The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federalism

  • ‘Restructuring is non-negotiable’

    ‘Restructuring is non-negotiable’

    In this piece, rights activist and politician Afolabi Ige dissects the socio-economic and political challenges confronting the country and contends that the solution is restructuring to guarantee true federalism and peaceful co-existence.

    On January 1, President Muhammadu Buhari spoke on the national question. He rejected the call for restructuring, which has been the main issue  since 1966 when the military foisted the unification decree on the federal country.

    The British colonialist tried to bring the Northern Protectorate, the Southern Protectorate  and the Colony of Lagos together under one expedient administration since Nigeria was not their only colonial business. But, due attention was given to the cultural, religious and ethnic diversities and even as our colonial masters, normal democratic nuances was still observed through the several constitutional and political conferences leading to our independence in 1960. Our leaders negotiated and temporarily agreed to  start on a tripod as a federation of three regions at independence in 1960.  We became four regions in 1964 and might have become at least six by 1970s but definitely following the orderly democratic nuances that birthed the mid-western region in 1964.

    Following the discovery of oil in commercial quantities in Nigeria however, greed and avarice seized our elites and they used the military to disrupt the course of our natural growth and migrated to doing everything by artificiality.  The force of decrees rather than negotiations become the order under the jack booth of the military dictatorships and we continue to decree unity, uniformity and equality of the most unequals. The military killed the spirit of our healthy rivalry and competition among the regions, which produced the first television station in Africa, produced one of the strongest cocoa economy in the world, produced one of the tallest groundnut pyramids in the world, produced the Enugu coal mine and the palm tree plantations of the southern states that became the envy of many nations from where we now import  Palm oil as at today.  Our hides and skin potentials which should have made Turkey and Italy grow green with envy of us were all laid to rest by the military adventurists who seemed to know nothing than sharing oil money, awarding oil blocks to cronies, thereby plundering our productive capacities in convalescence with  their civilian collaborators.

    Having plundered our productive capabilities and rendered us an import dependent economy with one of the fastest growing appetite in the world, it is just a matter of time for the seed of poverty and want to germinate and blossom in our national life which has now come of full age with its fruits staring us in the face. These fruits are the myriads of problems we are now contending with today: certificates without intelligence, qualifications without capabilities, religion without faith, baseless equality and uniformity of unequals, economic growth without increased productivity, increasing budget and correspondingly increasing unemployment, wealth without enterprise, continued widening of the gap between the rich and the poor and the resultant evils of kidnapping for ransome, youth restiveness and agitation in place of productive engagements and the hopelessness that resulted into the Bokoharam terror against the state. The most current of the evils is the Fulani herdsmen terrorism.

    “Our problem is more about process than structure”. I knew immediately the president needed to be engaged but while still ruminating, the Fulani herdsmen struck for the umpteenth time on the same 1st January  in the Benue state decimating villages and farm settlements to leave in their trail as usual bloods of hundred of farmers and their families in their own settlement in a country they call their own and which constitution guarantees their freedom to life. The Fulani herdsmen terrorism will therefore form the pillar of my structural failure argument against the president ‘s process hypothesis.

    I agree that  “process” is everything to war and military domination, a profession where Mr. President has built a successful career like his co-compatriots former heads-of-state who are still alive – Gowon, Obasanjo and Babangida. The human society is far larger than the military camps and hence has given prime attention to diagnosing and developing sustainable institutional structural theses for survival of nations. It’s therefore morbidly unfortunate that Nigeria has had the ill luck of been governed mostly by men who were taught and groomed to believe that only  mere “process” suffice and is everything.

    “Structure,” which is defined as the “ arrangement of and relations between parts or elements of something thing complex” (like Nigeria), in my opinion, is primary to systems and specifies the “processes” to follow. Structure  is like the carcasses in building construction which carries and holds the brick works. Any edifice without a good structural engineering is therefore bound to collapse like pack of cards in matters of time. By the natural accident of our nation’s cultural, religious and ethnographic heterogeneity, Nigeria is never, has never and will never function as a unitary state nonetheless in a democracy but rather at best as a united states in one federation just as our colonial masters forged and bequeathed to us at independence. We were not without our complaints even then but our agitations were purposeful and limited: create a mid-west region from the western region, create a middle belt region out of the northern region and the agitation for the creation of the  COR state out of the then eastern region. The “processes” for their actualization was already part of the structural design and it had delivered one out of the three expectancies without any loss of blood. That to my mind is the actual “restructuring” towards perfection. We were steadily on that road before the accident of oil and the attendant misfortune of military rule. Until then, all  the four regions have their different constitutions aside from the federal constitution, all the regions have their own development plans and agenda and in fact were free to negotiate bilateral cooperation with foreign nations. What we had was healthy competition for development and a resultant productive economy with jobs for all and food for all.

    The question today is: “what are we as a nation”?. A federal state or a unitary state or a quasi-federal or quasi-unitary? Definitely we are not in the corridor of the Professor George Weah’s federalism when a Fulani association, the Miyetti Allah Cattle breeders can openly challenge the collective resolve of the entire people of “Benue State” to outlaw open grazing in their state. A law must be obeyed once it is duly passed until nullified by a competent court of law.  This sort of open affront against the “State of Benue” can only be borne out of our structural heist that makes an elected executive governor to be mere security adviser to the commissioner of police in his own state.

    It is structural problem and not mere “process” problem that has made the entire Northeast and West which is bigger than other countries of Africa not to have devised a modern way of doing cattle business which is the cultural occupation of their people beyond the  miserable, animalistic wandering the bushes for grazing in this 21st century.

    The President has only one chance left to remain immortal in the annals of Nigeria  history and that will put you on the Ivy League of leaders  and this is to correct the mistake of the military by returning Nigeria to a true civil democratic structure where the military met us before we became a conquered territory run by processes since she 1966. In fact, the only “process “ that leads to honour for now is the process to return Nigeria back to its true federal structure in which the constituent states or regions will be free from the feeding bottle and noose of the feudal federal government.

