The Nation Newspaper

Tag: devolution

  • Devolution of powers, essential tool for national development—Lagos speaker

    Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Mudashiru Obasa, has said that devolution of powers will foster rapid development in the country.

    Obasa stated this, on Friday, in his address at the ongoing consultative forum on the Review and Harmonisation of the Standing Orders and Rules of Business of the State Houses of Assembly in the South West Region, holding at Park Inn Hotel, Abeokuta, Ogun State.

    He said: “While the oneness of Nigeria is non-negotiable, one thing we will need to speedily work on is the issue of devolution of power vis-à-vis fiscal federalism.

    ”Nigeria is made up of diverse ethnic groups which have similar goal of moving Nigeria to the next level but at times have different ideas on how to achieve it.

    ”No doubt, centralisation of power at the Federal level as it exists currently in Nigeria is not the most ideal approach to accomplish genuinely necessary rapid development. Devolution of power from federal government to state and local governments is the way to go.”

    Urging the federal government to address the issue of devolution of powers, Obasa said, that the distance between the federal government and the people at the grass-roots is too far to bring about holistic development to every nook and cranny of the country.

    “It is obvious to all and sundry that the federal government is simply too far away from the masses and cannot cover the whole country in an effective manner. There is an in-built limitation on what a government so far away from the people can achieve. People in each locale know their area far much better than a federal minister or president located in Abuja,” he said.

    Obasa advocated that, “The only panacea to some of our present economic challenges as a nation is restructuring, where every state will look inward to generate revenues to take care of their individual needs.

    “For instance, if individual states are constitutionally empowered to generate and distribute power, it will aid massive industrialisation, which is a catalyst for technological advancement and economic development,” he said.

  • Adebanjo: Devolution is the answer

    Youth Party of Nigeria (YPN) presidential aspirant Rex Adebanjo, a lawyer, highlights the elements of change that will meet Nigerian’s expectations about popular rule and good governance.

    Restructuring to devolve power to regions, states and local governments for optimum accountability- key to maximise development – local governments and states should be where the action is political labs to engender and try out/give free to diversity of ideas and various solutions and mostly bring government closer to the people for better accountability and responsiveness.

    Security: triple the pay and number of cops with major retraining and recruitment of qualified educated unemployed youths. Make being a cop super attractive and of course this is to be developed as indigene based state policing, with fed government focussed on funding 1st class police academies for minimum standards to produce quality policemen.  Focus is to make the nation one of the safest in the world and permit night-time economies across the nation to boost employment and the government’s tax base.

    Economy: new special fast track commercial courts and enforcement infrastructure to support commercial lending and  other measures to boost credit to SME’s and businesses in general and remove government from competing with business for credit rather serving as catalyst to grow the  tax base. I.e. substantially reduce or eliminate government bonds.

    Continue investment in agriculture and mineral resources and support for the Dangote refinery.

    Education: biggest focus. (i) Free education (including free feeding beginning with educationally disadvantaged states) (ii) Rapid deployment of solar powered E-learning in all schools and incorporation of Pre-k learning. Triple pay of teachers and retraining of teachers for 21st learning and utilisation of online resources

    Education: minimum 43% of budget for education.

    Unique results based retirement compensation for teachers beyond basic comp. i.e. establish plaform for grateful students to annual gift (eg at xmas etc) the teachers they deem helped them.   That way we should have some teachers become millionaires and each teacher is then incentivized to really help each and every student be successful as their success at this will benefit their future/retirement

    Corruption:

    Structural reforms to practically eliminate corruption with the introduction of professional panels of rotating experts to qualify top 3 candidates for each and all oil block allocations and other major government contracts and a public televised lottery to determine the ultimate winners.  (Maybe set up special government TV channel for this)

    Same process for nominating EFCC head and free up/encourage career government prosecutors/lawyers and detectives to build their careers and reputation pursuing and taking down corruption.

    Key is to reduce the discretion of the president (and extend to governors) to unilaterally create wealthy individuals without specific enterprise and to remove prosecution of corruption from political influence as much as possible.

    Total Transparency: all government credits and debits to be publicly and transparently displayed online in real time (as alerts on public dashboards for all to monitor, critique, comment and otherwise review). Every single spend must be public and online with full disclosure of: to who, and for what, and of course how much. Introduction of Structural and institutionalized Transparency will be the biggest disinfectant to corruption (and this is easily and readily achievable with today’s technology). Not reliance on self-proclaimed “honest” messiahs

    Health: Rapid deployment of technology to incorporate telemedicine into basic health care – beginning perhaps with leveraging the Wi-Fi to be deployed with the solar powered e-learning platform to be deployed to every single secondary school and perhaps primary school.

    Continuity:

    Continuity of good existing government programmes.  – break the jinx and waste of good programmes becoming orphaned by succeeding administrations.  My government would adopt and boost/specifically (i) the Dangote refinery because of its transformative potential (irrespective of any other consideration) and (ii) the current Rural electrification programme under the current VP’s office which is largely solar power driven.

