The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federalism

  • Alaafin calls for true federalism

    Alaafin calls for true federalism

    The Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi 111, has called for true federalism to foster what he described as unity in diversity. He also enjoined the Federal Government to ensure that the reports of Commissions of Enquiry into civil disturbances and violent conflicts are sincerely implemented, with a view to bringing the perpetrators to justice.

    The monarch called for discipline, hard work, selflessness, patriotism, dedication and unalloyed support for the President Muhammadu Buhari-led administration.

    Oba Adeyemi gave the admonitions in Lagos at an award ceremony organised by the World Peace and Diplomacy Organisation, in collaboration with KEISIE International University, South-Korea.

    The Alaafin said: “There can be no national development without relative peace and stability.  Since May 1999, there have been greater challenges of security than at any point in time in our history, thus rendering our political stability fragile, democratic institutions and processes fluid, and our economy debilitated.

    “Government, political leaders and followers, and all of us, must have the courage and honesty to get to the root causes of our current state of insecurity, underpinned by criminality, and insurgency/terrorism; Our leaders and followers have taken the issues of security for granted; yet urgent and immediate steps (short and long–term) must be taken to consciously respond to current threats by architectonically designing and building a security system which would create a stable and relatively peaceful environment, conducive for national development’’.

    He added: “We must accept the reality that while it is necessary to create “unity in diversity”, we must identify and respect our differences – “diversity in unity”. Unless those in government are in a country different from ours, they should realise that the conditions of life are currently very hard for the average Nigerian. Having one, let alone three square meals daily, poses a real problem, not to talk of affording costs of medicals for members of families”.

    Oba Adeyemi called for the development of a national security strategy that is aligned with the anti-corruption and national development priorities.

    He added: “The present administration must be eulogized for investing massively in infrastructure, education, health,  job creation and youth programmes. There is also need to bolster the capacity and professional autonomy of anti-corruption institutions, identify institutional entry points in governance systems, such as access to information and social accountability and transparency, adopt an institution building approach to governance, and bolster the capacity of public institutions for effective service delivery’’.

    The monarch described corruption as multi-dimensional, adding that it does not only involve money, but also involves the abuse of trust, processes and institutions.

    He said: “It is my conviction that  we should concentrate on the prevention of corruption by establishing appropriate mechanisms for checking it.

    “This will reduce the number and cost of cases prosecuted. If we must rebrand Nigeria, Nigerians must shun primordial sentiments, but give total support to the present administration, as its determination to be exemplary should not be in doubt.’’

  • Towards a rebirth of Nigerian federalism

    The structure and practice of Nigerian federalism have been a key topic of discussion and debates in Nigeria since the amalgamation of the North and South Protectorates in 1914, with varying levels of intensity.

    We are all witnesses to the agitations and complaints by different sections of the country at different times about being marginalized or short-changed in fiscal allocation and the distribution of such other public resources such political positions, jobs, school admissions, provision of infrastructure, and even social honour. In response many Nigerians have been calling for some form of restructuring of our federal system, while some small fringe groups insist on their part of the country separating from the federation all together.

    Keen observers of those debates and agitations will notice these key tendencies: Those who see restructuring only in terms of so-called resource control, that is, the control of resources by the states from where they are derived. Currently the loudest are from the Niger Delta where oil revenues, which our government depends on, largely come from; those who think that there is an ideal “true federalism” which we must embrace; those who argue that federal systems are varied, evolving and have their specific national and historic characteristics and that what is needed is continued improvement of our federal system, and those who think that the current structure is not the problem but just the managers.

    These are all legitimate positions to take in a democracy. What I find odd and somewhat unhelpful is the argument of those who say that we cannot renegotiate our union and who proceed from there to equate every demand for restructuring with attempts to break up the country. I believe that every form of human relationships is negotiable. Every political relationship is open for negotiations, without pre-set outcomes. As a democrat and businessman I do not fear negotiations.  That is what reasonable human beings do. This is even more important if a stubborn resistance against negotiations can lead to unsavoury outcomes.

    We must acknowledge that what got us to our current over-centralized and centre-dominated federal system is political expediency and fear, and bolstered by the command and control character of military regimes.  But after 50 years of “unitary federalism”, we are now in a position to clearly see that it has not worked well. The federating units in the First Republic had their disagreements but none claimed to lack autonomy of action, and none waited for federal fiscal allocations before it could implement its programmes and pay salaries. The current structure may be working for some elites but it has clearly not worked well for any section of this country and the country as a whole. We should take deliberate steps to change this structure to serve us better. And we should not dither for too long that we let fear and expediency stampede us into another disastrous policy shift that may not serve us well either.