    Mr. President should lead this  process with all his remaining will and wits. Nigeria has not worked in over fifty years, despite several “processes” simply because we were trying to put “so much” impressionistically on “nothing” and it will not work until we put something on ground to build on.

  • True Federalism: Southern govs must work together

    The maiden gathering of Southern Governors Forum (SGF) was held in 2001 at the Akodo Beach Resort, Ibeju Lekki, here in Lagos.

    The initiative to set up the SGF was received with mixed feelings at the time. There were those who read partisan political moves into the idea. Others saw it as essentially sectional and potentially divisive while some dismissed the SGF as another superfluous talk shop of doubtful utility.

    However, the convener of the inaugural edition of the forum and my illustrious predecessor, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, gave a robust articulation of the necessity for the forum in his address to participants, which remains relevant and pertinent even today. On that occasion he said, “We are of course aware that our northern brothers have met regularly and publicly articulated common positions of interest in the polity. While some have condemned such meetings, I believe very strongly that such fora should indeed be actively encouraged and supported. Our democracy and federal system can only be strengthened when various groups and component parts of the country are free to discuss and pursue their perceived common aspirations within the framework of the law.

    There are unquestionably issues of common interest to us as governors of states in the southern region of Nigeria. This does not mean that there are no matters which the South-West, the South-East, or the South-South, respectively, may feel constrained to pursue separately at other fora”.

    From its modest beginning in 2001, the SGF held at least nine meetings over the following four years with the last one taking place again in Lagos on Friday, 25th February, 2005. During this period, the forum became a significant voice on matters of critical import both to the south and to Nigeria as a whole.

    Perhaps, we need to quickly remind ourselves some of the landmark achievements obtained through the pressure exerted by this forum in the past. The first was its collective advocacy for the special allocation to oil producing states in the federation account which resulted in the current formula of 13% accruing for Derivation in allocating revenues from the Federation Account.

    Another major victory won towards strengthening the country’s practice of true federalism was the declaration by the Supreme Court in 2002 that the then prevalent practice of the federal government deducting monies from the Federation Account as a first line charge for the funding of Joint Venture Contracts, NNPC priority projects, servicing of Federal Government’s external debt, the judiciary and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and other federal obligations were illegal and unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court in that case abolished the special funds created by the Federal Government to enable it draw funds from the Federation Account to pay for matters that fell within its exclusive responsibility before sharing whatever was left with the states and local governments.

    Despite these successes, there is still a lot to be done. There is certainly a lot to be done about true federalism; an issue that requires urgent, meticulous and proactive attention by this forum.

    No less disturbing is the failure to undertake the periodic review of the revenue allocation formula as provided for by the constitution to reflect evolving realities. This is another critical matter that ought to engage this forum in order to enhance the viability of the states and local governments as well as their capacity to fulfill their developmental roles in the polity. All too often, states are disparaged for always carrying begging bowls to Abuja in quest of hand-outs from the federal government.

    This is a function of our present national constitution that burdens the federal government with activities and responsibilities that rightly fall within the province of the states. The productivity and revenue-generating capacities of most of the states are thus stifled thus turning them into no better than street beggar states incapable of even meeting routine obligations of paying workers’ salaries and pensions without federal support.

    Lagos State has fought and won several legal battles since 1999 that has systematically strengthened her autonomy and enhanced her fiscal viability. Over the years, the state has won legal control over the management of its environment, control of urban and physical planning, regulation of overhead masts, registration and regulation of hotels and restaurants and control of her inland waterways. And these victories do not belong to Lagos alone, but to all other states in the federation and which they must explore significantly.

    I believe that If Lagos has been able to achieve so much fighting singly, the SGF can accomplish much more by thinking, planning, strategizing and acting together.

    This resuscitation of the SGF is coming at a most appropriate time. As we are aware, the Senate and House of Representatives are currently harmonizing their differences on the proposed amendments to the 1999 constitution before they are transmitted to the state Houses of Assembly for approval. It is important for this forum to comprehensively look at the proposed amendments with a view to working with our respective Houses of Assembly to ensure a coordinated response on our part that will strengthen the practice of democracy, federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law.

    In our deliberations, particularly on the pressing need for greater devolution of powers, responsibilities and resources from the centre to the states, our preoccupation must not be with having a weak centre and strong states or vice versa. Rather, in the words of the Indian politician and statesman, Bhupesh Gupta, on the floor of the Indian parliament on May 9th, 1969, “Therefore, we want a centre which will function on the basis of democratic principles and safeguard the unity and integrity of the nation as a whole; whereas at the same time we must have the states enjoying a wide range of powers, economic, political and otherwise, in order that out of this arrangement there develops a symphony of centre-state relations to the common good of the people of the country. There is no contradiction between having a democratic and viable centre and having at the same time, strong, democratic states”.

     

    • Excerpts from speech delivered by Ambode, Governor of Lagos State at the meeting of the Southern Governors’ Forum held on Monday at the State House, Ikeja, Lagos

  • Southern governors and true federalism

    Governors of 17 states of the southern part of the country recently held an historic meeting in Lagos at the end of which they reiterated their commitment to true federalism and the indivisibility of Nigeria as well as devolution of power to the states. The meeting was historic because it marked the second time the governors would be meeting under aegis of the Southern Governors’ Forum in 12 years. It will be recalled that the first summit of the forum took place in 2001 while the very last prior to the latest one took place in 2005. While scheduling its next meeting to take place in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, the forum equally made governors Akinwunmi Ambode and Seriake Dickson its co-chairmen.

    The forum’s stance on true federalism is, no doubt, a welcome development to all advocates of fiscal federalism in the country. Giving a hint on the subject in his opening remarks, Governor Ambode said: “There is certainly a lot to be done about true federalism, an issue that requires urgent, meticulous and proactive attention from the forum. No less disturbing is the failure to undertake the periodic review of the revenue allocation formula as provided for by the 1999 Constitution to reflect evolving realities. This is another critical matter that ought to engage this forum in order to enhance the viability of the state and local governments as well as their capacity to fulfil their developmental roles in the polity”. Governor Ambode further noted that the current trend where states over rely on handouts from Abuja is a reflection of the constitution that burdens the federal government with activities and responsibilities that rightly fall within the jurisdiction of the states.

