bold step at their just concluded meeting in Kaduna on the points to be presented at the conference and assured that the points would not in any way tamper with the unity and development of the country. “In our last meeting, we took a principled position to send our best and experienced people to the conference and this will include those who will be able to defend and discuss the issues without fear or favour, but which will not tamper with the unity and development of the country,” the governor remarked.

    From all indications, the north has forged a united front going into the National Conference, but without any agenda or position. The Arewa Consultative Forum, ACF, a vociferous northern socio-cultural organisation, appear to embody the views of the north, when it indicated recently that it is not comfortable with the holding of the conference, on the grounds that it would be unproductive, just like the previous ones before it. Nevertheless, it maintained that the north is ready to participate as stakeholders. National Publicity Secretary of ACF, Anthony Sani, who made the above declaration, said that those who were expecting the North to go to the confab with a common position or agenda, got it wrong. He added: “We didn’t initiate the idea of the confab, so we would only be attending as participants,” the ACF spokesman stated. Arguing that most northerners do not see any sense in having a national conference since the National Assembly is already in place, Sani noted with pessimism that the National Dialogue would end again as one of those exercises in futility. He stressed that the rest of the regions should know that the North would not support any debate on secession and matters that would divide the country, but those that would unite Nigerians as a people.

    In contrast, the Middle Belt Forum headed by former Minister of Information, Jerry Gana, and former presidential candidate, John Dara, have said the position of their group would be political equality for all the ethnic nationalities in the country. In a press statement signed by its president, Gana and secretary, Dara, the group said: “We demand that this must not be reduced to a dialogue of only the major ethnic groups, but it should be a conference of all ethnic nationalities. Every ethnic group must have at least one representative before proportional seats allotted to the bigger ethnic groups and other interest.”

    Northern governors have always disagreed with their southern counterpart in the past over issues like state police, resource control or derivation and the call for true federalism, with the former always resisting attempts to change the status quo. A public affairs analyst, Stanley Ologun, believes that since the north appears to have teamed up with the Federal Government, the stage is set for confusion at National Conference. His words: “The north seems to have settled for status quo that benefits only the Federal Government. The south as usual is divided into three and would be against the north and the Federal Government at the conference. The stage is set for confusion.”

  • Conference modalities: citizens versus subjects (2)

    Conference modalities: citizens versus subjects (2)

    The process captured in the recently released modalities is unapologetically undemocratic

    Let us return to last week’s metaphor of the missing goat owned by an old witch. The owner of the goat did not trust that everyone in the neighbourhood appearing interested in finding the goat meant well. She would rather that most of her neighbours looking for the goat did not find it. Is this the way things are with several individuals and agencies calling for or responding to the call for a national conference? And does the call for a national conference still have its old witch looking for its missing goat?

    When the matter of national conference came into public knowledge at the instance of the late Alao Aka-Bashorun, the call was for a sovereign national conference to address modalities for restructuring Nigeria or restoring a truly federal system to Nigeria. In the mouth of NADECO activists during the resistance to the annulment of the 1993 election won by the late Chief MKO Abiola and the military tyranny that followed this at the hands of General Sani Abacha, the call for a sovereign national conference gained more mileage and became a central theme in the anti-military or pro-democracy activism of 1994 to 1998.

    Even after the emergence of a post-military government led by General Olusegun Obasanjo, NADECO leaders in and out of government nursed the hope that transition from military to civilian rule would eventually lead to holding of a sovereign national conference to address the problems militating against a union of affection,(distinct from a union of coercion) crafted for over three decades by successions of military dictatorships. Obasanjo came in and organised what he called a Political Reforms Conference which was dead on arrival, largely because it was based on assembling representatives of the country’s nomenclatural class. President UmaruYar’Adua did not pretend to be interested in any national conference. He was satisfied with the way Nigeria under his rule was structured and believed that good leadership would solve whatever problems were inhibiting peace and progress in multiethnic Nigeria. And until October 2013, President Goodluck Jonathan was not convinced about the need to have a national conference. In short, there was no government leader with serious interest in looking for the proverbial goat of national conference.