    We have to acknowledge that federalisms are works in progress: there is no ideal federal system or so-called true federalism. Each nation has to work out the best federal system suited for it. In Nigeria’s case we must acknowledge that it is disingenuous if not outright dishonest to say that the system is not the problem.  If the problem is just the operators, how come we have failed for 50 years to produce the right people? Should we import them from outer space? A look at our 1999 constitution, specifically Section 7, shows that there is a huge problem with the system. I challenge anyone who is against restructuring our federation to show me another well-functioning federal system in the world with that level of lopsided central dominance. Individuals operate within certain structural and institutional constraints. If all we lack are good operators, as these people argue, would anyone advocate doing away with constitutions altogether so we rely on fantastic individuals to do the right things?

    We must acknowledge that agitations for more states across the country, the clamour for more federal take-over of state institutions, and the clamour for local government autonomy (i.e. autonomy from state governments) are inconsistent with establishing a viable and well-functioning federal system. We already have too many weak and unviable states. What we need are stronger federating units (be they existing sates or zones) with a greater share of resources and responsibilities.

    I have been shouting myself hoarse asking why we should have federal roads, federal schools, federal hospitals, etc. I have called for state police, for the states that so desire, to help us provide more effective security. In 2012, I went before ALGON in Enugu and told them that their clamour for local government autonomy from state governments is misguided.  I told them that it is wrong for the federal government to be creating Local Governments and giving them money directly from the Federation Account. What is the meaning of “local” then, I asked? How does the transfer of local government dependence on state to central government translate to autonomy? Even our state governments are nearly totally dependent on the federal government, meaning they do not even have the autonomy that we are trying to give to the local governments that are below them. This is a complete absurdity. Can anyone honestly claim that our local governments have performed better since the introduction of the joint state/local government account than they did prior to the coming into effect of that constitutional provision? We must end our culture of institutional escapism in this country. By that I mean our tendency to create new institutions to solve problems for which we already have institutions just so we avoid dealing with the shortcomings of the existing institutions.

    We must acknowledge that in federal systems that work, federating units cede certain powers to the centre.  In our strange federal contraption, it is the centre that is creating federating units, giving them money and monopolizing most power and resources. Thus our state governments are no longer performing as federating units. Rather they currently seem like dependent provinces of the central government in Abuja.

    Think about this: sales taxes ought to be collected and used by states and local governments.  Of course there is nothing inherently wrong in a federal sales tax but states must agree with the federal government what items should be taxed, at what rate and how the proceeds are to be shared. They ought to be uniform. If a state is opposed to cattle tax or bicycle tax or alcohol tax, or pollution tax, for instance, it should not expect to share in the tax proceeds from those items. That is called fairness. In fact, states should be the ones collecting those taxes on behalf of the federal government and get compensated for their work, through an agreed sharing formula, rather than duplicating the cost of collection. Federal intrusion makes it more difficult for a state to collect taxes from items that may be peculiar to it, thereby narrowing the tax base. And it makes enforcement even more difficult.

    No section of this country can claim correctly that its people are better served by the current structure of our federation. When we were not dependent on oil revenues and when the federating units had greater autonomy of action and were largely responsible for their affairs, they, that is, our regional governments, did not owe workers their salaries for several months. They did not shut down schools and universities for several months because of teacher strikes and inadequate funding. Take a look at the industries that the regional governments established and ran and the quality of schools that they established, and see if you can see a state government or a group of state governments that have bested them since the emergence of our unitary federalism. And also ask yourself which of those establishments taken over or established by the federal government since, has performed as well as they did under our pre-1966 federal system.

    National unity does not mean the absence of disagreement or agitations. In fact disagreements and peaceful agitations indicate vibrant and living relationships. The key to making national progress is to manage those disagreements in peaceful and mature ways.

    Political and civic leaders from across the country must come together, discuss, negotiate and make the necessary compromises and sacrifices needed to restructure our federation to make us a stronger, more united, productive, and competitive country. Perhaps we might start with making our grievances and fears apparent. When each section or party to a dispute airs its grievances and expresses its fears and concerns, the outcome may be better understanding by others, and a quicker route to a resolution or agreement. That’s perhaps how we should proceed with the much needed rebirth and renewal of our federation.