    Globally, the distinctive feature of a federation is the constitutional dissection of powers between the central government and the federating units. In a unitary system, total powers flow from the centre while in a federation, powers are detached between the centre and other federating units. Federalism is supposed to be a mutually evolved system where none of the federating units is inferior to another but each deriving its powers and exercising them within the framework of the constitution.

    Federalism is normally considered a better political option in view of certain factors. For instance, it is politically expedient for a country with a huge land mass, big and heterogeneous population, complex cultural and language diversities to operate a federal system of government as a way of accommodating the diverse ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic interests in the country.  Thus, federalism becomes the viable option for a nation, like Nigeria, with diverse interests in order to exist in a mutually binding framework. It is, however, not an avenue for any of the federating units to bully the other. It is not a system that makes states governors’ school children while the President acts as their headmasters. No! Rather, it is a system that calls for mutual respect and fairness among all federating units.

    Unfortunately, because we have been practicing a defective version of federalism over the years, individuals and institutions that advocate the practice of true federalism are often labelled as rascals, rebels or in some cases secessionists. It is, therefore, pleasing to note that eminent individuals and organisations in the country have, in the past and of late, been canvassing for the enthronement of true federalism in the country. While delivering a lecture at the Sixth Annual Oputa Lecture at the Osgoode Hall Law School, York University in Toronto, Canada, Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, described what is being practiced in the country as ‘feeding bottle federalism’.

    Perhaps, the most eventful period in the country’s political history was when true federalism was practiced as reflected in the regional experience of the pre-independence and immediate post-independence era. This was the period when the defunct Western Region under the leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo made giant strides that are till date second to none in the region. In same era, the defunct Eastern Regional government was also able to record several landmark legacies depending solely on revenue from palm kernel among others while in the defunct Northern Region, the Ahmadu Bello administration equally laid the foundation for the socio-economic evolvement of the region.

    If we are to go back to this glorious era in our socio-political history, we need to evolve a new constitution that will truly reflect the principles and sprit of true federalism. The present constitution is lopsided in its power-sharing at the expense of other federating units. For instance, Part one of the Second Schedule of the Constitution listed 68 items in the Exclusive Legislative List on which only the central government has control, while in Part two, it listed 30 items in the Concurrent Legislative List on which both the central and states could exercise control. In a true federal arrangement, there should be no need for local government creation to require consequential provision of the National Assembly. Equally, the inclusion of Police, Mines and Minerals, Railways, Stamp Duties, Taxation of Incomes, and Value Added Tax (VAT) in the exclusive list is also uneven.

    Similarly, a situation that warrants states to wait endlessly for the federal government to fix so-called federal roads in their domains is not too tidy. Equally, it is imperative that a new revenue sharing formula that will be fair to all federating units be put in place. It is only in a unitary system that such an uneven arrangement in which the federal government takes 52 per cent of the total revenue while other federating units share the rest could take place. Similarly, some Ministries, Departments and Agencies that exist in Abuja shouldn’t be in place in the first instance because their duties are better performed by other federating units. In a proper federation, what the central government does is to focus on central federal matters like foreign affairs, economy, maritime shipping and security.

    Perhaps, most importantly, states and local governments in the country need to identify areas where their Internally Generated Revenue’s base could be boosted. It is only when all the federating units are financially buoyant that the prosperity that the country once enjoyed in the Awolowo, Azikiwe and Ahmadu Bello’s era could be replicated. The present arrangement where states readily queue, cup in hand, at Abuja before they could sort out routine issue such as payment of salaries isn’t tidy enough. Lagos, under Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, was partly able to stand its ground in the celebrated local government fund seizure matter between it and the then Obasanjo-led federal government because its leadership had creatively evolved a sound economic base for the state.

    On a final note, it needs to be emphasized that advocacy for the enthronement of true federalism in the country should not be misconstrued as promotion of secession. It is not and cannot be. If we are unable to aggregate and articulate concerted efforts to entrench true federalism, all our aspirations for a better a country where institutions work and where fairness and equality reign supreme might continue to be mere hallucination

     

    • Ogunbiyi is of the Ministry of Information & Strategy, Alausa, Ikeja.
  • Federalism on trial

    Federalism on trial

    Nigeria is operating what experts have described as a unitary system of government, which is falsely labelled a federal system. In recent times, some ethnic groups have been complaining of marginalisation and clamouring for a proper federal system that will guarantee equity, fairness and justice. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines the implications of the warped arrangement for national stability and development.

    The structure of the Nigerian federalism can be traced to 1914 when the Northern and Southern protectorates were amalgamated: Power shared between the Central Government headed by the Governor-General and the governments of the two protectorates headed by the Lieutenant Governors. Thus, the evolution of federalism started with the existence and recognition of the two autonomous parts of the Northern and Southern provinces.

    The division of the country into three regions by the Governor of Nigeria, Sir Arthur Richards under the 1946 Constitution, laid the foundation for the emergence of Nigeria as a federal state. The Macpherson Constitution of 1951 gave further concrete support because the constitution made provision for the appointment of lieutenant –governors to head the three regions; it granted legislative power to the legislative and executive councils that were established.

    The Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 removed the final shade of a unitary system of government from Nigeria by establishing a true federal state by sharing powers between the central and the regional governments. To avoid constitutional conflicts that might arise between the central and regional governments, a supreme court was established to handle such conflict.

    With the approach of independence, power over the regions was transmitted to Nigerian-born citizens, and regional legislatures were established. By the time Nigeria became a republican state in 1963, the office of President was created to replace Governor-General, a national bicameral parliament was established and the country became  a federation of three regions. The Mid-West Region was carved out from the Western Region in 1963. Lagos, the Federal Capital was effectively governed outside the bounds of the Western Region.

    The founding fathers were desirous of a system of government that would neutralize the political threats and accommodate the divergent interest of the various ethno-cultural groups. This desire eventually found expression in the federal system of government.