    When President Jonathan finally became converted to the cause of a conference, his conversion speech on October 1, 2013 gave away the vagueness of what he hoped to achieve with a meeting: “Fellow Nigerians, our Administration has taken cognisance of suggestions over the years by well-meaning Nigerians on the need for a National Dialogue on the future of our country. I am an advocate of dialogue. When there are issues that stoke tension and bring about friction, it makes perfect sense for the interested parties to come together to discuss. In demonstration of my avowed belief in the positive power of dialogue in charting the way forward, I have decided to set up an Advisory Committee whose mandate is to establish the modalities for a National dialogue or Conference…”

    There is palpable evidence in the diction of President Jonathan that he was not clear about what he wanted the conference to achieve, especially in relation to the calls for a national conference for the purpose of restructuring that preceded his conversion. Given the decision of President Jonathan not to be specific about what his dialogue is expected to address, it should not surprise anybody that the modalities for the conference submitted by the Advisory Committee has shied away from giving full recognition to citizens of the nationalities that the British coloniser fought or negotiated treaties with. Choosing to focus on representatives of the nomenclatural class seems to be an appropriate response to President Jonathan’s preference of dialogue to conference in his speech, a clever tactical lexical move.

    Like President Jonathan, many leaders and organisations purporting to be spokespersons for their nationalities pick their words carefully with respect to the holding of a national conference. For example, leaders of the Arewa Consultative Forum have said repeatedly that they have no agenda for any conference, because they have not requested for any conference and would only respond to issues about the unity of the country. Its parallel organisation, the Northern Elders Forum, also states unequivocally that there is nothing wrong with the current constitution imposed on the country by the last military dictatorship. This means that two-sixths of the country is already noncommittal about the conference, if the words of leaders of ACF and NEF are anything to go by. It is difficult to know the reach of a new organisation, Northern Elders Council, but it should be reassuring to conference advocates that there is an organisation in the core north that has no philosophic objection to a national conference. The position of the North-central is not as vocal or clear as that of the organisations that claim to represent the interest of the whole north or what ACF often refers to as one north.

    The only groups and individuals that are noticeably interested in a national conference and a new constitution are largely groups from the south of the country. South-south spokespersons are calling for a conference of ethnic nationalities, if their public presentations at the interactive sessions are to serve as basis for evaluation of their position. It is therefore not surprising that a minority report emanated from a committee member of South-south origin.

    On the side of the Southeast region, two groups have already emerged, the traditional Ohanaeze and the Igbo Leaders of Thought under the leadership of Prof Ben Nwabueze. The Ohanaeze is pleased with the modalities announced recently by the Secretary to the Federal Government while the Igbo Leaders of Thought would prefer representation on the basis of nationalities and the ratification of conference recommendations through a popular referendum, rather than giving the responsibility to the national assembly that has been amending the constitution for almost three years to no avail.

    Similar to the fragmentation in the position of the Igbo, the Yoruba appears to be having two schools on the conference. The position of APC as a nation-wide political party is not a Yoruba position, just as the unspoken position of the PDP is not the position of any nationality or region in particular. The Yoruba position is represented by two public meetings; one in Isara in the home of Pa Olaniwun Ajayi and another one at the former Western House of Chiefs in Ibadan. It is too soon to know which of these two groups would uphold the Yoruba tradition of egalitarianism in the matter of who should be qualified to choose delegates to discuss matters of national or community interest. But one thing that is clear so far is that the call for another meeting in Ibadan after the meeting in Isara suggests that the Yoruba, like the Igbo, are divided on the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Committee on modalities for the conference including the erection of No-Go area that is likely to limit frank discussion at the Jonathan conference.

    In a situation in which most of the regions have no solid positions on conference modalities released by the federal government, it should not surprise anyone if the conference fails to accomplish the kind of re-structuring that motivated Aka-Bashorun, BekoRansome-Kuti, Abraham Adesanya, Bola Ige, Pa Onasanya, Ndubuisi Kanu, Baba Omojola, and many other leaders of NADECO to call for a sovereign national conference to demand a people’s federal constitution for the country. It is a common axiom that democracy is not just about product but also about process. The process captured in the recently released modalities is unapologetically undemocratic. It is, however, possible that there are millions of people who are ready to expect a democratic product from a nondemocratic process. Just like the missing goat, it is the nationalities that own the goat; all other interest groups are neighbours of the owner of the missing goat.

