Tag: feasible

  • 2019: Is Igbo presidency feasible?

    2019: Is Igbo presidency feasible?

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo stirred up a hornet’s nest recently when he canvassed for president of Igbo extraction in 2019. Mixed reactions have trailed the comment. Prominent Igbo politicians appear to have reservations over the idea, insisting that the challenges facing Nigeria have gone beyond who becomes president. They say the best approach is to restructure the country and allow each region to develop at its own pace. Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI and Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examine Igbo’s quest for president.

    WITH the recent report that former President Olusegun Obasanjo has thrown his weight behind the emergence of a president of Igbo extraction in 2019, the quest for Igbo president has returned to the front-burner of national discourse.
    The former president gave the support when the leadership of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Ogun State chapter, led by Bishop Tunde-Akin Akinsanya, visited him at his Hilltop residence, in Abeokuta for a special New Year service. He noted that injustice and marginalisation are the instigators of conflicts along ethnic and regional lines in the country.
    Be that as it may, a school of thought believes that the Igbo cannot be said to be serious when they vehemently argue that they are marginalised, because they have always been part and parcel of the leadership. After all, an Igbo man from Anambra State in the person of Dr. Alex Ekwueme was Vice President from 1979 to 1983. Another Igbo man from Abia State, Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe, also served as the de facto Vice President to military President Ibrahim Babangida, in his capacity as Chief of General Staff from 1985 to 1986.
    Besides, a number of Igbo sons and daughters have occupied sensitive positions in government since the return of civil rule in 1999. For instance, between 1999 and 2007, four Igbo politicians were Senate President. They are: Senators Pius Anyim, Evan Enwerem; Dr. Chuba Okadigbo; and Adophus Wabara. Anyim who hails from Ebonyi State was also the Secretary to the Government of the Federation during the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
    In addition, the immediate past Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister for the Economy, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is an Igbo woman. Before her were Dr Chu Okongwu and Dr Kalu Idika Kalu, who served during the military era. Through dint of industry and hard work, the Igbo dominate the property market in Lagos and Abuja and they are found everywhere in the federation doing business and prospering. They appear to have put the bitter experiences of the civil war behind them and have moved on. During the last general elections, several legislators originally from the Southeast were elected to the House of Representatives, representing Lagos State. According that school of thought, the notion that the Igbo are unjustly treated within the Nigerian federation is therefore a big lie.
    But, another school of thought is of the view that the Igbo have been deliberately relegated to the background in politics. Such observers usually point to the fact that, except for a brief period (six months) in 1966 when the late Major-General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi governed, following an abortive military coup, an Igbo has never governed the country in its 56 years of independence. They say the Hausa-Fulani has dominated the leadership of the country, particularly during the military era. This school of thought says whatever the Igbo has achieved since the end of the civil war could be attributed to their resourcefulness, industry and dint of hard work, particularly in the area of commerce.
    For this group, it is only when they see an Igbo son or daughter occupying the exalted position of president that they would accept that the third largest ethnic nationality has been forgiven for their perceived sins. The Igbo has been agitating for one of their own to emerge as president since the return to civil rule in 1999. But, such calls have not been strident enough, suggesting that they are not serious about producing the number one citizen in the foreseeable future. Critics say the undoing of the Igbo is that they lack the organisational acumen to close ranks and marshal out their strategy to occupy the number one position.
    But, in a sense, the Igbo is not alone when it comes to the cry of marginalisation; many ethnic nationalities are using it as a strategy to ask for a greater share of the national cake. Indeed, it has become a national pastime. For instance, during the Jonathan administration, the Yoruba were the ones complaining of being marginalised.
    During the First and the Second Republics, ethnicity was not a factor in deciding who occupies the number one position. It took the injustice meted out to the late Chief Moshood Abiola, a Yoruba from Ogun State and the acclaimed winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election that was annulled by the military, for this to come about. In the First and Second Republics, the Yoruba were mainly in the opposition and did not have the opportunity to rule the country. But, owing to the events surrounding the June 12 debacle, Obasanjo who hails from the same state with the late Abiola became a beneficiary of the annulment in 1998, because he was released from detention and more or less handed the ticket of the then newly formed Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). This was meant to assuage the feelings of the Yoruba, the second largest ethnic group in the country, over the June 12 saga.
    This came with the proviso that, after Obasanjo’s two terms of eight years, power was going to return to the North. In this way, the PDP enshrined zoning or power rotation in its constitution. The emergence of Jonathan, following the death of Yar’Adua, was an ‘accident’ and the North made it clear that it was not best pleased by what amounted to being sidelined politically.
    Though zoning or power rotation is not enshrined in the constitution, it is now widely accepted by all and sundry as an integral part of Nigeria’s political culture. The result of the last presidential election suggests that the North spoke with one voice, irrespective of party affiliation; with Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who hails from the zone, receiving an overwhelming endorsement of the electorate in that part of the country. Indeed, it was the breaking of ranks by some members of the PDP over the breach of the zoning arrangement among other things that caused the defeat of the former ruling party.
    According to observers, a charitable view of the benefits of Obasanjo’s clamour for Igbo presidency is only symbolic, because Baba as he is fondly called is hardly the right person to speak for them. Besides, the timing of his comment is also not the very best. According to critics, Obasanjo ought to have utilized the opportunity he had as an elected leader for two terms and his well-known single-mindedness of purpose in pursuing desired goals to lay a solid foundation for democracy.
    Rather, according to such critics, he used same to enthrone imposition and lack of internal democracy in the PDP. He engineered the emergence of his successor, the late Umaru Yar’Adua, who was paired with Dr. Jonathan to pave the way for the emergence of the latter in the corridors of power. This is based on the premise that the late Yar’Adua was ill at the time he was imposed on Nigerians; a fact that Obasanjo must be privy to. The Owu-born former president’s distortion of the power rotation arrangement was a key issue in the last general elections.
    As a result, many prominent Igbos are not amused by the former president’s latest sermon. For instance, human rights lawyer and social activist, Monday Ubani, questioned the credentials of Obasanjo in trying to champion the cause of the Igbo. He said he would be pleased to see an Igbo emerging president of Nigeria, but he cautioned his compatriots to be wary of the former president’s intention.
    Ubani said: “As an Igbo son, one of the signs I am looking forward to see in the nation as a clear sign that indeed the war against the Igbos is completely over is the emergence of an Igbo son/daughter as the elected president of Nigeria! I will like to see it materialise as quickly as possible.
    “However, in actualising that dream, I will like Igbo presidency to be result oriented; one that will not carry bags of liabilities. Recall that former President Obasanjo is not innocent of the present social, economical and political malady the country is presently engulfed in. He brought a sick Yar’dua to take over from him who later died. While it was not expedient and logical, he urged and campaigned for the ascendancy of former President Jonathan to the presidency, despite stiff opposition from the North that they needed to complete their eight years tenure.
    “We all know how President Jonathan ended with his tenure. The remote liabilities of the present government of President Muhammadu Buhari are also traceable to Obasanjo. While the fire he lighted is raging, he is stoking another fire by urging the Igbos to go for the Presidency in 2019. What manner of man is Obasanjo? What is his clear intention for Nigeria? Does his attitude for Nigeria befit that of a true statesman?
    “My Igbo people should reject his bait. Unless the two major tribes Hausas, Yorubas and other tribes are by consensus agreeing to shorten the journey of Ndigbo in 2019, the best, logical and incontestable period for Ndigbo to produce the president of Nigeria is 2023. Any struggle for it in 2019 may put Ndigbo in bad light and may even jeopardize their chances in 2023. Our efforts, statements, actions now should be tailored towards 2023. If we put our house together, unite and chose the best amongst us, the presidency is just there for our asking. No sane Nigerian will contest our right to produce the president in 2023.”
    Similarly, former factional National Chairman of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Chief Maxi Okwu, was skeptical about the motives behind Obasanjo’s support for Igbo presidency. He described the former president as a faulty messenger and recalled that he stopped former Vice President Alex Ekwueme and former governor of Rivers State, Peter Odili, from achieving their dreams of leading the country.
    Okwu said the issue has gone beyond who becomes Nigerian president, adding that the best approach now is to restructure the country and allow each region to develop at their own pace.
    His words: “When did Obasanjo suddenly start loving the Igbo? To me, some progressive Igbo like us see that the issue before us is not that of who becomes Nigerian president; let them restructure the country and allow us to develop at our own pace. We are seeking restructuring and if that fails, can we now begin to think about being asked ‘do you want to stay in Nigeria or not?’ – Referendum. This is what we want. Nigeria’s presidency is not the issue even to all Nigerians.”
