The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Federalism

  • Onumah triggers discourse on federalism

    Onumah triggers discourse on federalism

    Journalist and human rights activist Chido Onumah is out with a new book, We Are All Biafrans.

    This book, published by Parrésia Publishers Ltd, seeks to trigger the debate that will eventually nudge Nigerians towards kick-starting the process of a genuine re-invention of Nigeria.

    A staunch advocate of federalism in its proper sense, Onumah, in his book, raises fundamental questions: What is Nigeria and who is a Nigerian? If Nigeria is a federal republic, what constitutes or should constitute the federating units?

    As he did in his previous books, he makes a case for the socio-political restructuring of Nigeria, while arguing that the country needs to engage episodic political convulsions that threaten its very foundation, including Biafra, June 12, Boko Haram, the “National Question”, citizenship rights, and “militocracy”.

    Onumah, who is also a blogger and Coordinator of the African Centre for Media and Information Literacy, posits that the different manifestation of Biafra may well be a metaphor and, to that extent, ‘’we are all Biafrans as long as we seek to confront the clear and present danger’’.

    The book will be formerly presented at the Yar’adua Centre, Abuja by Parrésia Publishers Ltd and AFRICMIL in partnership with Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Foundation on Tuesday, May 31. The event is expected to draw Nigerians from all walks of life and is billed as a platform to reinforce the debate about federalism and national reconciliation.

    ‘’ The book is  a compilation of my articles published in traditional and online newspapers in the last three years (2013 to 2016), is divided into five chapters’’.

    It is focusing on the crisis of nationhood in Nigeria. It has five chapters, namely: “The Politics of 2015”, “Dancing on the Brink”, “Unmaking Nigeria”, “Of Scoundrels and Statesmen”, and “Last ‘Missionary’ Journey”.

     

     

  • NUPENG urges true federalism

    NUPENG urges true federalism

    The Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG)  says the solution to the national economic woes lies in practising true federalism.

    The union stated that the solution to non-payment of salaries in states and local governments ‘’is for us to go back to true federalism where every state will generate its revenue and pay salaries instead of relying solely on monthly federal allocation’’.

    In a statement by the union’s President, Comrade Igwe Achese, he said NUPENG believes that the states and local governments should be allowed to control their resources with a clear definition of Federal Government projects.

    “It reiterates that the current structure of states and local governments depending on federal allocation for their survival negates the principles of true federalism,” he said.

    He said the  solution to the economic challenges is for the states and local governments have independence on the revenues generated and accruing to their domain  to pay salaries and execute  projects , adding that there should be an interface with the Federal government on their projects.

    “The union stresses that for democracy to have meaning and end the sufferings of the masses, we have to entrench true federalism in our system.

    “The union states that the internally generated revenue of states is often not accounted for or judiciously used and it would not be the case when true federalism is in operation,” Achese said.

    He added that true federalism would eliminate wastages, in the IGR system, as the laissez faire attitude would not be there, adding that efforts will be geared towards revenue generation to pay salaries, debts and finance projects.

  • ‘Nigeria needs true federalism’

    Bishop of the Calabar Diocese of the Anglican Communion Rev Tunde Adeleye has said the Biafra issue would not have come up, if true federalism was in force in the country.

    Speaking with reporters in Calabar, he said: “If you have been listening to me over the years, you will note that if my suggestion was carried out by Nigeria, nobody would ask for any republic.

    “What we need in Nigeria is true federalism. I will continue to say it until God will make us do it. The issue of Biafra would not have come up. They would have been minding their business.

    “But Nigeria’s centre is too attractive and too powerful. Federalism gives power to the people to govern themselves. The centre is too attractive and powerful and until we do something about it, other people would keep asking for theirs.

    “The truth is that I don’t agree with the people talking about the Republic of Biafra. But I would plead with the Federal Government to listen to what they are saying, because it can explode.”