     

     

  • A case for devolution before election

    In a democracy, periodic elections serve several purposes. First, elections ensure that citizens grant their consent to be governed. Second, elections afford individuals the opportunity to choose their candidates for office based on promises made. Third, election is a referendum on the performance of incumbents and on their fidelity to their promises. Therefore, voters must ask, and candidates and political parties must answer, a fundamental question: How faithful have you been to your promises to us?

    While electorates have ample time to ponder who to vote for in the forthcoming elections, political parties and candidates, especially those to whom voters gave their mandate four years ago, must race against time to deliver on their promises.

    Voters can easily evaluate and rate party and candidate performance in the light of the promises contained in their election manifestos. And for political parties and candidates that are still performance-oriented, all they need is remind themselves of where they are in the fulfillment of their promises. The party in power at the center has the most challenging responsibility in this regard. What did it promise and what has it achieved?

    All Progressives Congress (APC) promised heaven on earth. However, many voters knew that it cannot fulfill many of its promises, especially on the economy in four years because of the reality of our economy and its dependence on one product. Surely, much more could have been done if the administration had fully engaged in the first few months of its inauguration.

    Voters also knew that Nigerian corruption is hydra-headed, and it would fiercely resist even the most virulent attack, talk less of a half-hearted one that appears to be sabotaged at every turn from inside. Therefore, even with Mr. Integrity at the head of the battle, corruption has demonstrated remarkable resilience.

    In the matter of security, it has been a case of two steps forward one step backward. Like corruption, despite some great strides in the war against Boko Haram, the terrorists have persisted. Dapchi was a rude shock that the administration and the party had no device to absorb. With the herdsmen-farmer clashes that have left scores dead, a high score on security is a lost hope.

    So, there are failings, some of which are forgivable because of the reality on the ground at the inception of the administration, and others because it is well understood that both party and candidate meant well but were overwhelmed by the challenges that welcomed them to office.

    However, there is a promise whose fulfillment voters unequivocally expected and the breaking of which they will not forgive. This is because, unlike other promises, voters believe that this one is within the power of the new administration and the ruling party. It is also a promise that the party and candidate voluntarily made without duress.

    Prominent on the list of actionable promises highlighted on the website of APC is devolution of power from the center to the states. The party will immediately upon taking power move to amend the constitution to devolve power to states. This was the closest it acceded to the demand for restructuring, a vocal demand of many sections of the country before and during the election of 2015.

    Several months after taking over power, the party set up a restructuring committee. The committee made some recommendations which were applauded by many stakeholders as a first step. APC leadership promised to share the recommendations with the administration and to have a buy-in from Nigerians. Many citizens looked forward to progress on the matter. They have patiently waited for some months and are now wondering if the party and the government intend to deliver.

     

    APC has no good reason to renege on its promise of devolution. The party has control of both the executive and legislative branches at the center. It also controls at least 24 states of the federation the legislative branches of which will be involved in the constitutional amendment legislation. Furthermore, many legislative chambers outside the control of APC are expected to support the amendment. The question is whether the party itself and its leadership are genuinely in favor of devolution in particular and restructuring in general.

    This last point goes to the heart of the problem. Is APC as a party committed to the fulfillment of its promise to devolve power from the center to states? Does the leadership of APC favor a balanced federation that serves the interests of all? Or is the party leadership only paying lip service to devolution as a vote-getting gimmick?

    In 2014, when, after five years in power, the Jonathan administration succumbed to political pressure and organized the National Conference on Restructuring, many of us were genuinely skeptical of the belated move. We thought it was a ruse. APC was at the forefront of the skepticism, deciding not to participate. Then, in its manifesto for the 2015 general election, the party made restructuring central to its platform with a promise to begin the process of constitutional amendment as soon as it took over power. That promise galvanized the electorate, especially in the southwest.

    Three years on, a committee of the party submitted a report recommending devolution. I assume that there have been behind-the-scene debates and deliberations on what to do with the recommendations. The party and its leadership must now know that they cannot continue to take the electorate for granted in this matter. The word of the party must be its bond and must be the basis for the electorates’ decision to support or withdraw support at the next election.

    If the APC and President Buhari want the support of electorates across the country, they should conduct a polling to determine what are the priorities of electorates from different zones. For the South in general and the Southwest in particular, and, to a large extent, the Middle Belt, we know that restructuring is the foremost concern of the public, from the privileged to the wretched.

    But beside what their priorities are, the electorate have a right to hold political parties and their candidates to account and to demand they promote justice. While there are various ways of understanding justice, I find Thomas Hobbes’ definition especially attractive for my purpose. For him, justice is keeping a promise voluntarily made. Conversely, to be unjust is to break a promise voluntarily made. No electorate coerced APC into the promise of constitutional amendment for devolution of power. Though, it is far less than the restructuring that citizens have clamored for in the last thirty years; devolution is what the party promised and why people voted for it. it must deliver on that promise to have any credibility to ask for their vote again. It is simple commonsense.