    Former presidential candidate and Chairman of the United Progressive Party (UPP), Chief Chekwas Okorie, believes that Obasanjo’s comment can be interpreted in many ways, depending on one’s perspective. On the bright side, he said it tickles Igbo fancy, because it has helped to put the issue on the front burner of national discourse. He said he supports Igbo presidency, adding that is the reason his former party, the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), zoned the presidency to the Southeast in 2003, which enabled the late Biafra warlord, Chief Chukwueka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, to run for the position on the platform of the party. He added that the UPP has continued with that tradition.
    Okorie said: “Even though rotational presidency may not be the best for Nigeria at this point in time, my own position is that the Igbo should not be missing in action in the political arena. This is where I value Obasanjo’s statement, because except a party zones the presidency to the Southeast, the Igbo man may not have the latitude to run for the position.
    “But, on the other hand, what I expected Obasanjo to do was to tow the line of Ibrahim Babangida, who said if the Igbo present a candidate, he would gladly support such a candidate. From the look of things, the North would retain the APC ticket in 2019. On its part, the PDP has expressly zoned the ticket to the North in 2019.
    “As far as I am concerned, based on present experiences, Nigerians are now moving in the direction of referendum, restructuring the country, devolution of power, fiscal federalism and state and community policing. So, any political party that does not promote those ideologies will have challenges of selling itself in 2019.
    “The Yoruba socio-political organisation, the Afenifere, has already indicated that any party that does not have restructuring in its agenda, should not bother to come and campaign in the Southwest. That is the new direction that I am talking about. So, it is either a political party is for self-determination or for the maintenance of the status quo.
    “In fact, the chances of an Igbo emerging as the president in 2019 have never been brighter as it is today. The UPP has an advantage, because its manifesto promotes the ideologies I have enumerated.”
    Second Republic politician and one of the founding members of the PDP, Chief Guy Ikokwu, put it even more succinctly. He picked holes in Obasanjo’s call that the Igbo should be allowed to produce the president in 2019, saying it would suicidal for them to do so in the prevailing unitary structure of Nigeria, saying the way forward is to restructure the country, to unleash economic development from all parts of the country.
    Ikokwu said Obasanjo had a golden opportunity in 2005, when he convened his National Political Reforms Conference (NPRC), to restructure Nigeria and return the country to true federalism, but he bungled it. He added: “That would have meant devolution of power to the states and regions, which would have given Nigeria a very strong economic base and we would not have been in recession that we are now.”
    The season politician said given the current unitary system that the Igbo prefer restructuring of Nigeria to presidential ambition. He said: “The last Igbo man who ruled Nigeria under the unitary system was General Aguiyi-Ironsi. He was murdered in the July 1966 counter-coup. Why will another Igbo person want to assume presidency of Nigeria under a unitary system as we have today when the last person was murdered?
    “Ndigbo are not ready to make the same unsavoury mistake again. Majority of Ndigbo are not interested in the Nigerian presidency in our skewed and dysfunctional constitutional system, which is presently unitary, instead of truly federal. Therefore, the Igbo are at the forefront of the quest for justice, fairness, equity and equilibrium for all parts of Nigeria and the six geo-political zones, which will make Nigeria to become the pride of Africa and no longer the ‘big for nothing’ entity we are referred to in West Africa and the rest of Africa.
    “The restructuring of Nigeria can be done this year because all the documentation has been done by all stakeholders and groups in the country. It should not take more than two months; between now and Easter. The authorities can hold a referendum by June. The moment that is done, the economy of Nigeria will be turned around immediately, because there will be renewed hope from everybody. Let the best thing for the country to be done now. We should no longer postpone the evil day.”
    But, others like former governor of Anambra State, Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife, hailed Obasanjo for his comments. He added that the former president was calling for Igbo presidency, because he understands the dynamics of the nation’s politics. He said: “Obasanjo is key to Nigeria’s politics; you may not like his social behavior; you may not like his political behavior; you may have many things you don’t like about him, but what you cannot take away from him is that he understands Nigeria’s politics.
    “I think God reveals things to some people, because it is obvious what he said is a reality. Some people know it already and have been hoping on it. But, one of the things you can praise him for is the knowledge that Buhari has debased Nigeria in seriously pushing down things out of Nigeria. Everywhere, at Aba, without any provocation people were killed; at Onitsha, while they were carrying their Bible, they were killed; now again for something not concerning Nigeria, but Donald Trump, 50 young men were massacred for no just cause. They were not carrying sticks, not to talk about knife or gun.”
    But, is Igbo presidency really desirable? Ideally, observers say where the president comes from does not really matter, as long as he presents himself as the president of the whole country and governs with that spirit. But, it is the way Nigerian politics is evolving that is making the Igbo to assert their right to govern the country. Such observers say the Igbo must put their acts together, if the truly want to produce the president when power reverts back to the South, because nobody would give you power on a platter of gold.
    Second Republic lawmaker, Dr Junaid Muhammed, frowned at Obasanjo’s call for Igbo presidency, saying the former president’s statement was irresponsible and was not made in good faith. Muhammed said though “every ethnic group has the right to aspire to produce president and every Nigerian that satisfies the constitutional requirements can aspire to become the president, but it cannot be at the instance of an individual”.
    The Kano-born politician said: “Already, we are having problems with zoning or rotation of the presidency between the North and the South, now you want add ethnic dimension that a particular tribe should produce president in 2019. I find Obasanjo’s advocacy troubling. In democracy, it is the people through their votes that decide who becomes president.
    “It is up to Nigerians to decide, not for Obasanjo to tell us where the next president should come from. He doesn’t have the power to determine the timeline when an ethnic group should produce president. Obasanjo’s statement was not made in good faith.
    “If we had relied on Yoruba votes in 1999, Obasanjo would never have become the president of the country then. He failed to win in his ward, local government, senatorial district and state, because he was rejected by the Yoruba people. He is not the type of person to advocate that one ethnic group should produce the next president.”
    For an Igbo president to emerge, Muhammed said the Igbo people should reach out to other ethnic groups, adding that they must also admit the blunder of their kinsmen in military that resulted in the killings of the Prime Minister, the late Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the Premier of the North, the late Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello and the Premier of the Western Region, the late Chief Ladoke Akintola.
    Former Minister of Transport, Chief Ebenezer Babatope, agrees with Muhammed. He said though there is freedom of speech in the constitution, which allows individuals to express themselves on political issues, but no one has the power or privilege to say the president should come from a particular ethnic group.
    Babatope said it the peoples’ vote that will decide and that it is not what anyone can just decide. He added that every Nigerian has the right to become president and that this also applies to every zone or region, but not for an individual no matter how influential he or she may be.
    Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State may not fit into the mould of those insisting on Igbo presidency. But, all the same, he has been the rallying point for many of his compatriots who desire to see an Igbo becoming the president of Nigeria in the near future. Okorocha was one of those who had the foresight, by being a founding member of the APC; many of the Igbo politicians who defected to the ruling party in recent times and are now falling over each other today, to curry the favour of the party leadership for one position or the other, did not see what the Imo State governor saw, before the party was formed.
    After the APC presidential primary in 2014, he said his reason for contesting for the ticket is to give the Igbo a sense of belonging in the fold. Indeed, he has been urging the Igbo all along to rally round the progressive camp, because that is where they are likely to be given the opportunity to rule Nigeria.
    Speaking recently during the inauguration of the APC Southeast Ward Mobilizers and Supporters Club, at the Ahiajoku Convention Centre, Owerri, he said the Igbo presidency is feasible under APC. The Imo State governor said the former ruling had relegated the Southeast zone to the background, despite its contribution to the growth and success of the party.
    He said: “I am highly elated that our people are responding to this clarion call that has to do with our collective destiny and aspiration. It is a clear fact that the Igbo have been relegated to sixth position in the political equation of our nation, not minding the fact that we formed one of the tripods upon which the nation stands.
    “In a situation where no Igbo man occupies the seat of the President, the Vice President, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the ruling party gives credence to the fact we have been relegated to the background by the PDP. But my assurance today is that our tears would be wiped away in APC as we have no doubt started well and will definitely finish on a very good note in this new party.
    “Let me state categorically that Igbo presidency, which appeared impossible in PDP, would be actualised under the platform of the APC. Therefore, I make bold to say that the APC is truly an Igbo party and should be embraced by the entire Igbos.”