    To be continued

  • Whose conference?

    Whose conference?

    •The delegate count and structure as well as modalities show the incoming national conference as a rubberstamp affair

    Since the secretary to the Federal Government, Pius Anyim, unveiled the modalities and period of the proposed national conference, a sense of reality replaced the ambiguous air it originally generated. But that ambiguous air continues in new guises.

    The breakdown of the delegates has shown two things that cast doubts over its credentials as a democratic affair. One, it is not going to attract men and women voted by any sort of plebiscite or election that will pass any republican test. Two, about half of the delegates will be handpicked. This detracts from the officially ballyhooed view of the affair as a conference of the people for the people and by the people.

    If the president will pick the chairman, deputy and secretary of the confab, it follows that the dynamics and the operations will chime in with the president’s world view. The three constitute the major officers. That gives the leadership “a hand of Esau and voice of Jacob” artificiality, and those who will follow the proceedings, especially when it appertains to presidential powers and the legitimacy of existing executive order of things, will read meanings to the way the confab leadership acts.

    Other than that, the president will also pick elders and a few other delegates numbering 47. The state governors are going to, as well as some groups in the country, including the Nigeria Bar Association and the Guild of Editors. In all, so-called stakeholders will select 282 of the 492 delegates.

    As some members of the Council of State wondered, what is the difference between presidential delegates and those by the Federal Government? That nebulous difference was not addressed in the scenario. They include 18 military/ security personnel, 13 traditional rulers, retired civil servants at one per zone, eight from organised private sector, 12 from Nigerian youth organisations, 24 from women groups, 10 from political parties, 12 Muslim and Christian leaders, 24 from civil society organisations, eight Nigerians from the Diaspora and six people with disabilities from the different zones in the country.

    For obvious reasons, the Jonathan administration has refrained from adding the prefix sovereign to the conference because of its implication to dig beyond mere allegiance to country. Those who have sought a sovereign conference want to pitch everything for debate, including questioning the indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria. What the president wants is a tame and caged conversation about the way we should run the country.

    Those who object have raised a question as to whether we can ever ferret out a workable consensus from a conversation that does not bare all the pains, suspicions, fears and hatred smouldering ominously in the hearts of the country.

    Profound to this worry is the failure of the delegate structure to cater to the ethnic diversity of the country. Professor Ben Nwabueze, one of the original nominees for the Okurounmu-led committee on the conference, has articulated his objection because the conference will not represent the wide girth of ethnic hues in the land. We have over 300 different languages and over 500 dialects. These numbers alone trump the whole delegate count.

    If, as the purveyors of the conference assert, the tribes and tongues are included, it will be hard to cater for most of them. In Rivers State, for instance, who will represent the melange of Ijaws, Andonis, Ogonis, Ikwerre and the others? If some others have asserted that ethnic representation should take a back seat to other considerations, they fail to take cognisance of the recent history of Nigeria with deep suspicions among our heterogeneous peoples. The fissures in the north, epitomised by the insurgency of Boko Haram, as well as the Itsekiri-Ijaw incendiary in the Niger Delta or the Ife-Modakeke bloodbath in the southwest, are enough clarion calls to sobriety over our differences.

    Again, what are the modalities for determining who will represent the women organisations, as we have different women organisations across the country, representing different classes and nuances of culture? We have market women organisations, women’s professional organisations, elite-based organisations, etc, some of them with innocuous facades but essentially partisan. The same applies to the youth organisations. How would the Federal Government pick the disabled or the Nigerians from outside the country without an air of partiality? Could we not with a view to striking a balance in one area – for instance ethnicity – not tilt the balance against a certain economic class or region?

    That is why this sort of conference only works with the legitimacy issuing from the people of the country, in a well-ordered and transparent referendum. When the people decide, they are more at peace with the consequences and learn from their follies.