  • Mimiko: true federalism not negotiable

    Mimiko: true federalism not negotiable

    Ondo State Governor Olusegun Mimiko has reaffirmed the Southwest’s commitment to the enthronement of true federalism.

    The governor said this at the Oil and Environment Summit, organised by the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources in Akure.

    He said the summit with the theme, “Federalism, Oil and the Environment: Whither Nigeria,” will enable stakeholders contribute to the development of the oil sector.

    He urged oil companies to imbibe the right attitude in making the environment safer and cleaner for everyone.

    Represented by the Secretary to the State Government, Dr. Aderotimi Adelola, the governor reiterated the state’s commitment to waste management.

    He called for private sector involvement to harness advanced technology, noting that infrastructural and urban renewal programmes were geared towards making the environment conducive for human habitation.

    Commissioner for Environment Sola Ebiseni said the summit was to enable stakeholders deliberate on overcoming challenges associated with oil exploration and operation of oil companies in their host companies.

    He emphasised the need to ensure there was balance in the distribution of proceeds from the resources.

    A member of the House of Representatives, representing Ilaje/Ese Odo, Victor Akinjo, observed that man must be ahead of the environment, with a vital role to play in protecting the environment.

  • 42 Igbo groups to march for true federalism

    Arrangements have been concluded for 42 Igbo organisations to march for the restructuring of the Nigerian polity. The planned five million man march will hold in the five South-East states in the month of December 2015.

    Disclosing this after a marathon meeting with Igbo Traders Organisations at the IYM Secretariat in Enugu this weekend, the Founder of Igbo Youth Movement (IYM), Evang. Elliot Uko, said the13 marches for restructuring Nigeria will hold in Afikpo, Abakaliki, Nsukka, Enugu, Aba, Umuahia, Ohafia, Okigwe, Owerri, Orlu, Onitsha, Nnewi and Awka.

    Uko said, these peaceful marches will be led by the Clergy and students groups in each of the cities and towns in the South-East.

    Asked to comment on the meeting of South East Governors and Igbo leaders this weekend, Uko said the current developments are beyond political interest and considerations of any individual or office holder, maintaining that only the truth can save the situation and the truth is that Nigeria must be urgently restructured in order to give all sections a sense of belonging thereby enthroning true federalism without delay; any other solution will not work.

    South-South groups that attended the meeting in Enugu included: Union of Niger Delta and South-South Youth Congress.

     

  • The increasing call for true federalism

    The increasing call for true federalism

    Had both the North-East and the North-West, for instance, synergised earlier via economic cooperation, they  would probably have achieved so much that terrorism and Boko Haram  would have been a most unlikely phenomenon in those areas, and, ipso facto, in Nigeria as a whole.

    “For me, Amaechi killed off ALL and EVERY allegation against him when he not only said he was NOT indicted anywhere in the panel’s report.

    So sure-footed was he that he offered to lay the report before the senate. But convinced of his sincerity, the senate did not as much as ask him to. What this means, in essence, is that Amaechi should wait a few weeks more  till  Wike hopefully gets booted out of office, to sue him for concocting a white paper that has no basis, whatever, to have so maliciously slandered him. Today, Amaechi demonstrated again, why he proved to be such a roaring success in public service: a 2-term Speaker, 2-term governor- both of Rivers State – 2-term chairman, Nigeria Governors’ Forum, and Director-General of the first-ever campaign in Nigeria to boot out a sitting president awash, not only with dollars, but an entire state security apparatti that was nothing but an arm of his political party. I am exceedingly proud of Amaechi, and, like Fayemi, I am sure he will leave his name in gold whatever ministry it pleases President Buhari to deploy him to.” – My comments on ekitipanupo on 22 October, 2015.