    Now I anticipate a response. We made other promises beside devolution: to fight corruption, to defeat terrorism, to revive and reform the economy, and we have made progress in the fulfillment of those promises. But while progress is being made on these promises, and while voters understand and appreciate the constraints on the path of government, it is hard for them to understand why the one promise which should be the easiest to fulfill has been left hanging for three years. Indeed, for many citizens, if the government and the party had chosen to make restructuring its priority three years ago, perhaps, they would have made better progress in the furtherance of other priorities.

    For President Buhari and APC, the sun is still up with sufficient drying power if they have the political will to fulfill their promise to devolve power. Otherwise, any new promise by the party will be a hard sell in the south. What might be the promise this time? It cannot be “Change” because that would play into the hand of the opposition. And if it is “Sustaining Change”, the party must be able to itemize the changes that it has succeeded in making which need to be sustained. If it cannot point to devolution as the fundamental change that needs to be sustained, I do not know what might be its raison d’etre.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

  • How to make power devolution work, by APC stalwart

    How to make power devolution work, by APC stalwart

    A Chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC)in Lagos State, Chief Remi Williams, has lent his support to the agitation for devotion of powers to the states. He said though devolution of powers is good, care must be taken in adopting it.

    In an interview, the octogenarian said the concept forms a crucial part of the constitution.  He said: ‘’When we talk of devolution, we must be very cautious. There are certain aspects that we need not negotiate with the Federal Government. No matter what, the Federal Government will control defence, that is Army Air force, Navy etc. That aspect is not negotiable. For instance, during the Cuba crisis, the United States President John F. Kennedy took a decisive step against Fidel Castro of Cuba to checkmate his excessive actions. So also President Muhammadu Buhari took immediate steps against the Gambian insurgency. In a nutshell, devolution must have its limit. It must not be extended to foreign policy.’’

    Williams said those seeking restructuring should note that the National Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) members who are calling councils’ autonomy would now be justified ‘’rather than be an appendage to the state for their finance.”

  • Abuja lords and devolution

    Just when Nigerians were looking in the direction of the National Assembly to push – no matter how superficial or plain symbolic – for the rebalancing of the federation into a more productive one, the body –against reason and good judgment and in a most inexplicable misreading of the public mood – chose to abdicate that historic duty and by so doing postponed the evil day.  The body also made clear to all that while they may have been of us; they are, finally, no longer for us!

    It happened on July 26 in the Upper House – when the Senate shot down the bill which sought to alter the Second Schedule, Part I & II to move certain items to the Concurrent Legislative List to give more legislative powers to states. The very next day –the Lower House, as if by some unwritten agreement to put in abeyance what initially promised to be a realistic, sensible and pragmatic compromise on the factitious debate on restructuring – gave concurrence.

    And now for consolation, a country caught in the vortex of centrifugal eruptions is now forced to rely on the assurances of Senate President Bukola Saraki and House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara for the chambers under them to revisit the matter at the time of their choosing and possibly, convenience!

    As far as I can see, what the National Assembly did on the rejection of the proposal on devolution of power to the states amounts to an unpardonable abdication of leadership more so at a time of a dire national emergency. It is a reflection of the psychology and hence the character of a parliament which, aside losing touch with the people they claim to represent, have virtually scant understanding of the imperatives of the moment. If, as it has been said in some quarters that our parliamentarians’ problem is with the semantics of ‘restructuring’ – which admittedly have come to mean just about anything depending on who is making the case for it and the time the case is being made – this seems to me, precisely the challenge for the leadership – to beam the light on the fog for proper understanding.

    Or is someone saying that parliamentary representation precludes the duty of breaking down such concepts for the understanding of mere mortals? Of course, with most of lawmakers permanently ensconced in Abuja – far away from the daily grind that living has become the lot of the rest of us – expecting our so-called representatives to convoke town hall meetings to take concepts apart while harvesting proper feedbacks would appear an outlandish proposition. Not when there are “oversight duties” and constituency projects that could be undertaken to harvest cash. In any event, why would anyone trouble our Abuja exports with visits to constituencies on roads pockmarked with craters?

    It is of course the portents of their decision that we must worry about. First, only our lawmakers can pretend that the status quo can go on forever. That they will continue to have the pleasure of doing as they please with the annual N7 trillion appropriation – a fifth of which is borrowed money. That the country would somehow magically exit from the grave emergency that have, over the course of the last 26 months, reduced the states to beggarly status – a situation so bad that some 27 plus states have had to rely on some dubious federal financial accommodation to pay salaries and pensions.

    Need one say more?  That they can pretend to be oblivious of the collapse of the economy; to ignore the portents of the perennially shrinking piggy bank in the face of unprecedented infrastructure gap. What about the collapse of our institutions as indeed our national infrastructure currently threatening to take the nation back to pre-industrial age? Or the virtual collapse of the national security architecture that has left the country hostage to all manners of atavistic forces?