    • Excerpts of the paper presented by former Vice President Abubakar, at the Public Presentation of a book, Nigerian Federalism: Continuing Quest for Stability and Nation-Building in Abuja on Monday.
  • Still on true federalism

    Still on true federalism

    Six months ago, I called for a deliberate movement toward “a more perfect union”, which respects the federal structure that the founding fathers of the republic envisioned. Here I quote from the first two paragraphs from my July 3, 2016 column:

    “We have been speaking pass each other for a long time. Especially since 1966, we have used terms and concept that different groups interpret as fighting words. As often as it does happen, the natural reaction of everyone is to flee to their corners to fight back and the hope of one nation bound in truth and freedom has been the loser.

    “While one group takes a stand for true federalism and argues therefore for restructuring the country to bring about that change, another mocks the idea and instead calls for strong leadership. (At a point in the present republic, a senator actually argued boldly for unitarism). While one voice advocates for resource control and fiscal federalism, another argues that to avoid disintegration, the centre needs to corner the most resources. It appears from the pattern we have seen thus far that whichever party controls the centre sees itself as the protector of the nation’s unity at all cost and cannot be expected to give an inch, even when that inch is going to yield a mile in terms of lasting unity.

    I emphasise the last sentence of the paragraph above to affirm that my understanding of the pattern of support for and opposition against the idea of true federalism has been precise. The ruling party has generally seen itself as the defender of unity, which it wrongly assumes is threatened by true federalism. On the other hand, the opposition has been in the vanguard of the demand for true federalism. I do not intend to impute any motives but it is amazing that the party positions turn out this way.

    One reason that many progressive-minded citizens gave their unflinching support to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last presidential election was their belief that it shared their values about a true federal structure as the best way to advance the nation.

    The “Manifesto of the All Progressives Congress (APC)”, which was publicised as the contract between the party and Nigerians, is still prominent on its web page. In the first bullet point of the manifesto under the first heading, “The Constitution”, the party promised to “initiate action to amend our constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to state and local governments in order to entrench true federalism and the federal spirit.”

    I hope that I am not alone in deducing from the quoted item on APC’s manifesto the following conclusions. First, I inferred that APC is committed to entrenching a true federal structure in the country. Second, the party and its members, especially those in leadership positions, understand the fundamentals of a true federal structure. Third, I deduced that once Nigerians gave it their mandate, APC intended to educate those of its members, who are given positions of authority in government so that they are in sync with its resolve to fulfil its promise to the electorate.

    I did not infer, nor did I expect any dissension within the party hierarchy regarding the meaning of true federalism or the need for its entrenchment as the pillar of governmental policy in an APC administration. That was what the logic of the statement of the manifesto led me to believe. To the extent that a different conclusion has been inferred and acted upon, it is not unusual, but it is not a validly drawn conclusion. It is not unusual because the phenomenon of akrasia or weakness of the will is a familiar one. That which is known to be right is avoided because at the point of action, the knee buckles.

    My inferences gave me reason for shock and embarrassment when I read a screaming headline from the Nigerian Tribune of November 11, 2016: “Minister tackles govs over true federalism.” Prior to reading the content, I had imagined the minister encouraging governors to do more to implement the party’s manifesto. But I was wrong.

    I am still unsure if Minister Adebayo Shittu was quoted correctly by the media. But I have waited for a rebuttal, which has not been forthcoming. Here is what the minister was quoted to have said at a forum at the University of Ibadan: “A lot of people have been talking of true federalism. But it is always a problem when you ask them to define what true federalism is. The question I ask is what is the definition of true federalism? What are the expectations? A lot of times they talk about the fact that the federal government takes more money from the federation account.”

    The reason this is embarrassing is that it is coming from a minister of the All Progressives Congress, which has as its first platform a strong commitment to true federalism. Is there such a fundamental ideological division within the APC-led federal government?

    The minister went on to tackle the governors to do more about local government autonomy, a legitimate observation, which ought to be kept separate. It would make more sense for the minister to proceed as follows: “The APC government is committed to a true federal structure and intends to deliver on its promise. However, the states must help in this effort especially by granting local autonomy as an important strand of true federalism.” Why, for heaven’s sake, do you have to contemptuously dismiss true federalism just because you have issues with state governments on local government elections? I don’t get it!