    Analysts observe that the practice of federalism which allowed the regions to develop at their pace,   had changed with the advent of the 1979 and 1999 constitutions. According to them, the system is being practiced in an awkward manner which has raised the question of whether Nigeria is operating true federal system.

    A political scientist, Dr Peter Odion, said before a country can be categorised as operating true federalism, the following criteria must be observed: “There must be at least two levels of governments and there must be constitutional division of powers among the levels of governments. Each level of government must be coordinate and independent. Each level of government must be financially independent as this will afford each tier of government to perform their functions without depending or appealing to others for financial assistance. There must be Supreme Court of independent judiciary to resolve conflict over power sharing. In terms of the amendment of the constitution, no tier of government should have undue power over the amendment process.” He maintained that, once a country is able to satisfy these conditions, such country will be able to practice true federalism.

    The late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, in his book “Thoughts on Nigerian Constitution” stated: From our study of the constitutional evolution of all the countries of the world, two things stand out clearly and prominently. First in any country where there are divergences of language and of nationality-particularly of language, a unitary constitution is always a source of bitterness and hostility on the part of linguistic or national minority groups.

    “On the other hand, as soon as a federal constitution is introduced in which each linguistic or national group is recognised and accorded regional autonomy, any bitterness and hostility against the constitutional arrangement must disappear.

    “Secondly, a federal constitution is usually a more or less dead letter in any country which lacks any of the factors conducive to federalism.” From the analysis made by Awolowo, the following principles can be deducted: If a country is bilingual or multi-lingual like Nigeria, the constituent state must be organised on linguistic basis. Any experiment with a unitary constitution in a bilingual or multi-lingual or multi-national country must fail, in the long run.

    Despite the introduction of federalism since the British left, Nigeria political system has been characterised by series of instability and backwardness. Apolitical scientist, Dr Luke Archibong believes Nigeria operates federal system on paper because the federal structures are not in existence in the country.

    Archibong blamed the distortion in Nigerian federalism on the military. He said ever since the military intervention in government, the federal government has always assumed superiority over the state government. “Military federalism had been more prevalent than civilian federalism. This model made the federal government the master in relation to the dependant state governments.

    Archibong added: “At independence, largely autonomous regions possessed the residual powers in the federation and functioned almost independently. The regions had independent revenue bases, separate constitutions, foreign missions and the primary and secondary education were under the residual list while the university education was under the concurrent list.

    “All these changed under military rule. Attempts by the state governments to reassert their autonomy during the second republic were aborted by the return of military rule. Some states that were controlled by the opposition parties took the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) controlled federal government to court on many occasions over matter of jurisdiction competence. This trend also reoccurred in the present dispensation when the former governor of Lagos State, Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu took the federal government to court over the creation of new local governments in the state.

    “This act, where the federal government sees itself as superior to the state governments, does not make federalism work in Nigeria. Federalism is an arrangement whereby powers within a multi-national country are shared between a central authority and a number of regional governments in such a way that each unit, including the central government exist as a government separately and independently from one another. In other words, each government exist, not as an appendage of another government but as an autonomous entity in the sense of being able to exercise its own will on the conduct of its affairs free from direction by any government. Thus, the federal government and the state governments are autonomous in their respective spheres. However, this autonomous entity has never been found in Nigerian federalism and has continued to hamper the political stability in the country.”

    A political analyst, Dr Ahmed Farouk, agreed that federalism does not work in Nigeria. He cited lack of financial autonomy for state governments as minus for true federalism. Farouk noted that financial autonomy has never been achieved in Nigerian federalism. According to him, the high level of intervention of the federal government through national financial policies, grant-in-aids among others increases the power of the federal government and makes the federating units subordinate to the central government.

    Farouk observed that the increased revenue from oil boom has made the federal government to be more financially powerful over the state governments than before. As a result, the federal government embarks on some projects which were meant to be in the state residual list. For example the federal government has taken over primary and secondary education through universal basic education project. Similarly, the increased revenue from oil enabled the federal government to give financial support to the state governments that belong to the ruling party while the opposition states are starved of funds. It happened under former President Goodluck Jonathan regime when he released ecological funds to only states controlled by the PDP. The opposition states hardly received any form of financial support or assistance from the centre, he stated.

    The analyst said the issue of resource control which was usurped by the military has contributed to ineffectiveness of federalism in Nigeria. According to him, Nigeria has witnessed and is likely to witness more ethnic crisis especially in Niger Delta region, if the states are not granted the right to rule and control their resources.

    Farouk recalled that the discriminatory policy or usurpation of states resource control by the central government was carried out by the General Yakubu Gowon administration as an expedient measure to execute the 1967-1970 civil war. Since then the Niger Delta states have been reduced to beggars with cap in hand pleading for their rightful share of the resources.

    A Niger Delta activist, Comrade Thomas Umukoro said there will be no peace in the region until the Federal government allow states to control their resources. “No amount of amnesty will restore peace in the Niger Delta except the federal government completely hands off from the control of the Niger Delta resources.

    Umukoro said resource is not a new concept in Nigerian federalism. He said: “In the First Republic, regions were allowed to control resources in their jurisdiction and paid taxes to the Federal Government. I can’t understand why we can’t revert to that system now that we are in democracy. A return to resource control is the much needed panacea to Nigeria’s present state of arrested development that would at the same time offer relief to impoverished and degraded peoples of the oil producing communities”.

    On the contentious issue of revenue allocation, elder statesman, Alhaji Femi Okunnu, said the sharing formula is lopsided in favour of the Federal Government. He said: “We are not ready to face the historical truth about the basis of revenue allocation; the reason why in the colonial era, and until 1979, why the Federal Government was assigned only 20 per cent of the revenue allocation, instead of the 54 per cent the Federal Government now takes for running the central government.

    “We are not fair to the oil producing states. The retention of the 13 per cent of the profit from the sales of petroleum and agricultural products to state of origin under the 1999 Constitution is grossly unfair to the states of origin of minerals and agricultural products.”