    They can – for all the cares in the world – pretend that things can go on like this without an attempt at rebalancing the current structure; moving the country as it were, from the distributive to productive federalism; from the centrist, dysfunctional and patently unresponsive police to a multi-level, more manageable one; from a stifling federal apparatus – one driven by sharing mentality to a competitive, purpose-driven one; from a swathe of prostrate entities that are federation only in name to functional federal entities? And for how long?

    I understand that the process of draining the Abuja swamp (to borrow the Trumpian lingo) will be a most difficult one indeed. For a political class and no less the parliament that is steeped in the base traditions of conspicuous consumption, that would amount to class suicide. Imagine a House of Representatives that has – recession or not –  just shelled out N17 million apiece on choice automobiles (comes to a whopping N6.1 billion for the 360 units) earmarked for ‘utility services’ being required to give up the costs that go with keeping them running on the very highways that they traded off for their constituency projects! Why would a parliament which insists on executing state and local government roads under the nebulous cover of constituency projects be expected to cede more of the power to the states?

    Yet, the folly of the route that the lawmakers would rather not take seems so self-evident. First, current assumptions – or wishes – that things will somehow get better is plain illusory. Second, thoughts that the voices behind the current agitations will somehow peter out is sheer folly – with it the possibility that the country would be permanently in war mode. Third, while it seems unimaginable that the states can continue to remain in their dependency mode, it seems only a matter of time before something gives.

    Let me restate a point that has become so worn that it is now a cliché. It is bad enough that the federal government insists on having a whopping 54 percent from the federation pool; more satanic however is that the people’s representatives will find nothing wrong with federal government sitting on the resources found in the states under the dubious principle of exclusivity. If ever there is something that can be described as grand larceny – that would be it. That our lawmakers cannot recognize it as being at the source of the crisis facing the states, something that needs to be broken if the states would ever find their verve, must be the greatest tragedy of all time.

    I close with a proverb popularized by the late MKO Abiola: There comes a time when even the blind needs no telling that the market is over! Trust me – we are nearly there!

     

  • South leaders condemn National Assembly over devolution of power

    A group of Southern leaders, under the aegis of Southern Leader Forum Nigeria (SLFN), yesterday condemned the decision of the National Assembly to shut down Nigerians’ quest for devolution of power.

    The leaders, who spoke in Lagos after a meeting, expressed dismay that the nation was drawn backward in its march toward the attainment of true federalism.

    Dignitaries at the meeting included Afenifere chieftain, Ayo Adebanjo; former Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Albert Horsfall; former Foreign Affairs Minister, Brig.-Gen. Ike Nwachukwu (retd), Vanguard publisher Sam Amuka and former Secretary General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Joe Irukwu.

    Others include Col. Tony Nyiam (retd.), Bassey Henshaw, Senator Stella Omu, an activist Yinka Odumakin, Guy Ikoku, Kunle Olajide, Amos Akingba and Ralph Uwazurike.

    Odumakin read the communique issued at the end of the meeting.

    He said: “This meeting affirms its earlier resolution in the fervent belief in the concept of one Nigeria, which we have devoted most of our adult lives to promoting and building. However, we do not want a Nigeria where any section will leave as slaves of another but rather we want a Nigeria where all citizens, irrespective of their ethnic or religious affiliation, are able to live their lives to the fullest and in happiness without let or hindrance.

    “We hold dearly that anyone who is opposed to this vision is an enemy of Nigeria of our dream.

    “We noted with sadness for Nigeria the recent shroud discussion of the National Assembly in shutting down devolution in their recent votes in the constitutional amendment. Their decision reflects the deepest disregard for the popular demand for the freeing of more powers to the federating units from our shocking central government. Instead of devolving power, the National Assembly has now given us a stronger centre that will conduct elections in local governments against extant provisions of the federalism.

    “It is obvious that the National Assembly has taken itself out of the resolution of the Nigerian crisis by foreclosing devolution of power.

    “Unknown to the lawmaker, they have unwittingly given more ammunition to self-determination forces by attempting to collapse the restructuring column in the battle for the soul of Nigeria…”

  • Devolution or federalism: which way for Nigeria?

    Devolution or federalism: which way for Nigeria?

    It is not the incumbent central government that should determine unilaterally which power to transfer to regions or states.

    Today’s piece first appeared in April 2014. It is being republished today for obvious reasons. First members of the National Assembly, according to the Senate President voted against devolution of powers because they are not sure of the difference between devolution and restructuring. Second, the ruling APC federal government has established a special committee to understand what restructuring is about. Third, governors of the 19 northern states have commissioned a task force to study calls for restructuring. Other groups including lawmakers in the Senate and the House are even saying the reason some people are asking for restructuring is that the central government is not doing enough to make citizens happy enough not to worry about restructuring.

    The conference modalities (2014 National Conference) passed by the Secretary to the Federal Government to delegates and the day-to-day response of delegates to the modalities continue to deconstruct the unitary constitution from which the central government and the President derive their powers to discuss the problems that have made the country’s unity and peaceful development precarious over the years.