    Suspecting that some of my readers, on reading last week’s article: ‘Chief Olu Falae:

    Matters Arising’, (Sunday, 17 October, 2015), might have been led to believe that I do not subscribe to restructuring, I present, today, one of  the many  rticles I have written in support of the subject on these pages. My point of divergence from Afenifere’s position on it is that it is wrong to hang around such a crucial issue, any iota of political opportunism, like they did in 2014, intending thereby, to sell themselves to President Jonathan by coyly attempting to gift him two extra years, or if that failed, at least make his candidature attractive in Yoruba land and thus facilitate his re-election. As God would have it, the then president, a minority Ijaw, who should ordinarily have jumped at the offer, did not even as much as make the CONFAB a campaign issue. Only Afenirere attempted to, unsuccessfully. Meanwhile, they had not only tampered with the official nominees of some state governors, as happened in Ekiti where they surreptitiously manipulated the inclusion of another person to replace the governor’s initial nominee, they also allegedly  concocted the inclusion of all manner of interest groups whose representatives’ nomination they influenced  in many cases, resulting in husbands and wives becoming members.

    The increasing call for true federalism -15 July, 2012 I have had this running dialogue with my very good friend, Antony A. Sani, Publicity Secretary of the Arewa Consultative Forum (A C F), who sees any talk of regional economic integration or any effort at canvassing true federalism as nothing but a façade for ethnic nationalism that I could not but shout hurray when in recent times, very important voices from the north have come out loudly in support of both. In an article titled: ‘The State Of The Nigerian Nation’, by Alhaji Ahmed Joda, like former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar at the recent Leadership Governor of the Year award ceremony,  lent a ringing support  to the drive towards true federalism.

    Wrote Joda: ‘Our country has passed through difficult times, including a civil war and has survived. We must, however, not ascribe the fact of our survival to anything like military might; rather it was because ordinary Nigerians overwhelmingly desire to live together in one united country but under some acceptable arrangement. It is clear from all we are passing through that there is a sufficient body of opinion around the country that the present arrangement is not adequate and needs to be discussed further.’ In his own remarks at the Awards on September 18, 2012, former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, not only called for true federalism, he regretted not supporting former Vice-President Alex Ekwueme’s  earlier call for the creation of six semi-autonomous regions affirming that Dr Ekwueme obviously saw what some of  them did not at the time. There is, he said, too much concentration of power and resources at the centre which is stifling Nigeria’s march to greatness and threatening its unity because of  the abuses, inefficiencies, corruption and reactive tensions over-centralisation generates.”

    Without a doubt, suggested ways of achieving this have been as divergent as there are calls for it. While some have called for a Sovereign National Conference, Alhaji Ahmed Joda fears that it could be a recipe for disintegration. He, nonetheless, agrees that we need to urgently restructure in order to safeguard the country’s future, whether as a unit or under some other form of arrangement concluding that it is better to face the issues frontally now, and  discuss them frankly in an open forum  in order to come up with solutions that can ensure peaceful  co-existence. His preferred model is the establishment, by an act of the National Assembly, of a Constituent Assembly whose members will be elected on a zero- party basis, and would have full powers to comprehensively review the Constitution. He is insistent there should be no representation for special interests apparently because of the abuses this could lead to.  He also suggested that serving members of any legislative body should be ineligible just as interested public servants should resign their posts and contest.

    With these views from respected Nigerians of northern extraction, it should be expected that opponents of true federalism will go back and re-learn their history of Nigeria to understand how, in the First Republic, regional autonomy galvanized national development through positive inter-regional competition.

    This, incidentally, was a theme which featured prominently in the Keynote Address by the Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi, at the recent National Convention of Egbe Omo Yoruba (National Association of Yoruba Descendants in North America),  in Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

    Many of the things he mentioned as developments in the Southwest, if not all, were replicated in both the North and the East. During that period, he revealed, the government led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo established the first TV and Radio Station in Sub-Saharan Africa, built Cocoa House, Ibadan, as well as the University of Ife, now Obafemi Awolowo University, all from funds  sourced from cocoa and coffee.  The government also introduced the free primary education programme which till date, has put the South-West in good stead politically, educationally and economically. In like manner, great institutions like the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, built from funds realised from groundnut, and the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, were established in the North and the East, respectively. Our unity in diversity was subsequently thrashed by the military, with far reaching consequences among which is the fact that we lost  that positive, and pro development, inter-regional competition with all  its advantages, heconcluded.