    The legal luminary cited Section 134 (1) of the 1960 Constitution that stipulated that: “There shall be paid by the Federation to each region a sum equal to 50 per cent of the proceeds of any royalty received by the federation, in respect of any mineral extracted in that region and any mining rents derived by the federation during that year from within that region.

    Okunnu said the 1960 Constitution further provided that, “the federation shall credit to the Distributable Pool Account, a sum equal to 30 per cent of the proceeds of any royalty received by the federation, in respect of the mineral extraction in any region and any mining rights derived by the federation from any region.”

    The former Federal Works Commissioner explained that the remaining 20 per cent was kept by the Federal Government as its own share. He recalled that, under the colonial administration, the revenue allocation was fashioned in such a way that regions would derive revenue from the Federation Account according to the functions and powers, which the region would carry out under the Constitution.

    Okunnu said: “Before independence, the colonial government, with the consent of the regional of the regional governments, appointed the Fiscal Commission to look into the functions and powers of the legislative list and determine the percentage of revenue the regional government will need to carry out their functions and the percentage that will go to the Federal Government; to determine how much the Federal Government would spend to service its own functions. That was how government at independence up to Murtala/Obasanjo era followed the fixed constitutional formula of 20 per cent to the Federal Government; 50 per cent to state of origin and the remaining 30 per cent to the distributive pool to be shared among the regions or states.”

    A lawyer, Mr Chuks Ikeazor, is of the opinion that federalism cannot work in Nigeria under the present arrangement whereby local governments are viewed as part of the federating units in the 1999 Constitution. He said it is against the spirit of true federalism. He said in all countries where federalism is practiced that local governments are not considered a federating unit. It is the responsibility of state governments to create local government and decide the type of local government it wants for the people, he said.

    The lawyer blamed the contradiction within the system on what he described as legacy of the military rule. “It was the practice of the military to create local governments and even states. The military went into a frenzy of proliferation of the local governments, and even took on itself the burden of its funding just as it was funding the states from the Federation Account. The military passed on this legacy in 1999 to the civilian government.

    Why are Nigerians rooting for true federalism? The agitation for true federalism is on the rise. Notable Nigerians among others are calling for adoption of the 1963 Constitution which they described as the best for federalism to work perfectly in Nigeria.

    All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, has said true federalism in the country will correct power imbalance in the country. He said the imbalance between the roles of federal and state governments lies at the root of our difficulties.

    His words: “We need to re-balance the duties of the federal and state governments. The quest to correct the imbalance is the essence of federalism that I have advocated for so many years. Due tour particular political history and its military legacy, the quality of our federalism and the quality of our democracy are intertwined. The more we repair federalism, the more we improve democracy.”

    Tinubu added: “Federalism denotes a division of labour between the federal and state governments that functions to maximise the benefits of governance to the people. True federalism is that brand which provides that the federal government should focus on those few but essential things only that it can provide such as foreign policy, defence, and national economic policy. All other matters should be left to the states. If there is doubt over a particular issue, the presumption should be that the states, not the federal government, should take the lead.”

    Former External Affairs Minister Professor Bolaji Akinyemi said the constitution made provisions for the concretisation of competitive federalism. According to him, there were 44 items on the Exclusive Legislative List and 28 on the Concurrent.

    Akinyemi pointed out that each region had its own constitution, its own coat of arms and its agent-general in London. Besides, each region allowed its local government authorites to have its own local police force. He said the Independence Constitution was the best compromise possible under the prevailing circumstance and compared it with the 1999 Constitution in terms of the legislative lists.

  • ‘Let’s practise true federalism’

    United States-based Nigerian university teacher, Prof Toyin Falola, has said true federalism is the panacea for the various agitations across the country.

    He said it would douse the tension threatening the nation’s stability.

    Falola, a lecturer in History at the University of Texas in Austin, recalled that in 1950s the constitution allowed each region to grow at its pace, control the resources within its jurisdiction and pay royalty to the Federal Government and established institutions, such as state police.

    He likened the federal system of government before the advent of military rule to the United States of America (U. S. A) model where states have police and agencies.

    The expert said the Federal Government in the U. S. A legislates on defence, immigration, currency and foreign policy, as spelt out in the constitution.

    Falola, who spoke yesterday in Lagos, noted that Nigeria as a plural society should share power in a way that the nation would not fragment.

    According to him, no responsible government would allow the disintegration of the country under its watch.

    He said: “Restructuring is not a new phenomenon in this country. When the Independence Constitution was being drafted, a question came up: should we allow people to secede? The former Western Region Premier, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, said yes. But Nigeria’s first President, the late Dr Nnamdi Azikwe and the North said no. The minorities in the Southeast and the North were worried because they knew if secession was allowed the Igbo and Hausa/Fulani would dominate them.

    Falola said: “Restructuring started immediately after independence. The late Isaac Adaka Boro set up a small army and wanted to declare Niger Delta Republic. When General Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi took over power, he embarked on restructuring by introducing unitary system of government through the promulgation of decrees.

    “In 1967, Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, a Colonel, declared secession through the proclamation of the State of Biafra. That led to the civil war that ended in 1970. The argument of the military in the 1970s was that centralisation of power would prevent a civil war.”

    He noted that the military’s concentration of power at the centre eroded the principle of federalism, which allows for fiscal federalism.

    The resources meant for developmental projects, the expert said, were diverted to private pockets, thus making many components to start complaining of being marginalised.

    Falola noted that Nigeria runs the system in a way that causes crises.

    He wondered why some people still clamour for new states when most of the states, exempt Lagos and Rivers, are not viable.

  • Obasanjo: I don’t believe in true federalism

    Obasanjo: I don’t believe in true federalism

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has dismissed as unnecessary the call for true federalism and devolution of power.

    To him, there is nothing like true federalism because the governors already have the powers.

    The former president who has been travelling to promote his new book, Making Africa Work, told his interviewers:  ”I don’t believe in true federalism. What is true federalism?”

    On the governors and the call for devolution of power, he said: “Why are they not accountable? What powers do they not have?

    “They have power. In fact, state governors are more powerful than the president. That’s the truth. If anybody tells you they want devolution or true federalism, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.”

