The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federalism

  • ‘Nigeria needs new constitution to attain true federalism’

    ‘Nigeria needs new constitution to attain true federalism’

    Lawyer and rights activist, Mr Monday Ubani has faulted the 1999 Constitution for promoting unitary system of government. He said the federal structure is defective because the constitution was imposed by the military. The National Vice Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) spoke with LEKE SALAUDEEN on the fight against corruption, local government autonomy, secession threats and other issues.

    How would you react to the public perception that senior lawyers are frustrating the anti-graft war of the Buhari administration?

    Talking from point of law, it is the responsibility of a lawyer to defend an accused person, no matter the nature of the crime. A suspect has the right to hire a lawyer to defend him in court. That is the norm across the globe. Here in Nigeria if an accused person can’t afford to engage the services of a lawyer to defend, he has the right to apply to the Legal Aid Council to provide him a lawyer to defend him free of charge. A lawyer defending an accused in court is not aiding and abetting crime.

    What is wrong is if a senior lawyer engages in efforts to frustrate the timely resolution of cases through frequent adjournment or using technicalities, though it is allowed in law, to prolong the trial. A judge is supposed to be in-charge of the case before him. No case submission is also part of law. But no amount of intimidation put up by a lawyer should stop the trial; the judge should not succumb to the lawyer’s intimidation. The practice whereby lawyers manipulate the court process in connivance with the judge is unethical.

    The courts have also been alleged of sabotaging the anti-graft war by striking out some high profile corruption cases despite overwhelming evidence. What is your view?

    One thing we must understand is that criminal cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubts. It is important that the prosecution must present the facts of the case with ingredients of crime committed by the accused. What convicts an accused person is evidence, unassailable evidence. We must separate investigation from prosecution. If you mess up at the investigation level, you have lost the case. That is why specialisation has to come in; you can’t lump investigation and prosecution together and ask the same people to handle both. We have to develop human capacity on both sides. It is necessary to get all ingredients of the crime at the investigation level to get conviction of the accused in court. The judge based his decision on the weight of evidence before him not on public opinion. It is not right to say the judiciary is complicit in the fight against corruption.

    Let me also mention that we have not seen the end of those high profile cases because the plaintiffs have the right of appeal up to the Supreme Court that has the final say on any matter.

    What do you think EFCC should do to win high profile corruption cases?

    The anti-graft agency needs to be more efficient. It should tidy up its investigations and have all ingredients of offences in-tact to secure conviction. The problem with the EFCC cases is contradictory evidence given in court by its witnesses. When the witnesses appear in court they give evidence that favour the accused. Once the evidence of the witness in court contradicts his statement, the court has no option than to strike out the case. I think the EFCC has to shield the identity of its witnesses for security reasons. It is done in the United States. The identity of prosecution witnesses are protected for fear of being influenced or attacked by the defendants and their agents. Then, adequate funding of the anti-graft agencies is necessary.  They must train and retrain their personnel in crime investigation in order to develop competence and capacity.

    What are the implications of National Assembly’s rejection of devolution of powers?

    It portends great danger for democratic governance; it’s nothing to be cheerful about. From 1966 to date, the country has not been able to move to the level we want. Between 1960 and 1966, all indices of development were manifested in all regions. Each region was allowed to develop at its pace; there was competitiveness. The regions had more functions than the centre and got higher allocation from the Federation Account. There was development across the country. Unlike the unitary system of governance we are now practising. Everything is concentrated at the centre while the federating units have no significant role to play.

    What is creating tension in the country is inequitable distribution of resources and this can only be addressed through devolution of powers and regional/state autonomy. There must be conscious efforts on the part of the elites to avoid things that could lead to war. We can’t afford two wars in this country. Let us resolve our problems on a round table; devolve some items on the exclusive list to the states to allow for efficiency.

    What is your reaction to financial autonomy for local government proposed by the National Assembly in the Constitution amendment?

    It is a victory against injustice being perpetrated by the state government against local government, particularly on the issue of Joint Account. Though local government is not a federating unit but the injustice in the system made some people to applaud the National Assembly decision. Financial autonomy for local government is welcome even though the recommendation still requires approval of two-thirds of 36 States House of Assembly. The logic behind it is to empower the third tier of government for service delivery at the grass root.

    The National Assembly also empowered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to take over the conduct of local government polls. Is it right?

    Legally speaking, it is erroneous to ask INEC to conduct local government polls. At a time when we are talking of devolution of powers, we cannot be adding more to powers of the central government. What might have informed the decision of the National Assembly is the failure of the state electoral commissions to be neutral in handling local government polls. The ruling parties in the states win overwhelmingly in every local government elections. Despite that, it is wrong to ask INEC to take over local government poll in a federal system.

    What does restructuring mean to you?

    The federal structure in Nigeria is defective. We are not operating federal system of government but unitary system. The 1999 constitution imposed on us by the military is unitary. We need new constitution that will be written by the representatives of the Nigerian people. For us to have a proper federal system in place, the centre must shed weight by devolving powers to the states. The centralisation of power in Abuja is not good for the development of this country.

    Restructuring is to unbundle the Federal Government; transfer some functions to the federating units. For instance, transfer some items in exclusive list to states e.g. power supply. Each state should be allowed to generate power and distribute to consumers within its jurisdiction. This will improve power supply in the country.

    Let each state control its resources and pay tax to the Federal Government. There will be competition among the states in terms of development. The federating units are more assertive, not Abuja alone. It will be a great mistake to ignore the agitations for restructuring.

  • Devolution or federalism: which way for Nigeria?