    Interestingly, it was a PDP stalwart, the Secretary to the Ondo State Government, who had called for true federalism and suggested that “the federal government was holding the jugular of development across the country.” It confirms my observation above.

    To answer the minister, I quote again from my July 3 submission about the primacy of true federalism in our type of political structure:

    “Just as the establishment of a legitimate political authority is the answer to potential anarchy in situation of absolute individual freedom, so federalism is the panacea against potential chaos where ethnic nationalities cohabit and each has an abiding interest in the protection of its inherited values and ideals of life and feels compelled to repel perceived encroachments on such values. This is what the advocacy for true federalism understands intimately.

    “While true federalism does not espouse national disintegration as its adversaries wrongly assume, a pseudo-federal structure lends itself to resentment and thus political crises of the kind that we have witnessed in our recent history. For even when there is no intention to impose values or to marginalise, “mind-readers” are pretty much in the business of psycho-analysing and drawing conclusions, right or wrong. Whether it be in the matter of grazing reserves versus private ranches, or in the issue of revenue sharing, or in national language policy, there is plenty of room for diversity of positions and thus of mischief getting in the way of rational adjudication.” 

    In other words, the first point of interest for advocates of true federalism is not about granting more funds to the states. That is secondary. The first question is what areas of governance are best left in the hands of the states or regions. Once that is resolved, the question of how those areas are funded can then be determined. I also observed in the submission under reference as follows:

    “In the matter of revenue sharing, the central government has its obligations just as do the states. And while the nation has to determine the matter of what accrues to the centre and what to the states, it is not a matter of conjecture that states, being closer to the theatre of action regarding the welfare of the people, have a huge responsibility to bear. Therefore, states must explore all available sources of revenue and generate as much as possible for the discharge of their obligations.”

    True federalism is leaving for states what rightly belongs to them, and to the centre its areas of responsibility.

  • Minister faults Southwest governors on call for true federalism

    Minister faults Southwest governors on call for true federalism

    The Minister of Communications,  Adebayo Shittu, yesterday faulted calls for true federalism by top Nigerian politicians, saying many of them do not understand what the concept entails.

    Shittu criticized true federalism crusaders, particularly governors in Southwest Nigeria, accusing them of failing to uphold the tenets of the concept by refusing to conduct local government elections.

    The minister said this while presenting a lecture on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan.

    According to him, “ a lot of people from the Southwest, especially the state governments, have been making repeated calls for true federalism. But, it is always a problem to define what true federalism means.

    “Among the state governors making the call for true federalism are those who have not conducted local government elections. They have refused to conduct the elections that would make them autonomous. They have always been appointing caretaker chairmen for the councils.”

    Speaking on the topic: “Psychology and the Change Agenda”, Shittu said: “A lot of times, most of the resources of the local governments are controlled by these state governments. What examples are they giving? They should first provide good examples in their various states before clamouring for true federalism.”

  • Minister faults Southwest governors on call for true federalism

    Minister faults Southwest governors on call for true federalism

    The Minister of Communications, Barr. Adebayo Shittu, Friday faulted calls for true federalism by top Nigerian politicians, saying many of them do not understand what the concept entails.

    Shittu criticized true federalism crusaders, particularly governors in Southwest Nigeria, accusing them of failing to uphold the tenets of the concept by refusing to conduct local government elections.

    The minister said this while presenting a lecture on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan.

    According to him, “A lot of people from the Southwest especially the state governments have been making repeated calls for true federalism. But, it is always a problem to define what true federalism means.

    “Among the state governors making the call for true federalism are those who have not conducted local government elections. They have refused to conduct the election that would make them autonomous. They have always been appointing caretaker chairmen for the councils.”

    Speaking on the topic: “Psychology and the Change Agenda” Shittu said: “A lot of times, most of the resources of the local governments are controlled by these state governments. What examples are they giving? They should first provide good examples in their various states before clamouring for true federalism.”

    While commending the anti-corruption stance of President Muhammadu Buhari, the minister explained that “change is important to leaders of governments, communities, corporations and nations around the world. In Nigeria, the change mantra of the administration of President Buhari is now widely known within and outside Nigeria. The change is expected to cover all spheres to cover all spheres of life.”