  • How feasible is local government autonomy?

    How feasible is local government autonomy?

    Local government autonomy has been on the front burner for a long time. President Muhammadu Buhari has lent his voice against the excessive state government control over the councils. LEKE SALAUDEEN examines the effects of lack of administrative and fiscal autonomy on the performance of the third-tier of government.

    President Muhammadu Buhari’s support for the amendment of the constitution to pave the way for local government autonomy has reopened the debate on the contentious issue. When he received the leadership of the Association of Local Governments in Nigeria (ALGON), the president  called for a constitutional amendment that would clearly define the relationship among the three tiers of government.

    The debate focuses on the local government effectiveness and the joint account operated by the state and the local governments. Many people are of the view that, without administrative and financial autonomy, it will be very difficult for the local government to carry out its constitutional mandate to the people at the grassroots. Analysts perceive local government as a viable instrument for rural transformation and for the delivery of social services to the people. However, despite its strategic importance to national development, they noted that the local government’s contribution has been minimal. Some observers agreed that the ineffectiveness of the local government derives primarily from the excessive government control.

    Beyond that, Nigerians are divided on the issue. While some say autonomy for local government will speed -up development in the country others believe it will worsen the corruption.

    President Buhari observed that the relationship between the three tiers of government is not a very nice one, especially between the local government and the states. “The states feel like they own local government, if they are of the same party. It is worse if they are not. This is a very serious constitutional problem and unless there is absolute clarity and transparency, the relationship will continue to be exploited against the interest of the ordinary people of the country”.