    Devolution or federalism: which way for Nigeria?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Roposek@msn.com

  • Travails of federalism

    With my recent intervention on the warped form and character of federalism in Nigeria, I assumed I must have contributed to the ongoing polemic via-a-vis the imperatives of either political restructuring or secession as canvassed by the Biafrans.  However, when the babel of voices on the kismet of Nigeria’s federal arrangement now takes a very dangerous dimension, I am compelled to lend my voice again.  The snag is the idea that confederacy could save Nigeria; whereas, in the contemporary world, no country is organized along confederal structure.

    Tola Adeniyi, a respected columnist surprisingly exhumed the spirit of late Bisi Onabanjo (of blessed memory) by canvassing confederation.  The idea which was first mooted by the former Governor of Ogun State in the Second Republic (1979-1983) was basically borne out of frustration with the system.  A polity that basically threw up the likes of the late sage – Chief Obafemi Awolowo – but eventually installed Alhaji Shehu Shagari as President; could be described as not working.  Same system tolerated annulment of June 12, 1993 Presidential election result despite the fact that the election was a watershed in all ramifications.  The late business mogul got ‘sacrificed’ along the line.  That election marked shifting the ‘locale’ of power from the northern military oligarchy to civilians after decades of military junta holding sway. It was also a shift of power from the northern oligarchy to the south and equally an election that removed the toga of ethnicity and religious chauvinism in Nigeria’s body politic; but with impunity discountenancing a credible election, such a system cannot be described as a working federal structure.

    In the words of Adeniyi, the bane of Nigeria’s federal arrangement could be summarized thus “it was a marriage that was not canvassed, not negotiated not consented to that was the root, the father and mother of all the diseases that had plagued Nigeria since 1914”. But this is absolutely reductionist. Between 1960 when Nigerian got flag independence till date, we ought to have, as a country, negotiated how we desire the ‘forced’ marriage to work.  Thus, it is imperative that we glaringly highlight the travails of the system for us to be able to recommend recipe.  This is the primary motive of this piece.

    To start with, the degree of loyalty to the constitution, particularly the sections relating to formal division of powers between and amongst tiers of government is important to federal stability.  Inasmuch as federalism is basically a juristic concept, much of its success or failure would depend on the extent to which the central and constituent governments define their powers, territories and other provisions in the constitution.  Its therefore not significantly amazing that since 1954, new constitutions were drafted in quick successions with none satisfying the yearnings and aspirations of an average Nigerian as if the only panacea for federal stability is the constitution, whereas in the words of Alfa Belgore, an eminent jurist, “the elite are making terrible encroachment into the constitution, simply because of personal selfishness”. Thus, any federal arrangement like Nigeria’s where the constitution is not taken as an upright and sacred document, which must be respected by all no matter how highly placed coupled with rare obedience to court verdicts, federalism definitely runs into troubled waters.

    Be that as it may, the concomitant effect of military rule in terms of over-centralization has bastardized the virtues of federalism in Nigeria.  What we have is more of a unitary system than federalism! One can easily recall that with 1954 constitution, Nigeria began with a formal federal structure that was decentralized to accommodate the diverse ethnic groups.  For instance, each of the constituent federating units, known then as regions, operated its own regional constitution, police, civil service and judiciary. Each region even had a separate coat of arms and motto, distinct from those of the federation. Sadly, with the coming of the military, along with the command structure of the military, federal government acquired more powers to the detriment of the federating units. The first military putsch in 1966 abolished regional police. The federal military government went ahead taking over assets owned by the state or group of states like television stations, stadia and newspapers, thereby strengthening the federal government at the expense of the states in terms of asset ownership. This made the contest for political power at the federal level a lot more intense among the federating units, and it laid the foundation for many years of crisis of instability. Many other actions taken by the military junta no doubt exacerbated this emerging trend.

    Nevertheless, the problematic nature of Nigeria’s citizenship is one other travail of Nigeria’s federalism which has in no small measure undermined the efficacy of the federal structure. Unlike India where there is no dual citizenship, in which case there is only one citizenship, and where the concept of a state citizen does not exist, on the other hand in Nigeria to be employed outside one’s ethnic base at state level is really a big ‘risk’ in the sense that such a person would bear the burden of a non-indigene. Indeed, there is a conscious notion of my state ‘or’ my home which affects every Nigerian who lives outside his/her state of origin and makes him/her go home to marry a wife, build a house or to vote. Even the dead are rarely buried outside their states of origin. The implication of this is that citizens’ allegiance to the federation is truncated because of the state’s preferential treatment of its citizens. A system whereby the country cannot effectively tackle the problem of citizenship negates the tenets of federalism. Harold Laski’s view is apt here “a state must give to men their dues as men before it can demand at least with justice, their loyalty”.

    Another absurdity of federalism in this clime is structural imbalance. According to J.S. Mill’s law of federal stability “a federation is morbid if one part is bigger than the sum of the other parts”. It is not surprising therefore that Nigeria’s convoluting federal structure is indeed morbid. For analytical simplicity, in terms of land mass, the Northern Region then had 71.0%, Eastern Region 8.3%, Western Region 8.5% and the Mid-Western Region 4.6%. Thus, for the three southern regions, the federal structure as constituted before state creations made it virtually impossible for them to control political power at the centre, given the ethno-regional politics of the country without power ‘concession’ from the North! The south feared northern political domination by population and land mass, while the north was equally afraid of the southern edge in modern skills and western education. In such situation of asymmetric ethnic relationships, the federal arrangement can hardly be stable except with imbued virtues of justice, equity and fairness. If anything, the greatest travail of Nigerian federalism is the problem of asymmetric power relationship between and among disparate component units of the federation. The federation is rife with mutual accusations and counter accusations of domination and marginalization.