    In his welcome address, the Head of the department, Prof. Benjamin Ehigie, listed several achievements of the department, particularly in the last 10 years.

    His words: “For the decade that has just passed, the department has recorded lots of achievements. Apart from those already mentioned, the department has produced 11 first class graduates, the 2015 winner of “Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria” pageant, Miss Unoaku Temitope Anyadike and many others.

  • Good one for federalism

    Good one for federalism

    •Allowing states and others to build and run prisons is federalising Nigeria’s criminal-justice system

    NIGERIA’S piecemeal journey to workable federalism appears to have received a boost, with the Senate’s move to remove the prisons from the exclusive federal list and make it a concurrent matter, between the Federal Government and the states. The bill to that effect just scaled its second reading.

    This is a welcome move. It is rather absurd that a state that has a court system, parallel to federal courts, does not have a corresponding prison system.

    What that means is the absurdity of trying suspects in state courts, yet shipping felons to federal prisons. That partly accounts for prison over-crowdedness, with an intolerably high number of those awaiting trial.

    True, freeing the prisons from a central vice-grip is only one step in righting the non-federalisation of the criminal-justice system. At the end of the reforms to truly federalise, every state must have its own police (which still appears a long way off), its own court system (already a reality) and its own prisons (which the Senate is now trying to achieve). Until these tri-goals are achieved, there cannot be talk of a full federalisation of the law-and-order system.

    Still, the Senate’s move is a good start; and the three senators, whose separate bills are coalescing to push this breakthrough, deserve commendation: Shaba Lafiagi (APC, Kwara North), Babajide Omoworare (APC, Osun East) and Oluremi Tinubu (Lagos Central).

    Reports say the three senators led separate debates to convince their colleagues at plenary on the desirability of their bills. The Senate, for once, should be commended for being dutiful on this one.

    Senator Tinubu too is deserving of praise for her insight into the plight of pregnant and nursing mother-prisoners; and how the state could care for their neo-natal and post-natal needs. She also deserves praise for looking out for Nigerian children born in prison, and why everything should be done not to stigmatise them for life. New thinking about the prison is, after all, reformative, instead of punitive. Besides, these children are innocent souls born in unfortunate circumstances.

    These are progressive ideas that should not only drive the prison systems of the state when they eventually birth, but should also permeate the new designs and management of federal prisons, since there are ripe talks about relocating and modernising some prisons.

    Still, from the Senate debate, there appears a likely provision for private investment in prisons, in which the system is so liberalised citizens, apart from the state, can invest in it as business. If that happens, there must be rigorous guidelines to direct such investments, even if not a few would appear to develop some dissonance, simply because such a move is novel.

    But aside from all these, it is pertinent to know that the prisons service had not always been centralised. So, was the police. But somehow, brazen abuses in the First Republic, when in the North there were even Native Authority Police and Prisons, forced a mass antipathy that pushed the system to the extreme we now decry today.

    It is time to go back to the decentralisation of those pristine years of shortly before and after flag independence in 1960. But desirable as that might be, we must eschew those abuses that short-circuited the system to birth the present monstrosity, which however, is replete with own abuses.

    So, as new reforms birth with the prisons as well as the police, a deliberate policy must be put in place to ensure the operators birth with new attitudes, befitting those federalist reforms.

    That is the only way to avoid taking one step forward, but two steps backward.

     

  • Niger Delta activist seeks true federalism, equity

    Niger Delta activist seeks true federalism, equity

    A Niger Delta activist and President of Okrika community in River State, George Olugwe, has advised the Federal Government to ensure true federalism and equity.

    He also urged the government to set aside employment quota for Niger Delta indigenes.

    According to him, this is the only solution to the lingering problem.

    He also suggested establishment of schools and skills training centres to empower the people and declared that the problem in the region is one that cannot be solved through force or counter-violence.

    On infrastructure, he said the road network in the region is very poor. He cited the East-West road that leads Port Harcourt to Lagos through the Midwest, which has been abandoned over a year ago. He also mentioned Eleme junction to Akwa Ibom State, which has become a death trap, wondering why this should be so, while the resources of the region is been used to develop other regions. He concluded that this is what has resulted in the agitations and the recent violent blowing up of oil pipelines by the Niger Delta Avengers to drive home their demands.