    But when a few pick for them, they suspect the outcome as a choreographed process to achieve a goal that may not coincide with the popular will. Since the president will have to endorse the results ultimately, how shall we say this is the people’s conference? The presidency has asserted that the confab will determine whether the results should be decided by a plebiscite or not. This is being clever by half. The president asserted to the Council of State that the Independent National Electoral Commission would not be able to conduct a referendum to determine delegates because of the tight electoral schedule this year. Yet he gives the confab an option to call for a referendum after the work? Is the INEC schedule lighter later in the year than now? This is being disingenuous, deliberately misleading the people or being dangerously naïve.

    A people’s constitution must arise from a people’s confab. A situation where about half of the delegates are handpicked and the other half left to a manipulation of selection that may bear presidential influence or imprimatur does not appear to us like a people’s confab. It is more like a way of finagling a confab on the people and presenting it as a fait accompli.

    This is a conference with artificial legitimacy, and will not confer on the people a sense of ownership.

     

  • South East group endorses conference

    South East group endorses conference

    The South East Peoples Assembly (SEPA), yesterday applauded the modalities for the conduct of the proposed National Conference.

    Dr. Ifedi Okenna, SEPA national secretary, in a statement ,noted that the conference, would mark the beginning of the last stage of Nigeria’s march towards True Federalism.

    SEPA said that the conference has,once again, exposed the level of marginalisation of the zone, as it would be coming with the least number of delegates.

    It also said that the zone would be represented by only five elder Statesmen to be nominated by the President against six to seven persons from the other zones.

    Said SEPA it believed that “the unity in diversity can only be a source of great strength if it is based on Justice, Equity and Fairness.

    “We therefore urge Ndigbo to be prepared as always to actively participate in the soon to be convict National Conference.

    “We however note like always, that the South East will again be coming to this conference with fewer number of delegates because of its fewer number of States.

    “For instance, we noted that where other zones will be coming with between 18-21 nominees of the Governors, South East shall be coming with 15 delegates.

    “Also South East will be coming with only five elder Statesmen to be nominated by the President against 6-7 persons from the other zones. This is inequitable, unfair and unjust.

    SEPA asked the Federal Government to note that the use of State in those areas as basis for nomination has gross disadvantage on the people of South East and as such should try to remedy this disadvantage through other nominations to ensure that the zone is not disadvantaged at the National Conference.

    SEPA therefore opposed the recommended use of 75 per cent majority for arriving at any decision at the conference.

    It said:“75 per cent or 3/4 is well above conventional 2/3 (66.67 per cent) required for passage of any contentious issue and which is indeed an international best practice.

    “We therefore call on the Federal Government to direct that 2/3 majority be used or in the alternative, allow the Conference to set its own rules and regulate itself.”

  • Still on Jonathan’s conference vs Peoples conference

    Still on Jonathan’s conference vs Peoples conference

    While the federal government under President Goodluck Jonathan is carrying on with its plan to host a national conference that is not likely to be sovereign, given the recommendations of the Senator Femi Okurounmu-led advisory committee, the people of Nigeria continue to reject the proposed talk shop while insisting on a sovereign national conference.

    Chieftains and members of the Project Nigeria (Nigeria Consensus Group) and Pro National Conference Organisation, PRONACO; two major platforms in Nigeria committed to a peoples driven and all inclusive National Conference in Nigeria, are the latest group of Nigerians to re-iterate the need for President Jonathan to pocket his own confab idea and hearken to the voices of the people.

    The leaders of the groups have again called on the President  to jettison the plan to send the resolutions of the forth coming National Conference to the National Assembly as part of inputs for the ongoing constitutional amendments.

    Recalling how decree 24 of 1999 dubiously christened 1999 constitution as the peoples’ constitution, the groups said this is at the root of the current political strife and tension in the land and that no amount of amendments can transform it to a constitution legitimately owned by the Nigerian peoples.

    The group also wants President Goodluck Jonathan to make the diverse ethnic Nationalities in the country the core of the composition of the proposed National Conference as they are the original indigenous component units of Nigeria.