    Delegates are not freely chosen representatives of their people; they are nominated by the President and governors at the instance of the federal government. They cannot determine number of committees nor choose chairpersons of committees. More importantly, delegates are not free to determine what they deliberate on; they are handed a list of topics to consider by the agency that convenes and sponsors the conference. The rules to guide the conference include what conference delegates cannot discuss: dissolution of the federation. Conference rules also include what delegates can discuss: devolution, federalism, regionalism, etc.

    Exercising control of the power of signification characteristic of unitary governments, the federal government even chooses concepts that delegates should examine. An example of such semiotic confusion or control is the listing of federalism under Devolution of Power and also under Political Restructuring. As trivial as this may sound or look, it has the capacity to create confusion for delegates and reduce their focus on what should be the matter at hand: freeing the country from unitary model of governance and endowing it with a federal system. It is important for citizens observing the proceedings of the conference and waiting for some results to know ahead of conference deliberations that Devolution is not synonymous with Federalism. It should not even serve as a set that includes federalism as subset.

    Devolution does not automatically lead to federalism. It is, simply put, the shedding of functions belonging originally to any central government – unitary or federal— to subnational government levels. A unitary government that feels overburdened or over-pressured can choose to transfer some of such functions to any subnational government, without losing its superintending authority over implementation of transferred functions. So can a central government devolve new functions (not previously shared with subnational governments) to subnational governments to carry out in compliance with whatever standards the central government establishes for performance of such functions by the tier of government to which new responsibilities have been devolved or transferred. Such devolved functions are funded through grants or special allocations from the central government. France is a good example of a unitary government that devolves a lot of functions to other levels of government. China is another example. Closer to home, Ghana operates a unitary system that delegates some functions to provincial governments that are defined as subordinate to the central government. An abiding aspect of devolution without federalism is that the central government reserves the right to take back whatever functions it delegates to subnational governments. Such devolution is generally not embedded in the constitution and is not subject to negotiation between federating units.

    If delegates had been elected as representatives of communities, they would not have been under any obligation to base their discussion on the paradigms handed down by the central government. They would have been given issues to negotiate by their communities. Elected delegates would have been briefed that the crux of the matter and raison d’etre for the conference is federalism, not mere devolution of responsibilities by an overarching central government. It is still not too late for delegates to be reminded of citizens’ assessment of the cause of the failure of the central and most state governments to deliver public goods that can enhance the quality of life of citizens. It is obvious that communities have no power to hold delegates accountable, having not had a hand in how they get to the conference. But it is proper for delegates and conference convener to know that citizens have the ability to detect subtle efforts (via modalities handed to and adopted by conference leaders) at constraining discussion at the conference.

    What was taken away by military autocrats and sustained by post-military constitution and rulers is proper relationship between the central government and subnational governments. Federalism has been removed since 1979 from the form and content of government in the country. This cannot be remedied by mere devolution. It can only be restored through establishment or re-establishment of federal system of government. Whether this is called political restructuring or restoration of federalism, what is at issue is having a proper sharing (not devolving) of powers between the central government and regions or states (as federating units).

    Proper relationship between national and subnational governments in a federal system should be a case of give-and-take between the two levels in a context of free negotiation between the two tiers. Thus, the relationship between national and subnational units must be framed as constitutionally guaranteed interaction and transaction between coordinates, rather than between superordinate and subordinate. The two levels are not to share just functions; they are to share sovereignty including resource sovereignty. It is not the incumbent central government that should determine unilaterally which power to transfer to regions or states. It is both levels of government that should negotiate which powers to leave for the central government for the common good and which to leave for regions or states for effective delivery of public goods and services to citizens. These are the central issues that pertain to constructing a federal polity.

    Knowing that the ongoing national conference is not sovereign and does not have the power to determine what to discuss and how to turn the outcome of discussion into a constitution, the only thing left is to appeal to delegates to find time to listen to members of their respective communities about what to do to re-invent Nigeria. For example, agreeing to just transfer a few functions from the current Exclusive list of the central government to regions or states and adding 5% to funds from the federation account to subventions to states may not solve the problem that stimulated convening of the ongoing conference (or other conferences).

    Restructuring is about constituting a new federal government that is based on guidelines from citizens of the various federating units—be they regions or states. Unlike devolution, restructuring involves deliberating on new terms for a new structure of governance distinct from the one believed or perceived by citizens as too flawed to be sustained, thus requiring of a new form to be negotiated by representatives of citizens from various federating units. For the avoidance of doubt, terms of sharing of responsibilities and powers between the central government and federating units need to be constitutionalised to replace the constitution that citizens believe to have outgrown any usefulness in terms of keeping components of the federation together. The call for a new architecture of governance requires creation of a new constitution to reflect the consensus of those who negotiate for the new design. Those who believe it is their sacred duty to amend the constitution being overhauled through restructuring should have no duty to perform in respect of constructing a new constitution for the new design unless citizens choose to assign that duty to them through a referendum.