    In a perceptive piece decades ago, John A. Ayoade, an emeritus professor of political science and an eminent student of federalism noted that another absurdity of federalism in Nigeria is religious bias which has proved to be another form of poor power distribution in Nigeria. Despite informal mode of power sharing where if the chief executive is a Moslem, the vice or deputy is a Christian, but in the Second Republic (1979-1983) “country-wide Muslims obtained about 70% of all executive and board positions”. This trend of insensitivity to federal character principle cum religious bigotry has robbed the federation of the needed sense of justice and equity for federal stability.

    Perhaps the most potent and relevant to the Nigerian situation now is the inability of the polity to manage natural resources in a way that could enhance equity and development. Natural resources that ought to be a blessing, with warped fiscal structure, it has become a curse. The real problem in this wise is that of internal colonialism vis-à-vis resource management which permits the general expropriation of economic resources by the dominant group, their control of access to education and technological resources, cum their denigration of the culture of the subordinating section. When this is done as it is in Africa, federalism runs into problem and stress. It is not surprising therefore that only Nigeria retains the semblance of federalism in Africa even as bastardised as it is.

    Conclusively, a consideration of the aforementioned travails of federalism in Nigeria no doubt should assist policy makers in thinking outside the box so that the fragile federal arrangement does not completely disintegrate. To rescue the system from drifting toward collapse, a quick review of the previous confab reports may be more appropriate.

     

    • Dr. Ojo an Associate Professor of Comparative Politics, is Chief of Staff to Governor of Oyo State.
  • Military rule, civil war destroyed federalism- Atiku

    Military rule, civil war destroyed federalism- Atiku

    Military incursion and the 30- month civil war led to the steady erosion of the nation’s federal structure, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar said yesterday.

    The federal structure, he noted, was erected by founding fathers to ensure national cohesion.

    Atiku said only a comprehensive restructuring of the country and devolution of power will restore national cohesion and good governance.

    Speaking at the 3rd Policy Monitoring Dialogue Series on National Unity, Integration and Devolution of Power/Restructuring”, the former Vice President said the increasing centralisation of power and concentration of resources at the federal level weakened the states and relatively impoverished them.

    Atiku, who has been a strong advocate of restructuring, argued devolving more powers and transferring more resources to states will decongest the centre and enhance greater manageability, efficiency and accountability.

    He said: “Military rule and the civil war led to the steady erosion of our federal structure.

    “The increasing centralisation of power and concentration of resources at the federal level in the context of rising oil revenues and neglect of other revenue sources weakened and relatively impoverished the states.

    “As Vice President and Chairman of the National Privatization Council, I saw firsthand what an overly centralized federal government can do wrong.

    “Having confiscated the bulk of national revenues, the federal government proceeded to insert itself in a dominant manner in virtually every aspect of our national life, including the economy where it became an investor in all manner of businesses rather than facilitating the emergence of a vibrant and thriving private sector.

    “Although we have succeeded in privatizing many public enterprises, we still engage in what I call institutional escapism and duplication/ multiplication.

    “Rather than fix existing challenges in existing ministries and departments, we create new ones to carry out the same functions as the existing ones.

    He emphasised people have a constitutional right to peacefully agitate for restructuring.

    According to Atiku:  “We should try to understand the basis for the agitations and calls for a new compact rather than vilify the agitators.

    “It is disingenuous to accuse everyone who calls for restructuring as trying to break up the county.

    “Yes restructuring may mean different things to different people. Like all things with political and economic implications, those calling for restructuring have varying positions, which is not a bad thing.

    “But we won’t really find out how close our positions are to those of others until we sit down with them and start to talk and negotiate.”

     

  • Re-Inventing Nigeria’s warped federalism

    Re-Inventing Nigeria’s warped federalism

    The on-going polemic vis-à-vis the quit notice by the Arewa Youth to the South Eastern residents in the Northern parts of the country to relocate to their home base shortly has brought to the fore, once again, the convoluting character of Nigeria’s federal arrangement. Worse still, despite acting President Yemi Osinbajo’s warning against hate speeches and threats from any part of the country, a coalition of Niger Delta militants has insisted on its quit notice to northerners’ living in the oil-rich region too.  What a dilemma!    Whatever divide one may be the mere fact that since 1954 Lyttleton constitution which laid the foundation for classical federation for Nigeria, Nigerians are still discussing whether they want to live together peacefully or otherwise is a source of serious concern.  No doubt, it is a failure of national integration efforts since independence.

    One fundamental concern of federal scholars is the absurdity of federal solution in Nigeria which has incapacitated the polity and greatly hampered federalism and national cohesion in Nigeria.  The quit notice threat whether it is an empty one so to say or real calls to question the capability of the political elite to manage a polity as ethnically diverse as Nigeria.  At the beginning of the 1960s, there were over 3,000 ethnic groups in the world; about 1,000 were represented in Africa and about 445 in Nigeria!  In that wise, Nigeria has a relatively unique problem of achieving solidarity in action and purpose in the midst of hundreds ethnic nationalities where justice reigns.  This uniqueness creates unique problems unknown to the experience of other peoples in the world. No western or eastern civilization has ever evolved a political system that can cope with this gigantic problem of hyper-ethnic instability syndrome. This is calling to question the capability of Nigerian rulers their commitment to achieving what ‘Napoleon could not’.

    It is rather unfortunate that both public policy makers and ruling elites in Nigeria do not sufficiently appreciate magnitude of the problems at hand.  Since 1954, the federal system which is older than the state that got independence in 1960 is still far from being crises-free and national cohesion continues to be elusive.  Nigeria’s ethnic make-up still remains what J.S. Furnival calls “in the strictest sense a medley (of peoples) for they mix but do not combine”.