    The President of Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE), Comrade Ibrahim Khaleel, painted a gloomy picture of local government in Nigeria. He said the local government is in a parlous state; it is chronically under resourced, it is not managed efficiently and it’s unable to provide the services the people need.

    Khaleel noted that the functions and responsibilities of local government have been hijacked by the state government. According to him, while development has eluded the people at the local level, the governors corruptly enrich themselves with the money that belongs to local government.

    The NULGE president said: “In Nigeria, not only is the local government continually undermined and over-ruled by federal and state governments, elections for local assemblies are ignored or are undermined, and it is definitely postponed. In their place are established transition or caretaker committees largely made up of appointees as a reward for loyalty to the powers that be. Their legal status being such that they do not have the authority to draw down funds earmarked for local government functions.

    “Revenue collection by local government in Nigeria, despite the legislation in place, is chronically hampered because funds from central government  are misplaced, withheld or subject to ‘penalties ‘ that undermine its value, and this often results in the remainder not being sufficient to pay salaries. In Nigeria, some local government workers have not been paid for up to 18 months ‘ and the much heralded harmonisation of terms and conditions of state and local government workers has failed to materialise 10 years after being agreed.

    “Today, almost all revenue generating items starting from sales of markets daily tolls, construction of roads, motor parks, slaughter slabs, environmental services and rates collection have been outsourced or contracted out by state governments. The law of Internally Generated Revenue stipulates that the State shall give to the local government 10 per cent of whatever is being generated on a monthly basis notwithstanding what the local government themselves can get.  In practice, this is not attainable and no State has ever been punished for reneging or otherwise”.

    Governors Forum against LG autonomy

    The Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) is stoutly opposed to any move to grant autonomy to local governments. The body has continued to maintain that local councils are integral part of state governments. The Forum’s argument is premised on the fact that, in all known federation, the federating units are usually the states and the centre. That autonomy will only make sense in the relationship between the states and the centre where we look at a spectrum that runs on the two extremes of unitary system and confederation. The governors argue that, in a federal system, there is no provision for local government as a federating partner and to talk of one is to engage in absurdity.

    According to the NGF, the understanding over the years has been that in a true federalism, the issue relating to the creation, delineation and funding of local authorities is within the constitutional purview of states, which have political and judicial status that the local government do not have. The states are federating units while the local governments are merely administrative units.

    The Forum admitted that local governments have politico-legal existence in so far as the constitution recognised them and even listed their names. “These local governments so named are the beneficiaries of federal allocations, just like the states and the federal government. It is this existing arrangement that has made some to erroneously assume and even argue that the local governments are on the same level of autonomy as states and federal governments.

    “What we have today is a disruptive and abominable legacy of military rule. It was the practice of the military to create local governments and even states. Since the military went on a frenzy of proliferating the local governments, it took on itself the burden of its funding, just as it was funding the states from the Federation Account. The military then passed on this legacy at its disengagement in 1999. Nevertheless, the issue of local governments’ autonomy should only come into play within the context of their relationship with their states,” the NGF said.

    Why LGs are ineffective

    A political scientist, Dr Rufus Oladimeji, agreed with President Buhari that the solution to the local government lies in the constitutional amendment. He frowned at the practice whereby local governments with democratically elected executive are answerable to the state government. Once they are accountable to the state governors they can’t perform their functions; local governments should be accountable to the people just as the states and federal governments are, he insisted.

    Oladimeji stressed that the constitutional provision that tied the local government to the state government should be amended. “It shouldn’t be there. Remove all those elements that hinder local government from operating as a tier of government. The joint account should be abrogated and they should be allowed to conduct their own election independently. It is necessary to have a full blown local government with full autonomy”, he suggested.

    He said: “putting local councils in the pockets of state governments do not encourage competent and qualified people to serve as chairmen or councillors. The governors remove chairmen and councillors at will either because they don’t belong to the ruling party in the state or they are not willing to do the bidding of the governor. The state governments intervene in their activities. The state governors determine what to do with joint account; the funds on many occasions are diverted. This is not good for the country and our democracy”.

    Aformer local government chairman, Dr Alex Ogbonna, said the dereliction of local government can be attributed to the lack of financial autonomy, corruption and undue interference in local government affairs, with regards to the areas of Joint state- local government account which gives the state government undue benefit over local government.

    Ogbonna said the states have undermined the financial viability of local government by diverting statutorily allocated grants for local governments as well as encroaching on their revenue yielding functions like markets, motor parks, tenement rates and liquor licensing. He described the hijacking of local government services by state governments as a grave concern, and especially of those elements of service delivery that deliver an income.

    He said the tendency to ignore the political factor in the management of local government had reduced local government to instruments of regulation and control. According to him, local governments which ought to be seen as instrument of mobilisation is usually not complex and generally does not require sophisticated and highly qualified personnel for effective performance.

    Local Government in other countries

    Local government in the United States, Switzerland, Australia, Germany and other countries have huge responsibilities and resources, but still operate within the purview of their states.

    In Australia, the state governments are constitutionally responsible for local government. The Federal Constitution sets out this responsibility, and each state decides on the role of local government in its own constitution; any major change would require the constitution to be changed. In recent years, this constitutional relationship has been bypassed by strengthening relations between federal government and local government. The Federal Government has supported particular initiatives financially. There are also signs of occasionally alliance between federal and local government in order to ‘squeeze’ the states.

    The United States also has a federal structure. Each state is responsible for local government, and each state has different approaches. Local governments are ‘creatures of the States’. The states can therefore change the status of local government although this rarely happens.

    In Germany, the local government is characterised by diversity, especially in its unique city states. The Federal Republic of Germany consisted of 11 Lander (States) when it was founded. Since re-unification in 1990, Germany has 16 Lander including the three city states of Hamburg, Bremen and Berlin. Regarding the assignment of land tasks, the Basic Law merely distinguishes between two orders: the federation and the Lander.

    Austria belongs to the category of the federal system where local government is extensively regulated by the federal constitution. The more rigorous the federal constitutional regime, however, the less space remains for the Lander and their legislation. Even then, the competence to regulate local government is mainly assigned to the Lander not the federal legislature.

    New Zealand has the system closest to that in the United Kingdom. There is no written constitution and, therefore, no constitutional position for local government. The national parliament can make changes to the system as it deems fit. New Zealand’s local government went through a major period of reform in the late 1980’s. The 1989 Local Government Act defines local government’s general responsibilities.