    A broad range of current and former lawmakers, civil society groups and millions of Nigerians would beg to differ. So too would the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), which Obasanjo backed in 2015, at least in its manifesto, which pledged to “amend our constitution with a view to devolving powers”.

    But Obasanjo said: “The fact (that) anybody talks about it doesn’t mean it’s right.”

    Obasanjo’s new book describes itself as “a guide to improving Africa’s capacity for economic growth and job creation”. Co-written with Greg Mills, Jeffrey Herbst and Dickie Davis, it provides a detailed overview of various political and economic challenges facing the continent. It warns of a growing youth bulge, and provides dozens of recommendations on how to encourage the private sector, diversify the economy and deliver forward-thinking leadership.

    On the Buhari administration, Obasanjo said: “Buhari has made some announcements. He has tried to keep on going in the area of agribusiness, but not enough.” “It is not yet enough to prepare the ground for uninhibited growth of the economy, which we need”.

    ”Is Buhari doing enough about it?” he asks at one point of youth unemployment. “I don’t believe he is. Can he do enough about it? Of course he can.”

    Obasanjo’s vague and uncommitted answers contrast with the book he just co-wrote, which packs a handful of statistics into virtually every paragraph and offers dozens of recommendations. But the former president does eventually hone in on one specific: Nigeria’s frustrated young people.

    The median age of Nigeria’s population is under 18, and the youth demographic continues to swell. There aren’t enough jobs for them, and if Obasanjo were back in office, his priority would be education. “Youth empowerment, skill acquisition and youth employment – education must be able to do that,” he insists. “If you do that, the ticking bomb of possible youth explosion out of restiveness and anger will subside.”

    Obasanjo attributed young people’s frustration to many of Nigeria’s problems today, including the ongoing agitation in the Southeast.

    The former president maintained that secession is not the solution.

    “All youth in Nigeria have legitimate reasons to feel frustrated and angry,” Obasanjo added.

  • APC holds hearing on federalism

    APC holds hearing on federalism

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) Committee on True Federalism will hold a zonal public hearing for Sokoto, Zamfara and Kebbi states today.

    A statement yesterday by the Special Adviser to Governor Aminu Waziri Tambuwal on Media and Public Affairs, Malam Imam Imam, said the hearing would hold at the auditorium of Sultan Maccido Institute for Quranic and General Studies, by 10a.m.

    The statement said: “Governors of Sokoto, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal; Zamfara, Abdulaziz Yari and Kebbi, Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, hereby invite people from the three states to make presentations on issues, such as restructuring, fiscal federalism, creation of more states or merger of some, land tenure system, local government autonomy, independent candidature, power sharing and rotation, among other important issues.”

  • Advocates of council autonomy are enemies of federalism, says Aregbesola

    Advocates of council autonomy are enemies of federalism, says Aregbesola

    Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola has objected to the clamour for local government autonomy, saying that it is antithetical to true federalism.

    He said local councils are administrative units of the state, adding that their autonomy may be the end of the states.

    Aregbesola spoke at the one-day conference on the second anniversary of the Southwest in national governance held in Osogbo, the state capital. Its theme was: Southwest to Abuja: A mid-term appraisal.

    He recalled that, while settling for federalism, Nigeria’s founding fathers copied the Indian example, where the federating units are coordinate with the central government.

    The governor said: “In India, we have a state that is more than Nigeria in size and population. We also have Goa, which is not more than Lagos as a state. The large states cannot dominate smaller states. California cannot dictate to Arkansas.  The Federal Government in the United States cannot interfere in what happens in other states, unless it is invited.

    “Also, under the federal system, the Federal Government cannot interfere in the activities of the local government. Those calling for local government autonomy are agents of confusion. I know there are anomalies with the local government administration.. But, it does not mean that it should be autonomous under the state. It is against the spirit of federalism. Whenever the states cease to control the council, that will be the end of the state.”

    Aregbesola emphasized that Nigeria is not just a republic, but it is a Federal Republic of Nigeria. Also, he said the name of the central government is Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    He lent his voice to the sustenance of party supremacy, saying party supremacy, which is difficult under the presidential system, is possible under the parliamentary system.

    Aregbesola said: “Presidential system is too expensive. It may lead to doom.”

    Noting that “economy is government,” the governor said the over-dependence on the petro-dollar economy is counter-productive.

    He added: “766.5 million dolars is realised per year. It is 4.85 barrels per head o five. This means 250 dollars per head; N100,000 per years, N8.00 per month. That is the source of national poverty. But, because less than one million people share the money, that’s why it appears that the country is rich.

    “What’s the way out? If one million people works and earns N25,000 per month in Osun, the state will be able to to get taxes and it will be rich.”

    According to the communique at th conference, the decision of the Southwest progressives to participate at governance in the centre was a turning point in history. The communique reads: “Conferees deliberated on the main theme of the Conference, that is, an appraisal of the place of the Southwest in national political equation, the issues of economic development and the place of Osun State in the anchoring of development initiatives in the last six years and, the idea of federalising political parties in Nigeria.

    “The Southwest’s relative importance in the federation of Nigeria is such that it stands in a better stead in the continuance and stability of the federation and not in its disintegration. That the Southwest has nonetheless in the about the last thirty years judging by the physical development and the distribution of infrastructure from the Federal centre to the states regressed significantly from being a leading region in the country to a position less than what she occupied before the 1970s.

    “The constitutional amendment to reflect significant transfer of power from the centre especially as contained in the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) to the States, would be an antidote to the regression of the Western part of Nigeria.

    “The most significant way by which development can be more meaningful to the people of Nigeria is to transfer resources from the few and the privileged to the majority of the pole through a system of welfare and social safety nets.

    “The Government of the State of Osun has in the last six years significantly transferred public resources to the ordinary man and the majority of its citizens through its social welfare programmes such as O’Yes, O’Meal, O’Rehab, Agba Osun and Women Empowerment. An additional and effective way of transferring resources to the ordinary man would and should be through the capital budget in which resources are not spent on recurrent expenditure by paying salaries, overhead and wages alone but also on the simultaneous creation of physical infrastructure by which the majority of the people can be reached.