    Thus, the Nigeria ‘project’ remains questionable despite years of federal practice.  According to The Economist (19-25 June, 1999), “Nigerians have no common vision of a nation-state called Nigeria, no sense of citizenship.  The name and football team are about the only things that unite them.  Even the footballers, however, brilliant individual players though do not work as a team.  It is the same with the country.  More than 56 years of flag independence, the country still totters on as a toddler, often pulled down by joint identity and integration crises.  To discerning observers’ consternation, Nigeria’s federalism has remained fragile, almost impossible.  This is largely due to successive administrations that have always been permanently assailed by curious depressing distribution crises triggered by a dubious formula for the sharing of national benefits. The fiscal arrangement which is no doubt one that is robbing Peter to pay Paul has always been a source of destabilizing force.

    Be that as it may,  the Nigerian story is a long stretch of political narratives that do not inspire hope for the future (in the words of Tunji Olaopa).  Akin Mabogunje too, a distinguished Professor similarly averred that the atmosphere of the last two weeks has been so charged that one can be forgiven for wondering if we were back in those heady days of 1966, that presaged the 30-month agonising unforgettable  civil war.

    The snag in the case of Nigeria is the false hope that federalism is capable of enhancing seamless unity in diversity.  To Emeritus professor John Ayoade, a federalist, “many federalists expect from federalism what it is not designed to give – that is unity – without the accompanying federal spirit cum other requirements.  With that mindset, the snag with the federal arrangement in Nigeria is daunting. Whereas, federal solution in a plural and deeply divided society is a balancing act that must be tailored to suite the demands of the society; rather than aping a system without adaptability to the environment.

    If the federal arrangement is to be re-invented, the first step is to devolve powers to the two-tiers of government – states and local governments – the present structure is too centralized which was even exacerbated by the military interregnum for decades.  What we need today is a non-centralized federal system, in which state governments are politically virile, legislatively strong, financially resilient, and indeed constituted into self-confident and self-assertive centres of respect by the political loyalty from the citizens they served and over whom they exercise authority. The story is the reverse in contemporary Nigeria safe for few states with buoyant Internally Generated Revenue (I.G.R.) that guarantees financial sustainability.

    Nonetheless, the problematic nature of Nigeria’s citizenship is another terrain of Nigerian federalism, which in no small measure undermined the efficiency of the federal structure. Conclusively, there is an imperatival need to re-invent the federal system.  Why?   If the former Soviet federation (USSR) was contracted by Joseph Stalin as far back as 1914 which disintegrated in early 80s, Nigeria’s amalgamation was done in 1914 with federal constitution in 1954 and flag independence in 1960.   Thus, if Soviet federation could disintegrate despite being a developed state in all ramifications, Nigeria needs to watch it.  The greatest undoing of the octopus federal system now is the ‘monarchical spirit’ being exhibited by the northern potentates; same Russian hegemony akin to the monarchical spirit ongoing in Nigeria crumbled Soviet federation.  We need to learn fast.  Let us restructure or at best review the recommendations of the previous confab reports. It is high time the National Assembly beam its searchlight on those reports. A stitch in time they say safes nine.

     

    • Dr. Ojo, an associate professor of Comparative Politics, is of the University of Ilorin and Chief of Staff to Oyo State Governor Abiola Ajimobi.
  • APC governors back true federalism, restructuring

    APC governors back true federalism, restructuring

    All Progressives Congress (APC) governors are backing restructuring and true federalism as a way out of the agitation for Nigeria’s break-up.

    The Progressives Governors Forum also said that the recent agitation by some ethnic groups was a reflection of the prevalent weak governance, economy and law enforcement.

    In an eight-page document containing the governors’ position on the challenges to Nigeria’s unity, entitled “There has to be a nation first”, they said that the demands for political restructuring and true federalism could be met by adjusting the federal system.

    Such an adjustment, said the governors, will not on its own address the root and branch of the country’s challenges, but it is worth pursuing to meet the demands of various groups.

    The governors said: “It appears that demands framed by different groups in terms of political restructuring or true federalism can be met through adjustment in Nigeria’s federal system.

    “Although such adjustment will not on its own address the root and branch of Nigeria’s challenges, it is worth pursuing in order to meet the demands of various Nigerian groups. The focus of this restructuring is to restore the principle of non centralisation of power in the country’s federal arrangement being the defining element of a federal polity.

    “Alongside the imperative of political and fiscal decentralization, contiguous states can pool resources to address common development challenges and embark on projects that can have maximum effect and efficiency through endevours.

    “Where possible, and agreed upon, a regional approach to development issues that take cognisance of existing comparative advantages within the existing regions as the initiatives in the Southwest has demonstrated.

    “Alongside addressing the issues of structures in the Nigerian federalism and the mode of allocation of resources among the constituent elements, there is the need to address deficit in governance and politics accountability.

    “PGF challenges ethnic agitators and militant groups to demand good governance and effective service delivery at all levels where the Nigerian state system exists with endowed constitutional responsibilities.

    “We charge genuine youth organisations to seek truly empowering programmes targeted at the youth population at all levels to demonstrate their commitment to a Nigerian nation that makes inclusive growth and development possible.”

    The APC governors condemned the ultimatum to Igbo to leave the North, saying “the Progressives Governors Forum has watched with consternation and grief, the reckless and bellicose utterances of groups, organisations and individuals fanning the ember of ethnic and regional hate and openly seeking the dismemberment of Nigeria.