    Today, however, there remains a glimmer of hope; a window of opportunity which is to now re-engineer the country by properly restructuring it towards true federalism which will, once again, encourage development in the various geo-political zones, remove our atavistic politics of the control of the centre and facilitate the country’s cohesion.

    Unfortunately, but not surprising, opposition to restructuring is still unrelenting in some parts of the North. Indeed, so enervating has opposition to regional integration and true federalism become that

    I once responded to Tony Sani as follows: ‘These things are about perspectives, and a pointer to each group’s preferred developmental paradigm. For the status quoists, what is on ground is the best. But for majority Yoruba, stronger regional groupings will make for a much stronger, more peaceful and equitable country. Had both the North-East and the North-West, for instance, synergised earlier via  economic cooperation, they  would probably have achieved so much that terrorism and Boko Haram  would have been a most unlikely phenomenon in those areas, and, ipso facto, in Nigeria as a whole. While Europe and the Americas are synergising, and forging economic cooperation, I remain perpetually surprised at your angst against regional economic cooperation as a way of maximising development, and catalysing national development and cohesion’.

    Today, I feel certain that my friend will, sooner than later, bow to a development (restructuring) whose time has come and for which leading lights in the north are beginning to lend their support.

  • Too late in the campaign to ‘talk federalism’?

    Too late in the campaign to ‘talk federalism’?

    What is wrong is for Yoruba groups to confuse the demand of the Yoruba for restoration of federalism with the recommendations of the 2014 national conference convened by President Jonathan.

    With apology to my other readers, this column today will focus on persistent questions in the last few days from my politically-charged readers about the place of federalism in a presidential campaign that is supposed to be about good governance, anti-corruption, national security, employment, etc.

    On ‘why it is the Yoruba people that are shouting loudest about federalism this close to the presidential election,’ there is nothing wrong with any nationality or region choosing to introduce an issue or agenda that is of significance to it at any time during the campaign. The Yoruba have been in the forefront of the demand for restoration of federalism since Alao Aka-Bashorun popularised the phrase ‘Political Restructuring’ of Nigeria and Chief Enahoro’s Movement for National Reformation, NADECO, and PRONACO included the matter of sovereign national conference in the list of demands during and after the struggle against the last phase of military dictatorship. In another sense, it is conceivable that the absence of federalism has thrown up such problems as corruption, unemployment, lack of security, etc.

    There is also nothing wrong with Yoruba political or socio-cultural groups choosing to bring the issue of federalism into the campaign at this point. In fact, to not do so now is not to be sufficiently honest with the next administration, regardless of who wins the election. What is wrong is for Yoruba groups to confuse the demand of the Yoruba for restoration of federalism with the recommendations of the 2014 national conference convened by President Jonathan. Even President Jonathan himself said several times that he did not convene the conference to gain any political advantage but to provide a platform for a national dialogue. This may be why President Jonathan had not campaigned on the strength of his involvement in the campaign in regions other than the Southwest until his supporters in the Yoruba region sponsored special campaign events on the conference.

    That other concerned citizens and groups (such as the Yoruba Assembly) have joined the fray of discussing federalism almost on the eve of the presidential election is also in order. It is important for the two presidential candidates to be made aware of minimalist and maximalist positions on the matter of federalism and to know the difference between those who are clamouring for devolution of a few administrative functions and those who seek fundamental changes in the sharing of power and responsibilities among federating units and the central government. It is proper for each of the presidential candidates to know the specific demands of each of the constituent units of the country, ahead of voting and assumption of power. Electoral democracy is not only about those seeking power to present a programme of action to the electorate, it also allows citizens to bring their own programmes to the attention of those seeking to govern them. Thus, bringing the issue of federalism back to the table at this time is in order.