    The group averred that the universal convention for constitution making is that it is not a government or any of its organs that gives the people of a country a constitution but that it is the people that gives its government a constitution for popular governance.

  • ‘Let’s revisit Ibadan conference’

    ‘Let’s revisit Ibadan conference’

    As the Federal Government prepares to inaugurate a national conference early this year in the midst of the country’s centenary celebration, Prince Adetowo Aderemi, a son of the former Governor of Western Region and late Ooni of Ife,Sir Adesoji Aderemi has called for a return to regionalism first adopted at the national conference held in Ibadan in 1950, in this interview with BISI OLADELE and TAYO JOHNSON

    As a historian with deep interest in Nigerian history, what do you think of the activities lined up by the Federal Government for the centenary celebration of the country?

    That is the same question I have been asking myself every morning. The first point is that those who are making so much noise about the centenary know little about the amalgamation itself. They do not ask questions about why the different protectorates were amalgamated, what made the amalgamation expedient. Why did we have to merge three different units which have very little to show for being a country?

    When the amalgamation was done it was done in England in the Court of Windsor Castle. There was no black man there let alone a Nigerian. It was just a joint decision of Sir Harcourt who was then the Secretary of Economy and Lord Luggard who found out that the Northern protectorate was a hot potato to him and was trying to drop it on somebody that will absorb it. So, the main reason for the amalgamation was just to pass on a burden from the British to Southern Nigeria.

    What was the burden in your own view?

    It was the burden of running the Northern Protectorate at a loss. All the supporting documents are at the National Archives in Ibadan. The North was being run at a loss while the South was been run at a profit. The profit from the South was being taken to England while England was running the North with a subvention of £3,000 per annum. So, that was how Lord Luggard came up with the idea of amalgamation.

    When you look at Luggard’s history he was a soldier who came to serve a company that was running in the North around 1894. When he got here, he went to all the Emirs and promised to protect their interest. When the time came, Luggard was appointed the first commissioner, which is the Chief Executive of the North.

    As far back as 1902, Luggard had asked the British to join the three protectorates together – Northern, Southern and Eastern regions, but was not taken seriously until 1907 when he was taken to Hong Kong where he was being groomed for a special assignment between 1907 and 1912. In 1912, he was brought back to Nigeria, and on October 19, 1912, he was made the Governor of Southern Nigeria. The following day he was made the Governor of Northern Nigeria which means he became the Governor of Nigeria. By that arrangement, Nigeria became unified under one Governor.

    So what he did was to send a paper to Lagos in May, 1913, seeking the joining of the regions, and that paper was put before the Queen. On November 22, 1913, the Queen put her seal and proclaimed the colony of Northern and Southern protectorates of Nigeria and that was how Nigeria was formed. But then, between that period and 1960, Nigeria was run as two countries. The governor was responsible for the running of the North while there was a quasi legislative group running Southern Nigeria. It was in 1922 under Arthur Richard that he asked for three regions when the Clifford constitution did not work. And that was when the NCNC went to London to protest that they did not want it and that it was not the wish of Nigerians. So Clifford was taken away in 1948 and Macpherson came and asked for the views of the different regions.

    So, on January 9, 1950, they met in Ibadan and it was the first time the North, East and the West met as a body. It was called the Ibadan Conference and that was where they drafted a constitution which Macpherson put together. But the bad aspect of it was that on any issue which the North said no, they adopted the North’s position. I remember that my father was there and he said let the River Niger be the boundary between Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria with most parts of Kwara and Kogi states as part of Southern region. But on anything of such, the North would say no because they were always treating them as wanting to break. But the British knew that the North could not survive on its own.

    Are you saying that at that Ibadan Conference the unofficial position of the North was that it is either Southern part of Nigeria took their opinion or they pull out of the country?

    Yes! In fact, at a point in time, they were about to break away. So, my father now called a meeting with Yoruba Obas and Northern Emirs. The British had respect for the Northern Emirs to the extent that if they were calling for any meeting they would invite at least five Emirs because Luggard had assured them that he would continue to protect their interest.