    Third tier of government, a myth?

    The general assumption is that there are three-tiers of government,  federal, state and local governments. In reality, the local government is an appendage of the state government.

    The financial control exercised by state governments reduces the autonomy of the local government and this paves the way for financial manipulation of the local government. Section 162(5) of the 1999 Constitution states that the amount standing to the credit of local government councils in the federation accounts shall be allocated to the state for the benefit of their local government councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by National Assembly.

    Section 162(6) states that each state shall maintain a special account called the “State Joint Local Government Account” into which shall be paid allocation to the local government councils of the state from Federation Account and from the Government of the State.

    Besides, the local government budget must be presented to the state governor for approval. These provisions make local government subservient to the state government.

  • Ibadan State: How feasible?

    Ibadan State: How feasible?

    Despite the popular belief that many states are not viable, the people of Ibadan are not relenting in their quest for a state. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines the feasibility and viability of the proposed Ibadan State.

    The agitation for states creation has dominated the public space for many years.  But, whether these requests have met the constitutional requirements is another puzzle. Analysts are of the view that the proliferation of states stemmed from the fear of the minorities and the feelings of marginalisation and domination.  The agitators believe that the creation of new states would quicken the pace of development and bring governance closer to the people.

    At the close of submission of requests for new states to the Seventh Senate, 62 memoranda were received. One of them was the demand for the creation of Ibadan State. The request resonated at the installation of the Olubadan of Ibadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji last week. The monarch made no pretence over his commitment to its actualisation during his reign. He told the dignitaries at the ceremony that it is his main priority.

    Oba Adetunji argued that only Ibadan had not become a state among the old regional capitals, unlike Enugu and Kaduna. He said: “God sparing my life, I will work with the government and the people of Ibadan and our friends to ensure that Ibadan State, which we truly deserve, is made possible”.

    The population of Ibadan is 3.5 million according to geographical data base. Out of 33 local governments in Oyo State, Ibadan has 11.  It has six out of 14 federal constituencies and 16 out of 32 state constituencies.

    Ibadan State was a campaign issue in the last general elections in Oyo State. PDP chieftains, including the governorship candidate, Senator Teslim Folarin, and Former Minister of State for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Jumoke Akinjide and former President Goodluck Jonathan promised that, if the PDP was re-elected, Ibadan State would become a reality. Dr. Jonathan disclosed that he deliberately did not hand over the document on the creation of new states to the last Senate because they might not be able to conclude the process.

    Folarin explained that to create states in a democratic government is not a child’s play. He said while he was in the Senate, he and his colleagues kick-started the process of creating Ibadan State. However, he recalled that he was hamstrung by the procedures laid down in the constitution, unlike under the military regimes when states were created by fiat.

    Constitutional requirements

    Section 8(1) of the 1999 Constitution states that: A request supported by at least, two-thirds majority of members representing the areas demanding the creation of the new state in each of the following namely: The Senate and the House of Representatives, the Houses of Assembly in respect of the area and the Local Government Councils in respect of the area, where the demand is received by the National Assembly.

    “A proposal for the creation of the state, approved in a referendum by at least two-thirds majority of the people of the area from where the demand for the creation of the state originated; the result of the referendum is then approved by a simple majority of all the states of the Federation supported by a simple majority of members of the Houses of Assembly and the proposal is approved by two-thirds majority of members of each House of the National Assembly.”

    A member of the Senate committee on Constitution Review in the last dispensation, who spoke in confidence, said: “In all, none of the requests for state creation at the close of receipt of memoranda satisfied the requirement of Section 8 (1) (a) (i-iii) to justify recommendation for the next step in Section 8 (1) (b) that is directing Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a referendum.”

    Besides, he said the Committee, in its report stated that the signatories to the requests are not currently serving as members of the Senate, House of Representatives, Houses of Assembly or Local Government Councils as required by the constitution. As such, if the signatories of those that are no longer serving at the various legislative levels are removed, the signatories of serving members will not satisfy the provisions of Section 8 (a) (1) (i-iii), he said.

    Analysts believe some of the states have not lived up to expectation, when considered from the point of view of their economic viability. According to them, most of the states   have failed to explore opportunities to boost their revenue base. Rather, they are contented with the national allocation.

    But, a prominent indigene of Ibadan, Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN), ruled out that the proposed Ibadan State will depend on the federal allocation. He said Ibadan State will be economically viable.

    Akintola, the Basorun Bamofin of Ibadanland, said: “The creation of Ibadan State is not only viable, but desirable. About 92 per cent of the Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) of Oyo State comes from Ibadan. With a visionary leader, the state will be self sufficient”.

    He stressed: “Ibadan State will be viable more than some states in the Southwest. Land is the crude oil of Ibadan. Its proximity to Lagos and Ogun States will enhance the value of its land and boost the economic activities of the proposed state. Ibadan is endowed with fertile land good for production of cocoa. Take for instance, along Lagos-Ibadan expressway the boundary is Ogunmakin village about 39 kilometres away from Ibadan; the boundary between Ibadan and Osun State is Papa which is about 103 kilometres to Ibadan.

    “It will be travesty of justice to deny Ibadan a state of its own. It remains the only province that has not become a state. I make bold to say that Ibadan State is long overdue.”

    But, another indigene of Ibadan, Dr Gbade Ojo, said Ibadan State is not feasible. He said many people will be shocked that an Ibadan man is not supporting the creation of Ibadan State. Ojo, former Special Adviser on Political Affairs to Governor Abiola Ajimobi, added: “If you are talking about Ibadan State, in terms of mere nomenclature, like Kaduna State, Enugu State and we are saying Ibadan should be a state, I will tell you it is not feasible. There are some criteria for state creation, which we need to put into consideration.

    “Based on scientific finding, the first principle is that the new state must be economically viable. If in Nigeria today, out of the 36 states, you cannot pinpoint six states that can pay wages and salaries without the federal allocation, then, why talking about state creation? Does it make any sense that you want to create an additional liability?

    “Talking of the geographic and demographic size of the state, if the new state is not economically strong to tell the Federal Government ‘go away with your allocation’ and we are now agitating for a new state, our people need to check the level of exposure of politicians deceiving them.