    “It is even more regrettable, different groups issuing provocative statements, including the various Arewa groups that pose as representatives of northern Nigeria and other groups that issue statements on behalf of other parts of Nigeria, lack roots in the communities they claim to represent.

    “It is however conceded that the proliferation of these youth groups in the first place is a reflection of the failure of development agenda that has not created a future for its youth population who now turn their energy to unproductive ventures, including serving as cannon fodders for politicians out of power.

    “While the PGF believes that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable and is here to stay, it is a resolve that must be underlined by the commitment of elected public office holders at all levels to effectively govern and deliver services and promote social justice, make policies and pronouncements sensitive to Nigeria’s ethnic and cultural diversity and promote security and welfare of all citizens in their respective jurisdictions irrespective of the ethnicity and religion of individuals and groups.

    “This statement of PGF reinforces the very bold and nationalistic pronouncement of the Federal Government and several APC governors since the unfortunate ultimatum issued by the so-called umbrella Arewa Youth Organisation to the Igbo community to leave Kaduna and other parts of northern Nigeria.

    “The statement is to remind Nigerians that the highest political ideal, which Nigeria of all political tendencies and persuasions must seek to pursue is the preservation of Nigeria as a corporate entity within which we can pursue the lingering crisis of development and nation building.

    “The idea of Nigeria being a mere geographical expression is a myth in the light of the present realities. We are convinced as governors elected on the platform of the APC that our party has already articulated a vision of governance and inclusive development can address these challenges in the long run.

    “However, as we work assiduously to address these challenges with unprecedented political will and determination, the Nigerian nation has to survive as an entity before we can pursue the resolution of these challenges.”

    The governors identified failure of development and nation building, regional inequality, failure of democratic governance and dangerous manipulation of difference as some of the issues, which, in their view, produced the tension characterised by competing demands for ethnic justice, pronounced and silent self-determination agenda, hate politics and extreme demand to dismember Nigeria.

    In a statement signed by the Director General of the PGF, Salihu Lukman, the governors said the resurgence of desperate youth groups promoting ethno-regional identities and extremist positions from the geo-political zones was a reflection of prevalent weak governance, economy and law enforcement system in Nigeria.

    The statement reads: “In line with the social democratic principles of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the PGF promotes all-inclusive government, for the development of policies and programs that improve the life of every Nigerian citizen, regardless of ethnicity and religious orientation.

    “It is with this in mind that the Forum condemns in the strongest terms the present secessionist and separatist agitations promoting ethno-regional identity in the country. These sundry factional groups, claiming to represent different ethnic nationalities, sow seeds of disunity and promote secessionist agenda in the nation. We decry and reject their activities in all intents and purposes.

    “Acknowledging the rich diverse heritage of Nigeria as a country, the PGF particularly notes that the resurgence of desperate youth groups promoting ethno-regional identities and extremist positions from the different geo-political zones across the nation as currently experienced is a reflection of prevalent weak governance, economy and law enforcement system in Nigeria.

    “The challenge before us as Nigerians therefore is to commit ourselves to the unity of the country. We must create by all means necessary, a country that we can collectively call our home, irrespective of tongues and localities. This is a vision the APC as a party is committed to lead and for which the PGF is unapologetically and intrinsically loyal. These threats to national unity must cease totally and put away into history.

    “While acknowledging that as a nation, we do have challenges, PGF believes that the resolution of those challenges rests with the development of our democracy and with it, the ascendency of structured processes of national consultations, negotiations and invariably agreements.

    “Some of the challenges are highlighted in the accompanied PGF Position – There has to be a Nation First. As Governors elected under APC, we will work with our party leaders, the Federal Government and all Nigerians who are committed to democratic development of all parts of the country to ensure unencumbered protection of lives of all citizens in every part of the territorial boundary of our nation.

    “PGF, therefore, calls for the rise of all Decent Voices across this country to speak up against the upsurge of some desperate irredentist movements across all ethnic groups and support the emergence of a stronger and virile unified Nigeria for us all. The Forum insists that, regardless of our diverse identities and whatever differences, Nigeria has to thrive. Hence, ‘there has to be a nation first’.

  • ‘True federalism ‘ll keep Nigeria together’

    ‘True federalism ‘ll keep Nigeria together’

    The National Publicity Secretary of Afenifere, Mr. Yinka Odumakin has said ‘24 years after the annulment of June 12 election,’ the country is enveloped in apprehension and anxiety.

    He said true federalism is the way forward for the country.

    He added that the country was still labouring under strain and palpable uncertainty, noting that Nigeria has not learned from the lessons of history.

    Odumakin said: “On June 12,1993, Nigerians trooped out in their millions to elect a President after seemingly endless twists and turns in Babangida’s transition programme. It was a beautiful day Nigeria was going to achieve nationhood in the course of choosing M.K.O Abiola from Yorubaland.

    “But, the Babangida junta in an unjust diktat annulled the election as it dawned that Abiola had won against all hegemonic permutations. The annulment propelled a five-year resistance during which Abiola and Kudirat his wife were assassinated alongside many prominent pro-democracy activists.

    “An arranged transition was put in place after the liquidation of Abiola, with a military imposed constitution to preserve Nigeria without addressing the damage done to the nationhood by the annulment.

    “We have fumbled and wobbled through eighteen years of pretending that our unity is settled, mouthing hackneyed phrases like “indissoluble union” and “non-negotiable unity”, while the country falls more and more into pieces on a daily basis.

    Odumakin said the threat by some Arewa youths that Igbo living in the north to quit was unfortunate and divisive.