    Why would Luggard give such a promise when he knew that two different sets of people were coming together to discuss their future?

    By this time, Luggard had left Nigeria but he handed the promise to his successor‘. But the truth of the matter was that Luggard never liked the Southern Protectorate. That was why he was at loggerheads with Herbert Macaulay throughout his stay here. It was because we had education but the North had no education. We would argue with them what they would not. As far back as 1880, a Yoruba man has become a medical doctor the first lawyer from the North qualified in 1948.  Now, compare 1880 to 1948. In fact, Luggard even promised never to allow the Christians to pollute their children. Hence, churches were not allowed there. It was Clifford that said if we continued this way the gap would get wider. He then formed the Katsina Teachers College in 1932 as compared to 1859 when CMS Grammar School was formed. So the disparity was so much.

    What was the outcome of that Ibadan Conference in 1950 on Nigeria as a country?

    The outcome was that Nigeria would have three regions and each region would be headed by a governor with a House of Assembly. Each region would have its own executive which would run the regions. There would be a Federal Government in Lagos. There would be what we call the Federal Government territory, which will overlook the affairs of all these three regions. And after that, we would begin to discuss and allow Nigerians to participate in governance.  In August and September 1951, elections were held in the three regions. In the North it was by some arrangements. In the West it was by adult suffrage. In the East it was by those who can pay tax.

    When the 1950 conference finished, that was when political activities started. Chief Obafemi Awolowo called all his friends – Dosumu, Rewane, Shonibare etc and he launched the Action Group in March, 1950. The mistake most people make is thinking that the party started in Owo. It was the first party convention that was held in April in Owo for the people that did not attend the Ibadan meeting, having heard that the party had been formed. So, they met in Owo and started the party.

    When Macpherson started the district contribution to constitution, Dikko, the first medical doctor from the North who qualified in 1948 was sent to the Katsina Teachers College to form Northern Peoples Congress (NPC). But in 1951, civil servants were not allowed to contest. Because Dr Dikko was a civil servant, he had to give up the leadership of the group to Ahmadu Bello, Tafawa Balewa, Aliu Bida, and Shettima. By the end of 1951, it was clear that the Action Group has won in the West, the NCNC in the East and NPC in the North. When the NPC was being formed, Aminu Kano did not like the idea of the colonial leadership. So, he broke off and formed Northern Element Progressive Union (NEPU). So, the colonials did not allow the party to see the light of the day. They rigged just to ensure that the status quo in the north was maintained and that was how we got into 1952. Part of the agreement at the 1950 conference was that there would be a House of Representatives in Lagos where each region would send a representative. They also formed the House of Chiefs in the West in 1951 but the North has had it since 1947 and in the East there was none. So, the rule was that from the House of Chiefs in the West and North, members should be sent to Lagos. But the East also had one in 1958.

    Judging by this rich history, what is your opinion on the centenary celebration and the activities that are going on the anniversary?

    What government should have done other than ordering gold plated mobile phone which will cost N6 million per piece and others which they are now denying is that they should publish a magazine and let Nigerians know their history. That is what the Americans, Indians and the Chinese have done. If you do not know where you are coming from how will you know where you are going? I was ashamed when a service of commendation was held for Mrs Tejumade Alakija at St James Cathedral (Oke Bola, Ibadan) just about three weeks ago. The clergy man who officiated did not know the name of the Governor of Osun State. Many Nigerians do not know anything about Nigeria. When I was doing a project for one of the telecommunications companies I got to places where you will not believe are part of Nigeria. When you get to Abuja also you will not believe what you are seeing. The original plan for Abuja was to be a civil servant town but today no decision can be taken without getting to Abuja. The best contract is also there. What I would have suggested instead of all these elaborate dinners and lectures and all that is for Nigerians to know the truth. For once, let Nigerians know exactly why there was an amalgamation. Many people go into marriage without knowing the reason why they are getting married but they can keep their marriage if they are honest to themselves and adjust. Each time I hear them talk about the centenary celebration I marvel because most of them do not know anything about amalgamation and the independence in 1960, they are all just trying to make quick money and to deceive us by saying that it will be funded by corporate bodies. No corporate body knows the truth about amalgamation. When Chief Obasanjo was launching his private library in Ota, one oil firm said it would not participate because it was not their headache but it was being threatened by Kupolokun and others that they would withdraw its licence. Everybody was dropping money for a private project. You will see the people that will become very rich at the end of this centenary celebration which the government said will run for one year. It is sickening. Let people know that the amalgamation was done without the consent of the people, and we have done it for 100 years. For us to map out another 100 years, let us know why we should continue as one single entity.