    “Secondly, as we want Ibadan State, other parts of the country are also agitating for the creation of more states. The fragmentation of the federal structure will make the Federal Government to be stronger in political theory and the component part of the federation becomes weaker because they depend on the federal allocation. The Federal Government can use that as a weapon to fight states.  If it refuses to give them allocation, the states won’t be able to pay workers’ salaries and their respective contractors.

    “Most of the states could not pay January salary because they are yet to get their allocations. What does that connote? It is simply lack of economic viability. If the new states are not economically viable, it is a fundamental problem. That will make the Federal Government to become stronger than as it is today”.

    Civil Rights activist Comrade Moshood Erubami disagreed with Ojo’s submission. He said Ibadan, by all standards, met the criteria of transforming into a state. He said Ibadan is the largest and most populous city in the country and in West Africa.

    Erubami said that the agitation for the creation of Ibadan state is not an exception or not out of place because it is the belief of many that if federalism must exist, it must be on the basis of equitable control and ownership of natural resources, cohesion and unity of the people that constitute the geo-politics of each state.

    According to him: “The main factors that motivated the creation of Ogun, Ondo Ekiti and Osun states out of Western State continues to cry for the creation of Ibadan State. There is no way Ibadan will be considered less qualified. In fact it is long overdue.

    “It is economically viable more than many of the existing states today. In fact Ibadan merits being a state because of its history, geography, administration, population, monuments, landmarks and other advantages. Under the present national circumstance and for justice to be seen to be done to all, Ibadan is viable, feasible in all contexts; a meaningful and desirable project.

    “The creation of Ibadan State will consolidate the current development in the city, enhance the current infrastructural facilities and in the long run bring about sustainable development to the city and its people if it continues to be led by strong leaders who are visionary, courageous and imbued with character of integrity.”

    Akintola said Ibadan State was not considered by the late Gen. Sani Abacha in 1996 because Ibadan was the theatre of war against Abacha’s plan to transform himself into a civilian president and the struggle for the revalidation of Chief Moshood Abiola’s mandate. The plan to launch his campaign in Ibadan was truncated, the giant bill boards carrying Abacha’s portraits were pulled down by pro-democracy activists. According to him, there was no way Abacha could have created Ibadan State.

    Ojo chided Jonathan, Akinjide and Folarin for attempting to mislead the people of Ibadan by making state creation a campaign issue. “You don’t make issues out of no issue if you have not consulted properly from those who specialise in that area. Politicians being what they are, they can go out to hoodwink the electorate just to get what they want,” he fumed.

    According to him, what the politicians did was to cajole the electorate thinking that the aspiration of an average Ibadan man was Ibadan State, let us promise them Ibadan State so as to have our way. It was a mere gimmick and not a campaign promise, he said.

    He noted that the process of creating an additional state is rigorous and that is why since 1960, no democratically elected government has created a single state; all existing states were created by the military.

    Although Erubami is in support of creation of Ibadan State, he noted that the main purpose adduced for state creation has always being for expedited national development and integration but, the outcomes of state creation exercises in Nigeria have failed to meet the genuine desires for state creation.

  • Amnesty deadline not feasible, say ex-militant leaders

    Former militant leaders in the six Niger Delta states have said the December deadline for the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP) is not feasible.

    Rising from their meeting in Yenagoa, the Bayelsa State capital, the former creek commanders urged President Muhammadu Buhari to extend the programme beyond this year.

    The former militants, who met under the auspices of the Leadership, Peace and Cultural Development Initiative (LPCDI), hailed the Special Adviser to the President on Niger Delta Affairs and PAP Chairman, Brig.-Gen. Paul Boroh, for performing well.

    According to them, the proposed timeline was not feasible because of non-payment of outstanding allowances and unfulfilled promises by the Federal Government.

    LPCDI’s National President Reuben Wilson (aka General Pastor) said the government should pay outstanding fees of amnesty students in foreign institutions before terminating the programme.

    In a statement after the meeting, Wilson said: “The Federal Government should release timeously the allocations to the Presidential Amnesty Office in order to pay the beneficiaries their monthly stipends on time. The PAP should be extended beyond December 2015 as earlier envisaged as the expiry date.

    “The incentives promised the ‘ex-Generals’ and leaders of the various militant camps by the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua in the form of lifeline, security, accommodation and mobility be fulfilled with immediate effect.

    “The Federal Government should pay, with immediate effect, the three-month outstanding payments for the pipeline surveillance contract awarded to the ex-agitators by the immediate past administration.

    “The Federal Government should also reconsider its termination of the pipeline surveillance contract and re-award same to the ex-agitators for proper and effective security of the pipelines. The Federal Government should expand the PAP to include Niger Delta youths in the creeks, who are currently not included in the programme.”

    The spokesman re-affirmed the confidence of the ex-agitators in the leadership of Brig.-Gen. Boroh.

    He said: “We believe and stand by him that he has the requisite experience and a robust knowledge to effectively pilot the affairs of the Amnesty Office, if given the necessary support and assistance by the Federal Government.

    “The PAP was initiated by the Yar’Adua administration to alleviate the plight of the Niger Delta people. It was designed to reach out to the people as compensation for their devastated environment and loss of livelihood due to oil exploration and exploitation activities…”

  • ‘Ibadan State not feasible now’

    ‘Ibadan State not feasible now’

    Dr. Gbade Ojo, a political scientist, the Special Adviser to Oyo State Governor Abiola Ajimobi on Political Matters. In this interview with JEREMIAH OKE, he says the people of the Southwest will not vote for the PDP at the general elections on the feasibility of promises by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to create Ibadan State, Governor Ayodele Fayose’s incessant attacks on the personality of General Muhammudu Buhari and the present administration in the state.

    PDP has promised to agitate for the creation of Ibadan State. Don’t you think this campaign may make the people vote against the APC?