    .  He advocated a continuation of the amnesty programme and said the only notable activity going on in the region in recent time is the clean-up exercise in Ogoni land. Olugwu Advised the government to create entrepreneurship programmes across the area to encourage new innovation and mutual ideas through better understanding, stressing that there cannot be progress unless there of

    On government’s plan to cite the NLNG Dry Dock in Badagry and the Petroleum Institute in Kaduna because of high level vandalism in the Niger Delta, Olugwe said nobody can work in a hostile environment and advised the militants to sheathe their swords and embrace dialogue.

  • True federalism, key to progress

    Sir, the issue of revenue allocation has remained contentious over the years. The struggles to resolve perceived unfairness in resource control and distribution have led to the establishment of commissions upon commissions both before independence and after independence.

    Despite the commissions and decrees, the agitation for true federalism remains popular in our discourse even after the entrenchment of the minimum 13 percent derivation rule in the 1999 constitution.

    True federalism is a system where derivation principle and transparency in given full attention. It is a system that encourages the autonomy of states, especially in the area of resource control.

    The creation of more states supposed to bring government closer to the people, give sense of belonging and speedy development but reverse is the case in Nigeria. In Nigeria, the more states are created, the more imbalance surface, the more the agitation for more states.

    However, state creation has at least spread development further to the nooks and crannies but at unequal pace. It has created more burdens and suffering for Nigerians.

    Two-thirds of the 36 states owe their worker salaries. The state governments are complaining of reduction in the allocation from the centre while the centre is complaining of   the fall in the oil price at the international market.

    This shows the level of states government dependency on the federal government and the blind sight of the nation to other sectors of the economy.

    The implementation of true federalism will reduce this dependency and fast track the struggle for economic diversification. It will create a competitive ground for state to manage its resources and create wealth instead of depending on the federal for allocation.

    With true federalism, the country will no more depend solely on oil because efforts would be made to develop other sectors like agriculture, mining and others.

    The system will resolve the persistent and recurring agitations of various nationality groups for restructuring to improve their positions in the power matrix and resource distribution.

    The consistent and persistent vandalisation of the government property under the guise of agitation by militants like Niger Delta Avengers, MEND among other will reduce.

    Also, the clamour for secession would mellow down because the feeling of marginalisation will disappear. Also, the do or die politics will reduce to the level that will no longer pose threat to our democracy because accessibility to political power at the centre will no longer be seen as means to making money.

     

    • Femi Oluwasanmi,

    Lagos

  • Atiku’s call for workable federalism

    Once again, ex Vice President AbubakarAtiku, two weeks back did what he does best – exploiting the weakness of his political adversaries. Atiku who has no apologies for his shifting party loyalty took advantage of President Buhari’s disdain for politics and politicians, forgetting he did not become President only on account of being ‘Mr Integrity’, a virtue that did not help him in his three previous outings until he learnt to play politics. Atiku deliberately chose to educate Buhari, whose government’s legitimacy is under serious threat by Boko Haram insurgency, Fulani herdsmen and Niger Delta militants that the overriding  objective of politics is the ‘protection of individual sovereignty against political coercers’ haddismissed off handedly the unresolved national question.

    Buhari’s attitude is in character with his predecessors’ in office. He has forgotten that he won election through the support of ethnic groups just as Obasanjo, an imposition of Fulani hegemonic class that distrusted MKO Abiola believed the national question was resolved once he became president, or Jonathan who was only allowed to rule in order to pacify the restive South-south warring groups or even MKO Abiola who on his way to winning election told a reporter  that with his election, there would be no need for a national conference to address the national question. Both Obasanjo and Jonathan resisted the discussion and resolution of the national question.

    Atiku’s call for restructuring has since been echoed by groups such asAfenifere, a Yoruba socio-political organisation, the pan-Igbo umbrella body, the OhanaezeNdigbo, as well as some other credible Nigerians likeChief EmekaAnyaoku, former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and Maj. Gen. Ishola Williams (rtd.), an ex-chairman of the Nigerian chapter of Transparency International who understand a federal structure itself celebrates tribal identities.