    Do you think the national conference is significant, coming at this time?

    The whole thing is being manipulated. Why Okurounmu? It’s just for it to look like your son is there. The president set up a committee in Abuja and handpicked half of those that will be present there. The end of Okunronmu panel will be a waste. Let us go back to the 1950 Ibadan Conference discussions. Let us adopt a proper federation. Let us have a weak centre not to break. Let the regions contribute to their development.

    What was the relationship between your father and Chief Awolowo?

    It was a father and son relationship. In 1983, I went to see Chief Awolowo at Ikenne and he said my father was the person that saved the Yorubas because he single handedly financed the Egbe Omo Oduduwa from which the Action Group took the bulk of its members. At one time when he had a disagreement with Action Group in 1959 when Fani Kayode was running (on the party’s ticket) for the Federal House of Representatives, and Fani Kayode insulted my father’s chiefs, my father told Chief Awolowo to remove Fani Kayode and put another person but Chief Awolowo told my father that it is democracy and we have already chosen him to represent us. My father brought in Omisade, just about four months to the election. Omisade defeated Fani Kayode with 6000 votes.

    But what we heard was that Fani Kayode opposed your father then on an issue of benefit to the people of Ile-Ife and that was the reason the Kabiyesi did not like him again?

    That is not true. Fani Kayode’s father came to Ife as an Evangelist. He was from Ekiti. Let them point to the family they came from in Ile-Ife? I do not want to start a fresh crisis but Fani Kayode insulted my father’s chiefs over some local government issues. It was not a confrontation between my father and Fani Kayode but he was insulting his chiefs, and he said if he can insult his chiefs, that means he was insulting him too.  When Fani Kayode was defeated then, he went through the back door to get to the western House of Assembly in 1951 with the pretence that he was back with the Ooni. My father did not have anything against Fani Kayode. He saw him as his son because Fani Kayode and my father’s eldest son were best of friends and they were both lawyers. So he saw him as his son. My father was one person you can never offend. If he wanted to cause problem after the May 27 judgment by the Privy Council, he could have done that. Chief Akintola came to meet him and said: “Kabiyesi. I want to make you a Minister.” But he declined. He said he had been Minister in 1952, Chairman of Chiefs and was governor. He saw it as an insult. That was how he left him in the sitting room. When he (Akintola) found out that Ooni was no longer coming down he left the palace.

    If your father was alive today what advice do you think he will give Jonathan concerning this centenary?

    He will just tell him to go and do things right first. They are not doing things right. With due respect to Mr President there is this culture of impunity, otherwise why is Stella Oduah still a minister? In a civilised society Oduah will be on suspension, whether she has said the fault is with the Managing Director of Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority or Ngozi-Iweala who authorized the N10 million waiver or not. This case is sickening. Go and count the number of vehicles she is having. Once upon a time when Nigeria Airways had only one flying plane, they have over 120 cars for its officials. Today we don’t even have a national airline and somebody who is a minister there is buying a bullet-proof car instead of thinking about getting an airline for the country. What we are saying is that if things are to be done right let us go back to the basics.

    How do you think Nigeria can achieve true federalism?

    By those in authority being honest, let us be truthful with ourselves.

    How can we correct the failure of the present system of government?

    Let us go back to the regional government. What I am saying is that we should go back to the basics and see how we can strengthen our society. In 1930, when my father became the Ooni he told me a story that in the following year that he was crowned the Ooni he looked at the town and discovered that there was no change.