    Our people know it is an attempt to deceive them. As a political scientist, I have done many researches on state creation in Nigeria. There are two angles to Ibadan State creation; I am an indigene of Ibadan. I was born and bred here in Ibadan. I have all my degrees at the University of Ibadan. But, I tell you that the creation of Ibadan State is not feasible. Many readers will be shocked that Ibadan man is not supporting the creation of Ibadan State. But, the truth must be told. If you are talking about Ibadan State, in terms of mere nomenclature, like Kaduna State, Enugu State and we are saying Ibadan being a state, I will tell you it is not feasible. There are some criteria for state creation, which we need to put into consideration. Based on scientific finding, the first principle is that the new state must be economically viable. If in Nigeria today, out of the 36 states, you cannot pinpoint six states that can pay wages and salaries without the federal allocation, then, why talking about state creation?  Does it make any sense that you want to create an additional liability? To those who are not sufficiently exposed intellectually, it could be a political gimmick to deceive the electorate and they should not forget that our people are not dumb as they are.  Talking of the geographic and demographic size of the state, if the new state is not economically strong to tell the Federal Government that ‘go away with your allocation’ and we are now agitating for a new state, our people need to check the level of exposure of the people deceiving them. Secondly, as we want Ibadan State, other parts of the country are also agitating for the creation of more states. The fragmentation of the federal structure will make the Federal Government to be stronger in political theory and the component part of the federation becomes weaker because they depend on the federal allocation. Federal government can use that as a weapon to fight states that if they refuse to give them allocation, they won’t be able to pay their salaries and their respective contractors.  Most of the states of federation could not pay January salary because they are yet to get their allocations. What does that connote? Simply lack of economic viability. If the new states are not economically viable, it is a fundamental problem.  That will make the Federal Government to become stronger than as it is today.

    Why do you think that state creation is not feasible?

    Jonathan, Akinjide and Folarin campaigning with state creation are not politically exposed because they are not political scientists. They are just trying to mislead our people with wrong information.  They refused to find out information from those who know better than them.  You don’t make issues out of no issue if you have not consulted properly from those who specialises in that area. Politicians being what they are, they can go out to hoodwink the electorate just to get what they want.  To cajole the electorate that if the aspiration of an average of Ibadan man is Ibadan State, let us promise them Ibadan State so as to have our way. But, we can now ask ourselves: Since the beginning of this democratic dispensation in 1999, between 1999 and 2015, why is it that they have not been able to create Ibadan State? Why is it now that they are desperate to return to Aso Rock they are now promising Ibadan State? It is a poser for the ruling party at the federal level. It is a mere gimmick and not a campaign promise. The process of creating an additional state is rigorous and that is why since 1960, no democratically elected government has created a single state and all the existing states were created by the military. For Jonathan who has been there for the last six years to now begin to promise us Ibadan State, an Ibadan man like me need to sit down and think twice.

    PDP alleged that the APC administration has not lived up to expectation. What is your reaction?

    We have said much about it. Agreed that the Hon. Minister of State said there was a huge amount of money from the PET fund but, it is a ridiculous thing that a minister for that matter will intend to mislead the great people of Oyo State who are politically sophisticated. What is PETFUND? It is Tertiary Education Trust Fund, there is existing law which says certain amount of money must go to the purse of PETFUND for all the tertiary institutions in all the states of federation. The fundamental question is that; was it only Oyo State out of 36 States that collected the money? It was the constitutional right of the state and if you go to our schools in the state, you will see development in those schools.  The money was deducted from money meant for all of us and it belongs to all of us. It is the right of every state to get their own money because it is being deducted to care for tertiary institutions across the country. Now, she mentioned the University of Ibadan. Is it a property of Oyo State? Can you now see the discrepancies in what the woman is spreading around? The money belongs to all the states of federation and I don’t know why that of Oyo State is now different from others. One other funny thing about her explanation to hoodwink the electorate is that Jonathan did more than Governor Ajimobi in Oyo State, in terms of education. Is Jonathan or the Federal Government paying the salary of the Polytechnic Ibadan, Ladoke Akintola University in Ogbomosho and others state institutions? Is Jonathan, who has not been paying opposition parties regularly, interested in supporting Oyo State? Does it make sense to argue that Jonathan has done anything reasonable for us in the southwest? That woman should look for something else to say rather than deceiving the intelligent people of the state. The Ekiti State Governor, Ayo Fayose insisted that General Buhari is not fit to rule Nigeria because of his military background, as a political scientist, do you subscribe to this argument?

  • ‘Ibadan State not feasible for now’

    ‘Ibadan State not feasible for now’

    Dr. Gbade Ojo, a political scientist, the Special Adviser to Oyo State Governor Abiola Ajimobi on Political Matters. In this interview with JEREMIAH OKE, he says the people of the Southwest will not vote for the PDP at the general election on the feasibility of promises by the People Democratic Party (PDP) to create Ibadan State, Governor Ayodele Fayose’s incessant attack on the personality of General Muhammudu Buhari and the present administration in the state.

    PDP has promised to agitate for the creation of Ibadan State. Don’t you think this campaign may make the people vote against the APC?

    Our people know it is an attempt to deceive them. As a political scientist, I have done many researches on state creation in Nigeria. There are two angles to Ibadan State creation; I am an indigene of Ibadan. I was born and bred here in Ibadan. I have all my degrees at the University of Ibadan. But, I tell you that the creation of Ibadan State is not feasible. Many readers will be shocked that Ibadan man is not supporting the creation of Ibadan State. But, the truth must be told. If you are talking about Ibadan State, in terms of mere nomenclature, like Kaduna State, Enugu State and we are saying Ibadan being a state, I will tell you it is not feasible. There are some criteria for state creation, which we need to put into consideration. Based on scientific finding, the first principle is that the new state must be economically viable. If in Nigeria today, out of the 36 states, you cannot pinpoint six states that can pay wages and salaries without the federal allocation, then, why talking about state creation?  Does it make any sense that you want to create an additional liability? To those who are not sufficiently exposed intellectually, it could be a political gimmick to deceive the electorate and they should not forget that our people are not dumb as they are.  Talking of the geographic and demographic size of the state, if the new state is not economically strong to tell the Federal Government that ‘go away with your allocation’ and we are now agitating for a new state, our people need to check the level of exposure of the people deceiving them. Secondly, as we want Ibadan State, other parts of the country are also agitating for the creation of more states. The fragmentation of the federal structure will make the Federal Government to be stronger in political theory and the component part of the federation becomes weaker because they depend on the federal allocation. Federal government can use that as a weapon to fight states that if they refuse to give them allocation, they won’t be able to pay their salaries and their respective contractors.  Most of the states of federation could not pay January salary because they are yet to get their allocations. What does that connote? Simply lack of economic viability. If the new states are not economically viable, it is a fundamental problem.  That will make the Federal Government to become stronger than as it is today.