    “Political parties in Nigeria and the leadership thereof should reflect our federal character and that leadership should be progressive from the grassroots to the state and federal levels.

    “The political orientation is not new to the western part of Nigeria but that there is the need to avoid falling into conservative and reactionary politics into which the southwest fell during 2003-2011.

    “The solution to the current political debate on restructuring can only be resolved in favour of the continuance and growth of Nigeria and not in its dissolution but more important also, in the adjustment of both constitutional and tax powers to reflect the urgent need to devolve power to the federating units and cut the 9xcesses of federal intervention in those matters that are purely regional or local.”

  • Tiv back true federalism

    The Tiv in Northcentral have supported restructuring of the country.

    They called for true federalism as a panacea for bringing out the true identity of the Tiv as great citizens to realise their potential.

    Rising from a two-day All Tiv Summit, organised by OnTiv Professional Association (OPA) in Abuja, in collaboration with Tiv Traditional Council, held in Gboko, the ancestral headquarters of the Tiv nation, the people were unanimous that “Nigeria should be

    restructured along the lines of true federalism where more powers are devolved to states.

    Coming against the backdrop of lamentation by the Tiv for adequate representation in the country because of their numerical strength, the summit provided an avenue for the people to discuss how to re-situate themselves.

    In a communique after the summit signed by Benjamin Nyior, chairman of OPA and Itiza Ukpi, chairman of Central Planning Committee, it frowned at lack of federal presence in Benue State, as well as few appointments of Tiv sons and daughters at the federal level, despite massively voting for All Progressives Congress (APC) at the general election.

    The Tiv urged the Federal Government to fulfil its promise to dredge River Benue, to forestall flood.

    They advised the government to include Benue among the states that are flood prone and deserving special intervention through ecological funds, to build water channels in Makurdi and its environs.

    The people decried build-up of political tension in Tiv land ahead of 2019 elections, saying “this portends danger. Our leaders must desist from activities capable of causing crises.”

    They enjoined the Tor Tiv to mete out sanctions to defaulters.

    The summit appealed to politicians in Tivland to desist from using youths as thugs to fight battles.

    It advocated the need to correct the leadership question.

    “There is need to constitute an elders’ committee that will choose its chairman, advise the Tor Tiv and ensure leaders in Tivland evolve naturally. Similarly, there is need for a compendium of professionals, who should be consulted on issues affecting Tivland.”

    The summit brought together Tiv sons and daughters from parts of the country to articulate challenges as a people and proffer solution that could set an agenda for Tor Tiv V, Prof. James Ayatse and the Tiv nation.

    It was declared open by Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom (represented by his Special Adviser on Rural Development, Adzer Abya). Tor Tiv V, accompanied by chiefs and other traditional rulers in Tivland, as well as prominent Tiv sons in the National Assembly, participated in the opening session, chaired by a former Military Governor of East Central State and Benue State, Brig.-Gen. John Atom Kpera (retd).

     

  • A case can and ought to be made for a relatively strong center for Nigerian federalism – but only if…

    A case can and ought to be made for a relatively strong center for Nigerian federalism – but only if…

    [For Raufu Mustapha, R.I.P.]

    Only if the deployment and manipulation of the center for looting galore, for squandermania on a colossal scale, and for a wastefulness of national assets and resources that is without equal anywhere else in the world are all either eradicated or substantially reduced in our country. These are the preconditions, the premises on which the case for a relatively strong center can, at this point in time, not only be made, but successfully “sold” to the majority of Nigerians everywhere in the land, North and South, East and West. Moreover, I believe that this case cannot only be made but ought, as a matter of fact and necessity, be made.

    Probably, nearly everyone reading this is aware that what I am urging here is unpopular both in our country and in the world at large. In Nigeria, everyone knows that restructuring governance away from concentration of power and sovereignty at the center has been the single most dominant and persistent issue in our national public sphere for a long time now. And as I myself noted again and again in the series on IPOB in this column last month, the secessionist and devolutionary movements and organizations in Nigeria seem to be completely in accord with the tendencies around the world, not the least in Europe and indeed most of the Western world. Thus, it is most definitely not a particularly auspicious or opportune historical moment to argue for a relatively strong center for federalism in our country and our world today.

    Indeed, both politically and ethically, to argue for a strong federalist position in Nigeria today is to find oneself in lockstep with strange, unsavory fellow travelers. This is because with perhaps the single exception of those who fought to keep Nigeria one during the Nigeria-Biafra war and are extremely sentimental about the unity of the country, nearly all of the groups and individuals that are arguing for a strong center of authority and sovereignty for our country come from the ranks of those who derive extensive economic, political and symbolic benefits from the strong center that they wish to maintain in Abuja, in the presidency as well as in all the organs and institutions of federal power in our country.

    Concretely speaking, which retired general, air marshal, admiral or former senator that has been given an “oil block” does not want a strong center of federalism in our country, now and for as long as possible? Which well-connected Nigerian elite hoping for an ambassadorial appointment, possibly in London, Washington, DC or Berlin, wants to see an end to the hegemonic concentration of power and patronage at the center of governance in Nigeria? What of the thousands of contracts, appointments to plum, sinecure posts, and nomination for honorific titles and awards that come from the federal might in Abuja? Are the “patriotic” Nigerians who are hoping, indeed struggling for these perquisites and honors not powered by the knowledge that only as long as a strong center subsists and lasts in Abuja will their dreams and aspirations come true? Finally, isn’t it troubling that the loudest and most insistent voices for a strong center in Abuja as a basis for Nigerian unity come from vigorously conservative groups and individuals like the Arewa Consultative Forum, (ACF), Ango Abdullahi and Tanko Yakasai (who, by the way, used to be in the ranks of “progressives”)?