    “We now mark another June 12 amidst an October 1 quit order to Ndigbo by Arewa youths who have also secured endorsement from the Northern Elders Forum, with the Arewa Consultative Forum conceding what they called “the frustrations of the youth” with Ndigbo.

    “While the primary targets of the Arewa youths’ quit order are the Ndigbo residents in the North, we are not deceived that when the rubber hits the road, the Almajaris and the Mujaheedin would pick and choose among all southerners in the North for the baying of blood.

    “This is why the Yoruba nation is warning that this is a déjà vu and that no country has ever survived two civil wars. We recall how events cascaded in the 1960’s from the moment emergency rule were imposed on the Western Region until war broke out in 1967.

    “The same arrogance of power, insensitivity and atrocious impunity that were at play then are still very much at play today. The same section of Nigeria that rejected the outcome of Aburi is still shouting down the strident calls of most peoples of Nigeria for restructuring today, because command and control is more important to them than equity, justice, fairness, peaceful co-existence, harmony and a progressing country.

    “A climate of fear, apprehension and anxiety now pervades the country as no one knows what can happen, with the absence of a leadership that can rise up to the occasion to save the Republic.

    “That not one member of the group of “youth “ organisations who had unfettered access to Arewa house to threaten the unity of Nigeria has been arrested is a clear signal that the butterfly that is dancing on the surface of the Arewa River is dancing to some drummer beneath the water surface.

    ”When we attained independence in 1960, Nigeria’s pot was standing on a tripod. Two legs out of the three are now in a near-war face-off. It would be an illusion of grandeur to think that this pot can continue to stand in this way.”

    He restated the belief that the only way that Nigeria would be able to fulfill its destiny as one country was the practice of true federalism.

    “If, however, our compatriots from the North and East are not averse to the continuation of Nigeria as a country, the only acceptable path toward this end is political restructuring. Fortunately, we have a roadmap in the recommendations of the last Confab, which must now be pursued and implemented.

    “But, in the event that our co-citizens do absolutely insist that we the peoples of Nigeria can no longer live together, we Yoruba nation will not want a violent termination such as happened in Yugoslavia. Even though our Yoruba nation boasts a history of great wars, gallant warrior leaders and warlike people who fear no war, we nevertheless abhor war and bloodshed.

  • Restructuring or federalism?

    I have often told those who care to listen to even define what they mean by restructuring and I can’t seem to get answers. Or where we get, the answers are discordant and often tending toward federalism resource control and such.

    What I understand it to mean is that we operate a truly federal system of government where every component part control their resources,  have their domestic laws, have their own police, legal system, their own tax systems etc.

    The states should be federating units donating some of their powers to the federal government to hold and use in trust for them on matters of common interest such as defence, foreign affairs, citizenship, immigration, currency and economy etc.

    Let us adopt the USA model. USA practices federalism. Restructuring or federalism is totally different from the call for cannibalisation of the country. Restructuring or federalism howsoever called is not the same as secession.

    Suffice to say that when Lagos State government took the federal government to the Supreme Court several times to insist on the practice of federalism from control of physical planning, local government administration that led to the withholding of Lagos State revenue allocation, to issue of land abutting the waterways, control of  inland waters, Value Added Tax (VAT), and many other issues, those states and zones  where the  call for restructuring are loudest today sadly all opposed the position of Lagos State government at the Supreme Court on the altar of politics. We may go back and read those judgements for confirmation.

    Lagos won 12 of such cases and against the federal government at the Supreme Court. That was the beginning of some elements of federalism and restructuring without calls to war or secession. I recall that I had to lead speak on behalf of Lagos State government in the company of Dr Akeem Olajide Bello, then an adviser to the governor on legal matters at the Senate hearing on the National Inland waterways Authority Act and made a robust presentation for state control of inland waterways and total repeal of the Act on behalf of Lagos State.

    A then top ranking and very outspoken and visible Senator from Enugu State was the most vociferous opponent of our position. He even said publicly at the hearing that Lagos State was being too cantankerous and asked insultingly if Lagos was the only coastal state or with waterways in the country.  This is a man whose state has rivers that could be of economic benefits to his state and people.

    I educated him before his colleagues and the public in fine and polite language that he was not fit to be a Senator. I also recall telling him that if he and his state don’t t know the rights of his people and  state, we in Lagos did and would assert same using the law.

    I asked him if he was proud that by the National Inland Waterways Authority Law his people in Enugu State will need to travel to Lokoja to obtain licences to own and operate fishing canoes on the rivers and streams in the state

    I felt he was very disappointing and was betraying his people.

    The senator sought to be governor and is today one of the major voices and sponsors of secession and restructuring mixed up.

    Lagos State House of Assembly subsequently repealed the National Inland Waterways Authority Act and promulgated the Lagos State Inland Waterways Authority Act and took control of the Lagos Lagoon and its intra-state waters. There were objections and protests from such bodies as Nigerian Ports Authority and NIWA.

    Lagos called their bluff and challenged them to go to court.

    Lagos used the instrumentality of the law, legislature and intellect to take its destiny in its hands and assert its rights. It was the series of litigation by Lagos State government that has now effectively handed physically planning and land ownership back to the states.

    Before then, the federal government was giving planning permits for buildings in places like Banana Island and Osborne Foreshore and in many states of the country on lands that they called federal land contrary to the provisions of the Land Use Act.

    Before then the federal government was issuing Certificates of Occupancy on land in the states.

    Before then the federal government made a decree which vested and made it to own all lands that were within 100 metres from the shore of lagoons, rivers and ocean including the palace of the Oba of Lagos and all lands on Marina, around Bar beach, River Niger and Benue, Oji river, River Imo, Oguta Lake, Kaduna River to mention a few.