    The truth is that patriotic Nigerians including the murdered SaroWiwa who advocated Nigeria’s 16,000 communities and about 350 ethnic groups be restructured into non-federal states are not the enemies of Nigeria but are driven by institutionalization of injustice by our successive leaders. The enemy of society, according to Ade Ajayi, a celebrated African historian and former Vice Chancellorof University of Lagos,‘is not tradition or ethnicity or nationalism but ….those for purely selfish reason and without love of community try to exploit ethnicity, religion or cultural differences to win popular votes, contracts or promotion’. When Obasanjo’s second term bid was threatened, a man who said he is not a Yoruba leader ran back to his Yoruba ethnic group and Jonathan another opponent of restructuring became an ethnic irredentist during his desperate bid for a second term in 2015.

    Injustice is the bane of Nigerian society. The 1954 census put the figure of the dominant ethnic group, the Yoruba in the western region at 76.4percent, Igbo dominant ethnic group in the east at 64.5 percent and Hausa Fulani in the north at 54 percent. The coalition partners ignored the aspirations of 35.5% and 45% of minorities in their region to create region for the 23.6 minority in the opposition region. Insurrection by the Tiv that demanded for self-actualization was violently and brutally suppressed by the coalition partners using the military.

    But with free flow of oil money from the Niger Delta, those who had resisted break up of their regions started scrambling for more states. Generals Babangida and Abacha went on to create more states and LGA funded from federal purse for the north, allegedly allocated 95%of of the oil blocks to northerners  with the support of a few Niger Delta ‘vultures’.  Babangida, Obasanjo and Jonathan sold $100b Nigerian investment for a paltry $1b. These leaders and beneficiaries of injustices visited on the nation are the only people who insist we are good the way we are

    Federalism as ‘a structured institutional approach to political participation, decision making and problem solving’ has been celebrated as the answer to inter-ethnic rivalry and mutual distrusts  by more than half of the world including the US (1787) and most part of Europe after two devastating world wars. In Nigeria, a vigorous debate and negotiation which started during the tenure of Cameron as Governor General of Nigeria (1931-1935) preceded our own federal arrangement designed to promote‘the unity of Nigeria and protect the interest of diverse elements that make up the country’.While Zik conceived it as an efficient method of administration in a multi-ethnic society,Awo saw it ‘as a philosophy of opportunity to enable various ethnic groups progress at their own pace’. And while Awo considered it best for us because‘Nigeria was a geographical expression (Awo, 1948) Balewa believed up to that time‘our unity was a British intention for our country (Balewa, 1947), and Arthur Richard persuaded the British House of Commons that it was  only the accident of British suzerainty which has made Nigeria one country’, (Arthur Richard 1948).The all Nigerian 1950 Ibadan conference recommended a federal system and in 1954 we had a truly federal arrangement. Our new inheritors of power because of greed betrayed the dreams of our founding fathers and returned us to pre 1954 Nigeria.The ongoing crisis of legitimacy and identification by restive groups which are results of injustice is therefore the challenge facing Buhari and his APC.

    And restructuring is by far cheaper than our current experiences or the uncertainties that lie ahead. It is the cheapest way to fight corruption because there would be no money to steal at the centre. It is the cheapest way to checkmate the menace of Fulani herdsmen because local communities are best at protecting their communities. Instead of some groups trying to impose their values on others, South-south, controlling its own resources will force its leaders to confront its own demons. It will allow zones threatened by desertification to deploy their youths currently condemned to spending nine months in the forest to planting trees while the food basket zone will be strong enough to protect its borders.

    The fears about the resistance of unviable parasitic new power centresto the dictatorship of old divisional centres are the fears of those benefitting from the current unworkable and wasteful system. They include traditional rulers collecting five percentfrom allocation made from Abuja, the local council councillor that built houses after two years in office, the commissioners,ministers and potential governors.

    Just as federal structure is a symbol of our pluralism at the centre, so it will be at the new geo-political zones. And just as Abuja will no more distribute resources itdoes not generate, the new centres will only provide broad policy outlines. They will similarly not carry the burden of wayward constituent units. Edo State in South-south with a resourceful leader payingN25,000 as against N18,000 minimum wage without default will not carry the burden of Bayelsa that is unable to pay its teachers despite earning in one month of what Edo earns in a year. Lagos, going outside to other states to lease land for agriculture, create jobs and guarantee food security for its citizens or Ogun State embarkingon investment drive that will lead to the building of two airports and three sea ports will not carry the burden of Ekiti whose governor’s idea of governance isto be accompanied to open market to buy imported fish and cow skin by hailing thugs and ‘okada’ riders who should be in farm, or an oil-producing state like Ondo thatcannot pay its workers.