    At this point in the discussion, I should perhaps point out to the reader that the very fact that I have very carefully and indeed rather meticulously gone over these important caveats against the case for a strong center of federalism in our country means that I have in no way forgotten them nor am I ignoring them. Indeed, to the contrary, my point, my frame of reference in this piece is to argue vigorously against the kind of strong federalism represented by the named groups and individuals. In other words, my central point in this piece is that the case for a relatively – as opposed to an absolutely – strong center of a kind that is totally different from what groups like the ACF is pushing can and ought to be made. Here is another way of putting my position on this issue across: I think hard, very hard, and I ask myself: How would genuinely progressive and patriotic Nigerians like Eddie Madunagu, Bene Madunagu, Col Abubakar Umar (rtd.), Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Balarabe Musa, Dipo Fasina, Attahiru Jega, Issa Fage, and Kayode Komolafe make the case for a relatively strong center for federalism in Nigeria? I do not speak for any of these comrades and compatriots, but I am certainly thinking of them as I write the following second segment of this piece.

    At the risk of oversimplification, here’s the central plank of my argument for a relatively strong center for Nigerian federalism at this moment in both local and global history: in all the post-tribal societies of the world, nations and regions that have strong and competitive markets are incalculably better suited for the challenges and vagaries of capitalist modernity than those that have weak and dispersed markets; moreover, strong markets for the most part work best with and in nations and regions with relatively strong centers of political governance. Seen in this light, a large, multiethnic and culturally diverse country like Nigeria with a relatively strong center of federalism is like a common market in which borders are easily crossed; people, goods and services are easily exchanged without prohibitive and protectionist regulations and protocols; and security of life, property and personal possessions are guaranteed both within and well beyond one’s cultural and linguistic locality. In case the point I am making here is (still) not clear, permit me to make it clearer through a brief but harrowing elaboration on this metaphor of our nation as a “common market”.

    As a nation, Nigeria at the present time – and with its enormous actual and potential reserves of wealth and resources – is a grotesque caricature of a common market. The “common market” is there but it operates at a level far below the standards of most of the common markets of this world – precisely because the center does not operate even minimally in the interests of the constituent members. The most telling manifestation of this tragic and absurd situation is the seeming utter helplessness of the Buhari administration in particular and all post-1999 governments in general in ending or even substantially curbing the savage killings and massive population displacements produced by the herdsmen’ and farming communities’ standoff. Axiomatically, a “common market” protects not only property but also producers, the peoples who buy and sell and live out their allotted time in this world either as migrants or as settlers. Buhari’s administration is doing neither – protecting the “properties” and/or the lives of those killed in this almost nationwide standoff.

    If we look both closer and wider at it, we find that the herdsmen and farmers’ savage standoff is a microcosm of the terrifying failures and crises of Nigeria as a national “common market”. The manifestations are legion. There is, for one instance, the use of central institutions of the Nigerian state like the legislature and the judiciary to prevent the operation of the rule of law in the administration of justice where corruption, the nation’s number one moral and material cancer, is concerned. For another instance of the same seemingly unending crisis, there is the fact that like emergency businessmen and contractors that spend more of their operating capital on luxury consumer goods than on the business itself, all the administrations of the country, federal, state and local government, spend far more on recurrent expenditure than on capital projects. And for yet another manifestation of this pervasive and defining “anti-common market” ethic of Buhari’s and APC’s Nigeria, small and medium enterprises (SME’s), the backbone of the national economy, get far less of available investment capital from both the government itself and the financial services industry, the most profitable sector of the national economy. Perhaps the single most frightening specter of all, at least in my humble opinion, is this: all the projections of Nigeria’s population growth indicate that in about another two to three decades, Nigeria will move from the seventh to the third largest nation in the world. This, by the way, will take place whether or not we remain one united, federal nation with or without a relatively strong center. The horrors to come in the wake of this looming demographic explosion if a relatively strong center does not emerge soon to manage our chaotic internal “common market” are better imagined than prophetically spelt out in detail!

    For those who might think that my use of the metaphor or trope of the “common market” in this piece falls into the trap of an endorsement of capitalism mutatis mutandis, permit me to briefly make a clarification. Just as money, as capital, existed long before modern capitalism, so too did markets. And to say the least, it does not appear as if markets are about to disappear into the oblivion of history. What has been happening since the advent of modern capitalism is the growing and ever-expanding critique of markets, especially in their tendency to place profits and consumption far above humanity and the values that sustain both its material and non-material needs. In other words, increasingly, markets and market forces are being made subject to regulation and correction, unlike what used to obtain in both the distant and recent past when markets were pretty much unregulatable. And in this connection, let us note, compatriots, that Nigeria, Buhari’s and the APC’s Nigeria, is one of the last holdouts of unregulated and unregulatable national markets in the world.

    I find the metaphor of the national “common market” useful in making the case for a relatively strong center for Nigerian federalism because those who, in my opinion, have been making the most eloquent and persuasive case for restructuring have not deemed it obligatory or even necessary to indicate just how “strong” or “weak” the center will be in their “restructured” Nigeria. Reading between the lines, between the implicit and unspoken hints in their analyses and prognostications, I do find that some of them do want a relatively strong center in place of the current absolutely strong, bloated presidency and the associated executive and legislature. Specifically, I have not read anyone calling for the armed forces to be broken up into state or ethnic militias. I have not read anyone calling for the judiciary and the administration of justice to begin and end at state or regional borders. I have not read that each state or region should send its ambassadors to the nations of the earth and/or play separate, exclusive hosts to foreign ambassadors accredited to our country. I have read of pundits or activists asking for state police formations to replace the current national force, but as I am against this, I do not wish to comment on it here beyond noting that at one stage in this country that coincided with my early youth, we had local constabularies and the experience was almost entirely negative.

    I bring the observations and reflections in this piece to a close with the following point: just as it is necessary to note that restructuring is not secession, not a repudiation of the country’s unity and corporate existence, so is it necessary to ask of all advocates of restructuring to indicate clearly what will remain of the center in their “restructured” Nigeria. Reading between the lines, I get it that what most of these thinkers and pundits have in mind can be called a polycentric federal Nigeria. Very well. But even polycentrism has a center, no matter how small, how vestigial and so what, compatriots, would remain in the “center” in this visionary polycentric federalism of the “restructurenistas”?

     

    Biodun Jeyifo

    bjeyifo@fas.harvard.edu