    Why do you think that state creation is not feasible?

    Jonathan, Akinjide and Folarin campaigning with state creation are not politically exposed because they are not political scientists. They are just trying to mislead our people with wrong information.  They refused to find out information from those who know better than them.  You don’t make issues out of no issue if you have not consulted properly from those who specialises in that area. Politicians being what they are, they can go out to hoodwink the electorate just to get what they want.  To cajole the electorate that if the aspiration of an average of Ibadan man is Ibadan State, let us promise them Ibadan State so as to have our way. But, we can now ask ourselves: Since the beginning of this democratic dispensation in 1999, between 1999 and 2015, why is it that they have not been able to create Ibadan State? Why is it now that they are desperate to return to Aso Rock they are now promising Ibadan State? It is a poser for the ruling party at the federal level. It is a mere gimmick and not a campaign promise. The process of creating an additional state is rigorous and that is why since 1960, no democratically elected government has created a single state and all the existing states were created by the military. For Jonathan who has been there for the last six years to now begin to promise us Ibadan State, an Ibadan man like me need to sit down and think twice.

    PDP alleged that the APC administration has not lived up to expectation. What is your reaction?

    We have said much about it. Agreed that the Hon. Minister of State said there was a huge amount of money from the PET fund but, it is a ridiculous thing that a minister for that matter will intend to mislead the great people of Oyo State who are politically sophisticated. What is PETFUND? It is Tertiary Education Trust Fund, there is existing law which says certain amount of money must go to the purse of PETFUND for all the tertiary institutions in all the states of federation. The fundamental question is that; was it only Oyo State out of 36 States that collected the money? It was the constitutional right of the state and if you go to our schools in the state, you will see development in those schools.  The money was deducted from money meant for all of us and it belongs to all of us. It is the right of every state to get their own money because it is being deducted to care for tertiary institutions across the country. Now, she mentioned the University of Ibadan. Is it a property of Oyo State? Can you now see the discrepancies in what the woman is spreading around? The money belongs to all the states of federation and I don’t know why that of Oyo State is now different from others. One other funny thing about her explanation to hoodwink the electorate is that Jonathan did more than Governor Ajimobi in Oyo State, in terms of education. Is Jonathan or the Federal Government paying the salary of the Polytechnic Ibadan, Ladoke Akintola University in Ogbomosho and others state institutions? Is Jonathan, who has not been paying opposition parties regularly, interested in supporting Oyo State? Does it make sense to argue that Jonathan has done anything reasonable for us in the southwest? That woman should look for something else to say rather than deceiving the intelligent people of the state. The Ekiti State Governor, Ayo Fayose insisted that General Buhari is not fit to rule Nigeria because of his military background, as a political scientist, do you subscribe to this argument?

  • ‘Igbo Presidency feasible in 2015’

    A group, ‘Lagos Njiko Igbo’ has urged the Igbo to keep faith with 2015, stressing that an Igbo Presidency is feasible.

    The group’s co-ordinator, Hon. Chibuike Jonas, has the race has many indigenes who can provide better leadership to the country.

    He was reacting to the statement credited to Prof. Ango Abdullahi that the North must produce the President in 2015.

    Jonas observed that the injustice and marginalisation suffered by the Igbo has reached its climax, maintaining that Igbo Presidency is the answer.

    He called the other five geo-political zones to support a candidate from the Southeast for the highest position.

    Jonas said: “After all, Nigeria has six geopolitical zones, with each having occupied the number one position except for the South East.

    “Ndigbo has continued to be at the receiving end in the polity, despite the sacrifice and contributions of the Igbos to the nation.”

    Jonas said that there are competent men and women of integrity, who can turn around the fortune of the nation in Igboland.

    He berated some selfish Southeast politicians who are urging President Goodluck Jonathan to run in 2015, describing their action as anti-Igbo.

    He said: “This people are speaking for themselves and not Igbos.

    “They are only interested in mortgaging the future of their people for their selfish interests and unwarranted ambitions.”

    Jonas called on the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) to remember that the North cannot continue to pose as the only geo-political zone that can do and undo in the country.

    He advised the North and other zones to conceed the slot to the Southeast in the interest of unity, fairness and justice.

    Jonas also urged Ndigbo, both at home and abroad, to support Njiko Igbo, a non-partisan movement, for the collective goal of the Southeast.

     

  • Igbo presidency feasible under APC, says Okorocha

    It was cheering news from Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha yesterday when he announced to the supporters of the All Progressives Congress (APC) that the age-long agitation for an Igbo presidency would soon come to fruition.

    Okorocha, who spoke during the inauguration of the APC Southeast Ward Mobilisers and Supporters Club, at the weekend, said the new party has become a rallying point for Ndigbo.

    He insisted that the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has relegated the zone, despite its contribution to the growth and success of the party.

    “I am happy that our people are responding to this clarion call that has to do with our collective destiny and aspiration. It is a clear fact that Igbo have been relegated to sixth position in the political equation of our nation; not minding the fact that we form one of the tripods upon which the nation stands.

    “In a situation where no Igbo man is president, vice president, Senate president, Speaker and chairman of the ruling party gives credence to the fact that we have been relegated by the PDP.

    “But my assurance today is that our tears would be wiped away in APC as we have started well and will definitely finish well.

    “Let me state categorically that Igbo presidency which appeared impossible in PDP would be actualised under the APC. Therefore, I make bold to say that APC is truly an Igbo party and should be embraced by Ndigbo.”

    The governor added that APC has metamorphosed into a rallying point for the Ndigbo, adding that the party has rekindled the hope for the much-desired Igbo unity.

    Okorocha posited that with the successful inauguration of the club, “the party is now prepared to demonstrate its winning strategy in the November 6 Anambra governorship election”.

    The governor said he plans to meet with Senator Chris Ngige and Senator Annie Okonkwo to ensure a smooth and peaceful emergence of the party’s governorship candidate in Anambra State.