    Before then, federal government had absolute control over even water streams and rivers in the villages and states. Before then federal government had land registries in the states; acquired land in states without resort to the state governments.

    I even recall that the federal government was planning to develop a second phase of Banana Island. It was going to sand-fill some waters of the lagoon. Lagos insisted that it must get a permit and environmental impact assessment approval from it. The federal government insisted that it can reclaim the water because it had control over the outer waters in Lagos State.

    Lagos then told the federal government that once the water is reclaimed and becomes land, it will be vested in the Governor of Lagos State by virtue of the Land Use Act. The federal government simply disappeared with its tail between its legs. That is using the law and the brains.

    Today, if the federal government acquires land in Lagos, it must obtain the governor’s consent.

    Today, if it wants to build in Lagos, it must obtain Lagos State government approval. Today, the federal government cannot regulate adverts on federal highways or roads in Lagos. Today, the Lagos waterways are busy with boats, yatches and hovercraft registered and licensed by Lagos Inland Waterways Authority.

    Lagos has a consumption tax in place without allowing VAT stand in its way. It used the law and brains. Lagos collects Wharf Landing fees from all sea and land ports in Lagos State. Lagos collects advertisement income from all federal highways and roads in Lagos along with the local governments.

    Lagos used the law and good thinking to acquire all lands and open spaces under bridges from the federal government. They are all today beauties to behold from the days when federal government allowed all sorts to happen under them when they were let out as garages and car parks.

    But for the good thinking and law, Lagos may not have been able to recover Oshodi. And all these also bring in substantial revenue to the state and yet we still wonder why Lagos State has a monthly Internally Generated Revenue Income of well over N30 billion – over six times more than what it gets from the federal allocation that some others are crying over as their sole source of revenue.

    And we still wonder why it is the second largest economy in West Africa, only after Nigeria and self-sustaining?

    Let all states put on their thinking caps and use the law, legislature, judiciary, intellectual power to achieve the control of their destinies and resources and not by beating drums of war and secession.

    It shouldn’t be by force or might. Let’s use our brains and intellectual resources to achieve federalism.

     

    • Ogala Esq is a Lagos based attorney.

  • Nostalgia for true federalism

    One subject that had been topical in our recent national discourse is the current status of our federalism. The voice on it had been so loud that the need to revisit the kind of federalism we operate can and must not be ignored.

    All kinds of words have been used to describe what many people see as the lop-sidedness of our present federal system. Some have styled it power devolutions; while still some have described it as restructuring. However, proponents of the two theses agreed on one thing: that the political stability of the country depends mainly on the revisit of the present federal structure.

    Whereas, I agree both in principle and in practice with the advocates of restructuring, the only area where I disagree with some of the postulates is where they say it is a particular section of the country that is against restructuring in the country for the benefit of power perpetuity in the zone.

    Let me state with all sense of clarity that the level of our national political development has reached a stage that no zone can claim dominance over others. For instance, in 18 years of our return to democracy, the southern part of the country had occupied the office for more than two thirds of the duration, without any voice of dissent from the North. This is because the principle of zoning had come to stay in Nigeria.

    Besides, the shout of marginalization at the federal level have not been less vociferous in any section of the country including the North. Perhaps except in the area of personnel recruitment, no zone of the country, to the best of my knowledge, enjoy noticeable infrastructural advantage over other zones.

    The call for secession by a particular zone of the country is certainly not the solution; rather it is borne out of frustration and despondency; which however should not be ignored.

    To me, whether we call it devolution or restructuring, the need for a return to the First Republic federalism can never be overemphasized. The current power centralization is certainly a military version of federalism, which is not desirable in a democratic federalism.

    Fiscal autonomy of the federating units is the beauty of true democracy. It was under this arrangement that the old Western Region under Chief Obafemi Awolowo was able to set infrastructural model in areas of education, agriculture and industry for the country. One could notice that in such institutions, like the University of Ife, now Obafemi Awolowo University, Liberty Stadium at Ibadan, which the British Ace Boxing promoter Jack Solomon described as the Mini-Wembley Stadium in London because of the facilities provided in that stadium, WNTV, the first Television Station in Africa, the Premier Hotel Ibadan, the first five-star Hotel in Nigeria, the first dualization of Mokola road to the State Secretariat, Agodi, Ibadan which was commissioned by Queen Elizabeth II during her first visit to Nigeria in 1956, and not forgetting the farm settlements across the region.

    If only because of the healthy rivalry that existed among federating units of that time, both the eastern and regional governments were quick to take a cue from Awolowo’s initiative. That resulted in such institutions like the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nnamdi Azikiwe Stadium among others in the Eastern Region. In the North on the other hand, we saw such infrastructure like the Ahmadu Bello University, Ahmadu Bello Stadium, and Northern Nigeria Television among others.

    All these were achieved without recourse to the federal government. But the first assault to our federalism was that all those regional projects were forcibly acquired for the federal government by the Murtala/Obasanjo regime between 1975 and 1979; and that was the beginning of political imbalance in the country with which we are still battling today

    The regions at that time were allowed to harness their resources according to their respective initiatives for the benefits of their regions. One can imagine the state of unease the region would have found themselves were their natural resources be under federal revenue. That makes the current agitation in the Niger-Delta region somehow understandable. The only difference is that resource control agitation does not have to go with the destruction of public institutions or any kind of violence.

    In my own opinion, for Nigeria to remain stable and united, the centre must be made less attractive so also should be the cost running government at all levels. The central government should be restricted to such areas like Defence, Currency, Immigration, Foreign Affairs and few others. In areas of internal security and maintenance on law and order, police should be on the concurrent list whereby state police will operate without any hindrance from the central police. A lot of modern day crime like kidnapping and its likes can be avoided were state police to serve as a kind of vigilante to their respective communities.