    What is out of order is for any group to claim that the recommendations of the 2014 national conference represents what the Yoruba want in 2015 and beyond. That two Yoruba groups plan to meet on the same day (one in Lagos and another in Ibadan) to push the matter of federalism into the campaign rhetoric is not unusual. The Afenifere and its supporters have a right to sell the Jonathan conference to voters, but they are wrong to say that the recommendations from the conference represent what the Yoruba want from the next political dispensation. Nothing is also amiss about the Yoruba Assembly, an organisation that has championed in the last few years the call for genuine federalism, to remind Yoruba people about which programmes to push to the table of the next president and the next legislature, as no president can unilaterally restore federalism.

    The Yoruba Assembly must let voters know the views of Yoruba self-determination groups on recommendations of the 2014 national dialogue, as stated by its promoters below:

    “States can now create employment and develop their own states. Each state can have its own constitution, its own police force, can have its own prison service, can create its own local governments and in addition, in the economic domain, solid minerals that had been the exclusive preserve of the federal government since independence, have now been brought to the concurrent list; creation ofself-funding regional institutions” in order to encourage developmental efforts among cooperating states”

    a.           Creation of  Self-funding Regional Institutions among Cooperating States

    Recommending a self-funding economic agency without fiscal federalism that gives the power to raise revenue for development at the sub-national level is nothing more than self-deception. A country in which the states or federating units depend on allocation from the centre cannot call itself a federal system. None of the federations in the world: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirate, and the U.S.A., operates on the model of state dependency on allocations from the centre recommended by the 2014 national conference. A self-funding regional institution is another bureaucracy to occlude the removal of the power of sub-national governments to generate revenue for its own development and pass some of such revenue to the central government for national projects.

    b.           States as “federating Units” that can have their own Constitutions

    Insisting that existing states are federating units without giving any consideration to economic viability of such units is to deliberately endorse the erosion by military dictators over the years of the political structure and government system upon which the peoples of Nigeria obtained independence as one country in 1960. It should be left to a plebiscite in each state to determine if it wants to join other contiguous states to form a region or remain as discrete units with constitutions. What is the use of the power of writing a constitution given to a state that has to go the central government for monthly allocation? What is significance of a suffocating federal presence in each state for citizens’ human and civil rights and good governance?  For example is Ekiti State today, where we now have 6 legislators in control of the State Assembly as the majority while the remaining 17 are considered minority because the centre is supporting that abnormality, a federating unit or a subjugated one? It will be an insult to the memory of Chief Obafemi Awolowo for any group to say that the recommendations from the conference have complied with the federal system that Chief Awolowo practiced in Western Region and upon which he struggled to demand improvement in his writings.

    c.            Each State can create its own Local government.

    If the central government will retain and disburse all the funds for local governments, it is dishonest to say that the power to create local governments at the state level is a gain in the direction of federalism. The reluctance to move away from the structure imposed by military dictators instead of returning to the autonomy of each state to fund its local governments is what makes the 2014 national conference a distraction that must not be passed to the next administration by Jonathan or Buhari. This represents further distortion of the federal system.

    d.           State Police

    State police is a consequence and not the cause of federalism as supporters of the Jonathan Conference want people in the Yoruba region to believe. Right now, states depend almost entirely on federal allocations to pay their workers’ salaries. State police is to be funded from received allocations at the same time that the number of states is to move to 54. We have also been told that the allocation accruing to the centre is reduced by 10%. But the increase in the number of states would have already made nonsense of the increase to states, as 54 states (rather than 36) would still share the new percentage of allocation to states. Reducing or increasing the amount of allocations is not fiscal federalism by any stretch of imagination. Such determinations are precisely what is wrong with the unitary system the Jonathan conference has ‘panel beaten’. Fiscal federalism proceeds from the shared control of economic and fiscal policies by national and sub-national governments.