    Roposek@msn.com

  • The devolution debacle

    The devolution debacle

    The promise to “initiate action to amend the Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties, and responsibilities to States and local governments in order to entrench true federalism and the federal spirit” is number one bullet item on the highlights of APC manifesto. This shows the importance that the party attached to this issue.

    The manifesto is the contract between the party and the voters who expect the party to fulfill its promise. However, since the party won the general elections across the nation, it has prevaricated over its declared commitment to devolution of power. Some party leaders have declared ignorance of the meaning of restructuring. And when they were reminded of the party’s position on devolution, which is an important element of restructuring, they replied that it was not a priority because Nigerians needed food on their tables. Apparently, APC leaders have not drawn a direct link between devolution of power and the economic and social welfare of Nigerians.

    Yet, devolution is not an end in itself. Of course, some could insist on the right of self-determination as an end in itself and then argue that Nigeria is made up of different ethnic nationalities which need to be as self-determined as possible without jeopardising the integrity of the unity of the country. Devolution of power to states meets this condition.

    For a good reason, the writers of the manifesto did not go that route. While the ideal of cultural and ethnic self-determination cannot be philosophically second-guessed, the politics of manifesto writing has a logic of its own. Self-determination can be alienating. No political party wants to endanger its electoral interest a politically suspicious language. Therefore, APC avoided that path. The closest it gets to a semblance of self-determination rationale is its linkage of devolution with true federalism and the federal spirit.

    As it turned out, even “true federalism and the federal spirit” can be suspect to segments of the population worried about its impact on bread and butter issues. Writers of the manifesto and defenders of devolution and restructuring have a responsibility to reassure fellow citizens about the practical end of the path they advocate. This is a politically safe route that APC manifesto and, unfortunately, its leaders have not explored. The defeat of the constitutional amendment bill on devolution is an embarrassment for the ruling party. Now it must go back to the drawing board.

    An argument that recognises devolution as means to the end of economic and social wellbeing and political stability is persuasive. Every ethnic nationality and every administrative state would like to advance the welfare of their people. Devolution of more powers from the centre to the states is a viable means to this end. But before we go further in this direction, we need to address the concern of those who plead ignorance of what devolution stands for.

    Truly, there are multiple understandings of what restructuring is. For some, it means modified regionalism. For others, it is using the present zones as federating units. Yet, for some others, it is resource control. For others still, it means return to the parliamentary system of government. In view of the various conceptions of the notion, one cannot dismiss offhand those who plead ignorance of the meaning of restructuring. Advocates have a job to do.

    However, if restructuring has multiple meanings for multiple advocates, this is not the case with devolution of power. No one can deny that APC leaders understood what devolution means when they adopted it in their manifesto. Indeed, devolution is the least common denominator for all advocates of restructuring. They all want more power to be assigned to federating units.

    Devolution means the transfer of power from one entity to another. Family heads monitor their children’s development from infancy to adolescence. In their teenage years, they devolve some responsibilities to them, granting them allowances which they are expected to use responsibly for their needs. We appreciate the fact that they know best their needs while we monitor them.

    Our founding fathers struggled for a federal constitution on one important ground. As peoples of diverse backgrounds and cultures, we have diverse interests which others may not share but which are not necessarily inimical to our union. Each can best promote those interests without the direction or intervention of the central government. On the other hand, there are common interests that bind us and for which the federal government is best placed to promote and advance. The former include our economic interests, educational interests, health interests, and customs and conventions. The latter include external defense, currency, and foreign affairs.

    The compromise that the founding fathers reached was a federal constitution that gives many responsibilities to the regions. But this was not seen as an end in itself. They were convinced that with each focusing on those areas of economic and social life that it alone knows best, national interest would be advanced. It worked in the first republic.

    Undeniably, due to human nature, healthy competition gave way to unhealthy rivalry. But the military misread the cause of the fall of the first republic and threw the baby of federalism out with the bath water of crude partisanship. The later was the culprit, not the former.

    The nation advanced socio-economically in the first republic because power was devolved to the regions. Now the center has taken over many of the responsibilities that used to belong to the regions. In education, the federal military government took over state universities, including the University of Ife. It delved into primary education through the Universal Free Primary Education decree. It got into secondary education with the creation of unity schools. The federal government has continued to create more federal universities around the country despite the glaring evidence of inadequate facilities and financial support for the existing institutions.

    What will devolution of power mean in the case of education? Based on the proven assumption that states know best the educational interests of their citizens, the federal government will shift the responsibility of educating citizens to each state of the federation. But since the federal government still controls the largest portion of the resources of the country, it will give block grants to states for the purpose of education. With appropriate guidelines from the federal government, the states will design and pursue their educational policies and use the federal grants for same. The Federal Ministry of Education will be the policy writing and monitoring authority on behalf of the federal government.

    With regard to health, the federal government will devolve the responsibility for basic health centers to the states. This is long overdue. There have been reports of basic health centers overgrown with weeds and serving as refuge for reptiles in the remote areas of the country. This is what can be expected from an overreaching and overbearing state. Devolution of power and responsibility in respect of health means that state governments will take better care of their citizens with block grants for health from the federal government.