    Restructuring and devolution of powers which are far cheaper than what we have experienced since the derailment of our federal structure by ill-informed military who still don’t understand that compromise rather than force is best in managing a multi-ethnic society will put an end to injustice by ensuring everyone sucks his mother’s breast.

  • Federalism this time!

    Nigeria’s need for a federal system gains stridency… and even urgency once again

    If there was any issue the Nigerian political elite may be agreed upon today, it is the need for the country to return to the federal system in the organisation of the polity. This structure in its basic form, means a transfer of more powers from the centre to the federating units. It also presupposes that each unit would generate its sufficiency according to its capacity; paying only stipulated taxes to the centre.

    This political structure was in practice at independence during the First Republic. The four regions that made up the Federal Republic of Nigeria were semi-autonomous – harnessing and controlling all resources in their various regions. This was changed by the emergent military leadership of post-Nigeria’s civil war.

    Succeeding governments – military and civilian alike – having experienced the immense powers inherent in a centralised system have since balked at returning to the norm – federalism. Decrees and even the constitution have accommodated what was an aberration or at best, a war time exigency.

    However, it must be noted that at every turn in the evolution of post-war Nigeria, there have continued to be calls and indeed agitations for a return to true federalism in Nigeria. For instance, this unrelenting quest, especially in the oil-producing Niger Delta area which came in the guises of resource control and derivation formula, gave rise to the 13 per cent derivation fund which currently accrues to the oil-producing states.

    Again, it seems that in the last few decades, each time the country found herself at the edge of the cliff, calls for restructuring gained stridency. And at each occasion, it ended with the convoking of one form of national conference or the other. The last such confab was in 2014 by the Goodluck Jonathan administration. It was at a point when the country had once again been dragged to the nadir of her very existence and there ensued a frantic search for fresh options.

    Today, the cry for restructure has erupted once again and each day, it seems to notch up a decibel. A few days ago, the call again resonated from a quarter that was bound to raise eyebrows and the tenor of the intervention was most unsettling, to say the least.

    It is no less a personage than former vice president, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who is also a top-notch of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). His statement did not only make headlines, one national newspaper described it as “Atiku’s bombshell”.

    And it proved to be nothing less. Hear him: “Again we come back to the same economic challenges that are facing the country but we also have a leadership that is not prepared to learn from the past and a leadership that is also not prepared to lead.”

    Atiku raised most of the well-known points about leaner Federal Government, autonomy for component states/units, resource control, the need for state police and more. Though some have dismissed his call, especially at this time, as smacking of political opportunism just as some may not consider him a man of high ideals, but he seems to have broken the dam.

    Many eminent Nigerians seem to have suddenly woken up to an urgent need to restructure the polity following on Atiku’s heels. Chief Emeka Anyaoku, former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth reiterated his position, having made the call twice this year.

    Other notable Nigerians singing same chorus are: Alhaji Balarabe Musa, former governor of Kaduna State and a respected elder of the north; a former legislator in the Second Republic, Dr. Junaid Mohammed as well as two current ones, Senators Ali Ndume and Shehu Sani.

    The Ohaneze Ndigbo, and Afenifere, the two major socio-cultural organisations of two of Nigeria’s major tribes – Igbo and Yoruba – had a stand. They pegged theirs on the need for the incumbent president, Muhammadu Buhari, to go through the route of Jonathan’s confab report.

    However, apart from what seems like a whiff of opportunism as has been suggested in some quarters, many are of the opinion that the nation is too fractured right now to embark on such fundamental, if not earth-moving changes. It is considered by this group that there is need to get the nation back on track first.

    President Buhari, the man at the centre of it does not seem to have in his agenda, any major re-jig of what he has inherited. That may be typical, some say. No Nigerian man at the helm ever rose to that level of ‘nobility’. If Number One nursed such thoughts, he never let it out. In fact the president  was utterly dismissive of the Jonathan confab during a recent interview.

    But this newspaper has always canvassed for the restructure of the polity as the grand solution to the numerous woes afflicting the nation. Federalism is a system that has been tried and tested even in the best and biggest democracies like U.S, India, Canada and Malaysia. It is the way to go and we dare say that any leader who manages to stir the country back on this track may earn the singular honour of being remembered as father of modern Nigeria.