    Nigeria before and after elections needs contestation of ideas to improve governance of the country. The Yoruba Assembly should have no apology for challenging exaggerations about the significance of the 2014 national dialogue.

  • Vote for true federalism

    Vote for true federalism

    SIR: It might be a popular cliché but very apt today. Some may assume otherwise because of the seemingly vast natural resources, but it is in the best interest of every region in Nigeria to see this country work and prosper as one corporate entity.

    As the political drums beat louder, some people are threatening fire and brimstone if their candidate does not produce the next president. Others are saying it will be the end of Nigeria and all sorts of myopic, sentimental views.

    Just like the United States of America, the United Arab Emirates and Great Britain, the 36 states of Nigeria need each other to thrive and excel as a big economy. This present system of government is tailored solely for survival, which breeds under-development, corruption, nepotism, parochial, ethnic and chauvinistic tendencies.

    More so, just like the USA, the UAE and Great Britain, we can have a new country that will be called GREAT NIGERIA with a new constitution based on true federalism to the letter.

    As all the past leaders are Nigerians, yet we are not there yet and we are not expecting aliens to come and govern us someday, then we need a better system of true federalism more than we need better persons. The default settings of most humans is to do things wrongly, but a system in place can effectively help them to do things right. More than any other country in the world, Nigeria is the perfect fit for true federalism due to our unrivalled diversity. True federalism is the system that will make this unrivalled diversity a great strength rather than a great weakness as presently manifesting.

    Another name for true federalism is ‘live and let live’. A good system like a car or computer does not need a genius to operate it. Why do we practice democracy if we cannot apply it to the letter like those we copy are doing it? Why do we go the journey half way when we can go full way? Why is it that Nigerians travel abroad and obey all the laws but come back home and flout all the laws? Likewise expatriates in Nigeria? I believe the answers to these questions are the answers to a better Nigeria.

    With this present system, our strengths have become weaknesses. Rather than stand on 36 strong pillars, we are standing on just one weak pillar. Therefore, we need to reverse this tide as a nation by restructuring and practising true fiscal federalism in all ramifications. This should be the agenda of priority for the next political dispensation because it will go a long way in effectively addressing corruption and the mindset of the people and government of Nigeria.

     

    • Ikponmwosa Eriamiantoe,

    W.I.S.E Group, Maitama, Abuja.

  • Fiscal federalism at the National Conference

    Fiscal federalism at the National Conference

    This article by me on fiscal federalism was first published in this paper in May. It was a preview of the emerging controversy at the National Conference over resource control. There is now a complete deadlock at the conference between the North and the Southsouth delegations on the issue.

    As was widely expected, and as I observed in my column in this paper a few weeks ago, the issue of fiscal federalism is proving to be a hard nut to crack at the National Conference. It is still being debated at the committee level and it was reported that the committee had agreed tentatively on the reduction of the federal share of the national revenue by some 10 per cent to be distributed among the states and local governments. But there were press reports also last week that the northern delegation had circulated a 47-page position paper at the conference rejecting all claims to oil resources by the oil producing states, particularly in the Delta region. Specifically, the position paper is demanding that all minerals, including oil, should remain under the exclusive list of the Federal Government and that the previous dichotomy on offshore and onshore revenues be restored.

    In effect, the northern delegation is giving notice in advance that it will oppose the principle of derivation as the basis for sharing the national revenue, particularly the oil revenue, which accounts for over 80 per cent of the total national revenue. The North’s position is evidently an opening gambit in what is going to be a very contentious issue at the conference. After all, the oil-bearing states already receive 13 per cent of the oil revenue in partial recognition and acceptance of derivation as a principle that cannot be totally ignored in revenue sharing.