    Unfortunately however, the craze for federal attention has reached such a level that even some highly placed traditional rulers in the country have also ‘gone federal’ – demanding a slot in the federal revenue allocation for the maintenance of their headquarters. Before we know anything, they would be demanding for recognition as the fourth tier of government in the country.

    If I have taken any serious exception to a unified traditional institution in the country, suffice to say that it is not a personal matter between one or any of the traditional rulers concerned. Rather, it is borne out of the fact that as custodians of custom, culture and tradition of their subjects, they should be content with the preservation of their peculiar cultures and customs without making any attempts to liberalize or nationalize it in the name of national unity of any form. I nurse no personal grudge against anybody.

    It is personally painful that what we are operating at the moment is a one-tier functional government. This is because the state government which is supposed to be the second leg on which true federalism rests is more or less a lame duck. This is as long as it depends on the federal government for its budgetary obligations to its people.

    I make bold to say that in actual sense, the Yoruba political system is the original home of true federalism, dating back to the old Oyo Empire which lasted for more than 600 years in history.

    Each of the traditional Yoruba kingdoms was a federating unit running their administration with local peculiarities. The role of the Alaafin as the Central Government was to defend the Yoruba territorial integrity against any external aggression as was the case in Iganna, Okeho and Kishi when Alaafin invited the British for military intervention to halt French aggression. Another was in the area of settling boundary disputes among various Yoruba communities. Few of such cases were boundary disputes between Ede and Ife which the Alaafin determined at Shasha; between Ibadan and Abeokuta which the Alaafin settled at Bakatari in favour of Ibadan.

    If we all want the Nigerian project to succeed, we must face the stark reality of history and empirical postulates of true federalism.

     

    • Oba (Dr) Adeyemi III JP, CFR, LL.D. is the Alaafin of Oyo and Permanent Chairman of Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs.
  • Aregbesola: councils’ autonomy negates federalism

    Aregbesola: councils’ autonomy negates federalism

    Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola has said local government autonomy is an aberration that negates the principle of federalism.
    The governor urged those clamouring for it to consider its demerits.
    He said the 16 years of internecine war among various groups in Yoruba land was the fallout of the resistance against one group that usurped power.
    The governor noted that it was a direct effort at preserving federalism.
    Aregbesola said local governments were under absolute control and ambience of states, adding that the only organ of the state empowered by the constitution to make laws for them is the House of Assembly.
    The governor spoke yesterday while opening this year’s NULGE Week during the public lecture organised by the state chapter of the Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees at the Aurora Conference Centre in Osogbo, the state capital.
    The war, he recalled, was instructive because the Yoruba wanted autonomy, which true federalism guarantees, to the extent that one group would not subdue the other in the administrative system.
    Aregbesola said the campaign for local government autonomy could destroy federalism and the nation.
    The governor described the belief that local governments should be independent of state governments as strange and anti-federalism.
    He said there were only two tiers of government in a federal system of government: the Federal Government and the government at the federating level.
    Aregbesola noted that it is awkward for Nigeria to be the only federation in the world where there is only one police system.
    According to him, it is strange for the Federal Government and the constitution not to allow for police in the federating units of the country.
    The governor said the problems with local government administration in Nigeria could be corrected with the laws of the states.
    He said: “Nigeria is not just a republic, but a federal republic. A federal state is where every distinction of nationality is recognised, respected and honoured. None of the units of the federation is, therefore, superior to the other. Every unit is empowered by law to administer itself under the general guideline of the constitution.
    “Few things are awkward about federalism in Nigeria. Nigeria’s federation is strange to the extent that only one police force maintains law and order. In other federations, there would be a Federal police force and other federating unit police. Nigerian nationality and people must seek to correct this abnormality.
    “Another anomaly that people, because of their frustration to some aspects of administration, are equally making a mistake on and needs correction is that a federation has two tiers of government. There cannot be three tiers in a federation. The moment you have three tiers, you no longer have a federation.”
    Aregbesola emphasised that the problem with the administration of local government can be corrected with the laws of the state in a federation.
    He noted that it is not by assaulting the fundamental principle of federalism that the challenges and weakness being faced by the administration of local governments can be corrected.
    Chairman of Osun State NULGE Comrade Deji Adeyeye hailed Aregbesola for prioritising workers’ welfare.
    Adeyeye said gone were the days when the state’s workers were paid once in three months or sometimes once in four months.
    He said the current recession was not peculiar to Osun but to all states of the federation.
    The NULGE chief said labour unions in the state were banking on the governor’s promise on the backlog of salaries of workers above Grade Level 8, who were being owed between 20 and 25 per cent of their salaries.
    Adeyeye said: “Once upon a time, workers in the state were paid once in three months or once in four months. But our governor ensured that we moved out of this terrible situation.
    “Grade Levels 1 to 7 have always been receiving full salaries while Grade Level 8 and above were placed on constant half salary.
    “Not too long after, Grade Levels 8 to and 10 were paid 75 per cent of their salaries while workers on Grade Levels 12 and above maintain a consistent half salary.
    “It is noteworthy that each time we meet with the governor over the backlog of salaries of workers on Grade Levels 8 and above, we always receive a positive response.
    “Aregbesola has given his words on several occasions that as soon as funds are available, the backlog would be cleared.”
    NULGE National President Ibrahim Khaleel said reports on Aregbesola showed he was a worker-friendly governor.
    He hailed the governor for his commitment to good governance.