    Employment creation and poverty alleviation programmes have been implemented with limited success because they have not paid attention to the importance of local buy-in. Political parties controlling the center have always seen such programmes as political hand-out for supporters. In sane environments, such programmes will go to needy citizens. It would not matter which political party controls a state, every state will receive its block grant for the purpose of benefitting its citizens while the federal grant-making agencies provide the guidelines.

    In short, devolution of powers is not necessarily resource control because in the model that I have advanced here, the federal government still controls the purse-string. If we are really serious about righting the wrong of a lopsided federal bureaucracy, devolution is the least that the APC ruling party can adopt right away while we clarify the meaning and requirements of full restructuring. I would have thought that it was because of its simplicity and limited political danger that the party adopted devolution in the beginning. That it still generated so much resistance that the North voted as a block against it is a failure of leadership.

  • Senators under fire over power devolution vote

    Senators under fire over power devolution vote

    Senators came under fire yesterday for rejecting the devolution of power to states.

    The House of Representatives, which voted on some bills yesterday, also rejected power devolution in a bid to amend the constitution.

    Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Ohanaeze Ndigbo and some senior lawyers slammed the lawmakers for passing “self serving” bills rather than working on issues that affect the polity.

    Atiku described the failure of the All Progressives Congress (APC)-led Senate to approve power devolution as a betrayal of the party’s promise.

    Atiku, in a statement from his media office in Abuja, described the action as “shocking and saddening”.

     He said: “This blockage of the Bill by an APC-led Senate majority is a betrayal of our party’s pre-election promises. It was an important vote and I’m shocked by some so-called progressives’ visceral and cynical opposition to restructuring.”

    The former vice president  frowned at what he described as the reluctance of democratically-elected lawmakers to remove the insidious structural impediments to development, which decades of military rule had foisted on our nation.

    He argued that “instead of building the foundations for a true federation, a small group of so-called progressive senators decided to stick with the new party line, pretending they didn’t know what restructuring was all about, and that even if they knew, it couldn’t be done.

    “I think this is disingenuous. I think it is a sad day for our party. But I am confident the APC will learn the right lesson from this self-inflicted defeat, and remember the mission and mandate given to us by the people.”

    The Waziri Adamawa hopes that Nigeria’s lawmakers would find the courage to stand by what is right, and not by what serves their personal vanities and political interests.

    “Let me be clear. Restructuring is no panacea to all our nation’s problems. But devolving resources and responsibilities from an overbearing, unresponsive, and ineffective federal government to the states is the first step we must make if we are serious about putting our nation back on track, and our people back to work,” he said.

    The Pan-Igbo Socio-cultural group, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, was disappointed over the decision on power devolution.

    President-General Chief John Nwodo, in a statement said:”The barrage of voices in this country lately shows clearly that majority of Nigerians are desirous of the country running a true federal system and one expected the NASS to have appreciated this in all their actions especially in constitutional amendment,” Nwodo said.

    The Ndigbo umbrella body counseled the National Assembly that rather than go into constitutional amendment at this time that the mood of the country was tuned towards total restructuring, they should have concerned themselves in making the legislative enactment to empower the convening of a national conference for real constitutional drafting.

    He said any action by either the executive or legislator that does not address the agitation of Nigerians would not yield results.

     ”Any action whether legislative or executive in this country today that is not programmed to respond to the yearnings of the populace will amount to exercise in futility.

     ”Ohanaeze therefore urges the National Assembly and other legislative levels involved in the constitutional amendment in the country to put the interest of the country first and ensure that its actions are such that would help to douse the tension and stabilise the country,” the statement said.

     The group urged the National Assembly to revisit the 2014 Conference Report which implementation had generated heated argument among the political class.

     ”Ohanaeze finally charged all the legislative bodies involved in constitutional amendment to consider seriously the 2014 Confab report if they really desire political progress and stability for the country,” the statement added.

    Senior lawyers also criticised the National Assembly’s constitutional review move.

    Mr Femi Falana (SAN) said: “If the amendment is passed, it will not affect the on-going review of the Constitution as it cannot have a retrospective effect.

    “The proposed amendment bill will have to be signed into law by President (Muhammadu) Buhari. If he withholds his assent, the votes of two-thirds majority of the National Assembly members and 24 states will be required to pass the proposal.”

    Mr. Babatunde Fashanu (SAN): “I take the position of my teacher, Professor Akin Oyebode, of the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, that what the National Assembly should be doing right now is to be deliberating on and enacting laws for the setting up of a Constituent Assembly to produce a brand new constitution.”

    Mr. Sebatian Hon (SAN) also said: “It is not well intended. It is a sharp break from our constitutional history of amending the constitution. The Senate needs to convince Nigerians if they have good intentions for introducing that amendment.

    Mr. Seyi Sowemimo (SAN) said: “The areas they have dwelt on now, to me, are not really the important areas we require constitutional amendments. They should focus on devolution of powers, restructuring generally, not this other things which they have done.”