    There was one Rev. Cole who was going to Ilesa to establish Ilesa Grammar School. My father’s friend, Rev Adejumo, now said let us go and greet the Ooni. That was how my father stopped him and asked him to establish Oduduwa College which was established January 22, 1932. The British made it to look like Agrey Memorial School, which was established on April 4, 1932. My father said so soon he found out that there was a relative peace in the town because all the children had to go to school by force even after they have completed their Standard six. It was this same Rev Cole that told my father that some people were planting something that is called Cocoa which was brought from Brazil and it is a money-making seed. That was how my father directed all the people in the land to find a farm and he provided the seeds. That was how Ife became the biggest producer of Cocoa after five years. So, in the morning the children went to school and before dawn the parents were in the farm and there was a relatively peace in the land.

    If you were given an opportunity to attend this national conference, what would you advocate for?

    Let us have true federalism, growth and development. There can’t be growth without development. If we are able to puncture corruption, you will find everybody saying this government will have zero tolerance for corruption, but corruption has not ceased. We cannot completely eradicate it but let it be at a minimal level.

     

  • National conference and minorities’ wishes

    The National Dialogue Committee set up by President Goodluck Jonathan to harmonise views on the modalities for the national conference has been the discourse among Nigerians in recent weeks. It has visiting the states to collate opinions on how the country should be structured, given the perennial problems that have slowed the efforts of the nation to march to greatness.

    It has been said in several quarters that a national conference remains an impeccable solution to socio-political challenges facing us as a people towards engendering peace and harmony in the nation. The proponents of national conference believe it would address and proffer solutions to the obstacles impeding the development of Nigeria and ensure fairness and justice among its diverse ethnic nationalities.

    The dialogue (of if you like conference) should be welcomed by every well-meaning individual if only to give us opportunity to take our leaders to task on how the government should be structured and how we should deal with ourselves as a people with common destiny. But we should ask ourselves if the present administration possesses character to organise such a conference?

    Indeed, we should have course to worry as there are some grey areas surrounding the organisation of the conference. How the representatives were selected is one of such grey areas. In a diverse nation such as Nigeria, one might wonder how the various communities and ethnic stocks were represented to state their opinion in the national dialogue.

    The nation is divided into six geo-political zones with 36 states and over 250 tribes, such figures will definitely pose a headache to any nation intending to hold a national conference. But then, the task must be done. If I may ask, how did minority ethnic groups air their views?

    There is no doubt that we need to discuss the country’s existence and a sovereign national conference is one of such avenues to engage ourselves in meaningful discussion on how the nation should move forward. So, if we must do it at all, it should be done in a manner that would reflect the wishes and aspirations of all ethnic groups in Nigeria.

    A national conference will definitely yield a chunk of suggestions about how such factors impeding the progress of the nation can be checked. If the present administration believes it has what it takes to implement the suggestions that may arise, then all Nigerians should be in support of it as it is long overdue.

    The government must do everything to ensure the proper conduction of the conference as it would go a long way in establishing a level of trust and confidence in Nigeria and its destiny.

     

    •Zayyad, 200-Level Civil Engineering, BUK

  • Onwenu, Femi Sax to rock worship conference

    Onwenu, Femi Sax to rock worship conference

    Music diva, Onyeka Onwenu, and a host of other gospel artistes will set Lagos agog at the weeklong worship service of The Fountain of Life Church’s (TFOLC).

    Tagged Worship His Majesty, the conference holds from November 26-December 2.

    Nathaniel Bassey, Nosa, Shenwele Jesu and others also will minister at the conference, the Director of Media and Publicity of TFOLC, Pastor Mrs. Oyindamola Soderu, told reporters last week.

    Others, according to her, include Femi Sax and the Mass Choir of the church.

    A pastor in the church, Femi Megbope, emphasised the essence of worship.

    He said: “Praise is marvelous for those who have something to celebrate. For those who don’t think they have something to celebrate, it is important to just maintain the presence of God. It is the first step to getting help and getting solution to any problem.”

    Soderu said worship is a weapon of warfare.

    According to her: “It takes the battles to the forefront of the enemy.”