    But the Indigenous People of Biafra( IPOB) praised the Senate for rejecting the proposed restructuring of the country.

    A statement by the group’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful,said: “We are equally thanking them for voting down the controversial call for restructuring that cannot benefit anyone in Nigeria. We Biafrans and other sensible Nigerians can now believe that Northern senators have demonstrated, through their rejection of restructuring that IPOB remains the only legitimate voice that understand the plight of the masses and prepared to do something about it. Only a referendum can resolve the issue of Biafra not restructure. It remains the only way the masses can decide their future in Nigeria.”

  • House rejects power devolution

    House rejects power devolution

    Voting on the bills to amend the constitution was accompanied by uproar and a tinge of drama yesterday in the House of Representatives. Senators voted on Wednesday.

    The House rejected the devolution of power to the states, the separatrion of the office of the Attorney-General from that of Justice minister, womens’s indigeneship right, and the plan to ensure the appointment of only indigenes as  Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister.

    Yesterday, the House took votes on 22 of the 33 items listed for amendments in the constitution.

    Deputy Speaker LasunYussuff, who heads the Constitution Review Committee said  32 alterations were treated by the Committee.

    The move to put former Senate presidents and ex-speakers of the House of Representatives in the Council of State passed with 294 votes.

    The threshold is 240 votes to pass any item.

    Also the reduction of Authorisation of Expenditure of the President from six months to three months in case of non- passage of budget” was approved with 295 votes, but efforts to ensure that a minister emerges from the Federal Capital Territory was defeated as it could only rake up 191 votes.

    The 35 per cent affirmative action was also passed alongside timeline for submission of nominees for Ministers/ Commissioners with portfolio attachment with a vote of 248 against the 46 and one abstaining.

     The removal of the nomenclature “Force” from the Nigeria Police Force was effected with 280 votes as opposed to nine against and four abstaining.

     Also, a bill seeking to make provisions for pre- election matters and the time for the determination of pre-election disputes passed with 288 votes. Three were against and one abstained.

     Though the House agreed to give the Auditor- General independence with 289 votes, the attempt to separate the office of the Attorney General from the Minister of Justice was defeated as it only garnered 234 votes.

     The House approved the power of the National Assembly to override the President on Constitutional Amendment should he withhold assent with a vote of 248 and a negative of 28 and four abstaining.

     The lawmakers rejected devolution of power to decongest the Exclusive list, legislative list by transferring certain items contained to the concurrent list, thereby enabling the states to make laws in respect of those items passed with 210 votes which was less than the required 240 votes, and rejected State Creation  and boundary adjustment.

     It, however, passed the age reduction bill ( popularly known as Not too young to run,” Bill after spirited appeal for the Majority Leader Femi Gbajabiamila and the Speaker, Yakubu Dogara, passed with 261 votes, 23 against and 2 lawmakers abstaining.

     Women lawmakers became furious over a technical hitch that caused the House to vote against citizenship and indigeneship for women for their husbands’ states of origin.

     The issue, which caused a spontaneous reaction from the women held up  voting for about 15 minutes. The Speaker ordered for another vote.

     In a flash, the women surrounded Speaker Yakubu Dogara’s seat, vehemently protesting the result of the vote.

     The repeat vote still ended in a defeat for the item as it garnered only. 208 votes, a far cry from the 240 votes needed.

     The consistent efforts from Hon. Mojeed Alabi (Osun State) through a point of Order to explain some procedural lapse got a tongue-lashing from the Deputy Speaker who considered it an attempt to truncate the voting.

    Lasun’s remark did not go down well with Alabi who raised a point of Order 13 sub section 1(2), and referred to the preamble of the Constitution.

    He was, however, ruled out of order by the Speaker Yakubu Dogara,

    Dogara said: “We are taking vote on all the clauses despite the fact that most of them did not survive in the Senate, so that Nigerians will know our position on them,”

    The Speaker regretted the failure of his colleagues to amend the 1999 Constitution  to allow Abuja indigenes to be empowered henceforth to produce the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    The amendment would have also ensured that the FCT is adequately represented at the Federal Executive Council (FEC), like other states.

    The proposal was rejected as it failed to meet the requisite two-thirds majority of votes cast with 191 for and 91 against;  240 votes were required to pass it.

    Of all the rejected bills, the Speaker was also particularly disturbed that the recommendations of the Committee on  Citizenship and Indegenship as well as  separation of the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Office of the Minister of Justice were equally rejected by the lawmakers.

    Dogara, confirming what transpired at the Committee of the Whole, said it was unfortunate that the law that would have allowed women married  to someone from another State claimed the  indegenship of her husband’s state did not scale through.

    He also was shocked that the separation of the office of the AGF from that of the Minster of Justice to failed to sail trough, considering the debates the issue had gone through over time.

    “It is rather unfortunate, our women in the House must have found this unfortunate. Well, this is democracy and we are  still growing,” he said.

    Dogara was optimistic that some of the rejected bills would find better favour in the next constitution review.