    There has so far been no official response from the oil-bearing states to this northern position paper. But it can be assumed that the oil-bearing states, particularly in the Niger Delta, will vehemently reject the North’s  position on the issue as totally unacceptable. They can expect support from the Southeast. But the position of the Southwest on this issue is not altogether clear. For reasons of political expediency, the Southwest delegation is refraining from taking a position openly. But it should, as a matter of principle, take a position, and not wait for the North and Southsouth delegations to slug it out between themselves. After all, the outcome of the dispute will have  financial consequences for the Southwest too. At the Obasanjo Reform Conference of 2005, the Southwest delegates were willing to support an increase of additional revenue for the oil states from 13 per cent to 19 per cent, but this modest increase was rejected out of hand by the delegation from the Southeast and Southsouth, which insisted on nothing less than 25 per cent of the total oil revenue. It was on that dispute that the 2005 Conference broke down completely.

    The irony of the present dispute over revenue sharing is that until 1966 when the military seized power, revenue sharing among the three regions was based on 50 per cent derivation. This was generally acceptable to all the parties concerned and was in conformity with the principle of revenue sharing in a truly federal system. But all this was before oil revenue became so dominant in the total national revenue. Before independence in 1960, the British colonial power took a great care to ensure that all frictions on revenue sharing were resolved. Between 1946 and 1958, the four commissions set up by the departing colonial power recommended that 50 per cent of total revenue be shared on the principle of derivation, that 35 per cent be shared by the regions, and only 15 per cent to the Federal Government.  In fact, in 1964, after independence, the Binn Commission reduced the allocation of the Federal Government from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. This was the basis of revenue sharing among the federal and regions before the military seized power in 1966.

    Under the military, the share of the Federal Government in total revenue was progressively increased. Oil had become a major factor in national revenue. The process of the erosion of the principle of derivation for revenue sharing began with the military Decree 13 of 1970, which reduced by 5 per cent the revenue shared on the basis of derivation. In addition, the decree transferred all the revenue from off shore oil wells to the Federal Government. Between 1976 and 1979, the military regime reduced by a further 20 per cent, the revenue distributable on the basis of derivation. In 1981, the Shagari regime made a further reduction of 20 per cent on revenue sharing on the basis of derivation. With this, revenue distributable on the basis of derivation fell from 50 per cent at independence to only 5 per cent. When the military returned to power in 1984, revenue sharing on the basis of the principle of derivation was further reduced to 1.5 per cent. It should also be noted that virtually all the leaders of the military regimes, except the Obasanjo regime, who undermined the principle of derivation as the basis for the sharing of the national revenue, were from the North. This further complicated the problem, as most of the oil is located in the Delta region. In 1992 the Babangida military regime decided that the share of the Federal Government in national revenue would be 48.5 per cent, the states 24 per cent, the local governments 20 per cent and the balance of 7.5 per cent was to be held by the Federal Government as special fund. In effect, the total share of the Federal Government in the national revenue, over 80 per cent of which is from oil exports, was 56 per cent.

    Now, this is a massive negation of the principle of derivation and of fiscal federalism. It is totally unacceptable and the oil-bearing states are right in demanding a drastic review of the existing formula on revenue allocation as it hurts the financial viability of the states (37) and local governments (774) very badly. While the Federal Government  gets over 56 per cent of the total revenue, the states get less than 1 per cent each and the local governments even less. The issue is not even about the financial profligacy, or massive corruption of the Federal Government, or its colossal financial mismanagement. The issue is that this imbalance in revenue sharing between the states and the Federal Government has been a persistent source of friction between them, as it places the other tiers of government in the federation in an invidious situation of having to rely on the Federal Government for financial bail outs. This runs counter to the principle of fiscal federalism, which should be based on the recognition that both the Federal Government and the federating states are co-ordinates, equal in all respects to one another.

    It is in the interest of the states for the Federal Government’s share of the national revenue to be reduced so that individually all the states, including the northern states, can get more from the total national revenue. The position of the northern delegation is obviously based on political expediency, on the expectation that power will revert to the North in 2015. If the situation was reversed, and most of the oil was located in the North, there is no doubt that the northern delegation would insist on the principle of derivation as the basis for revenue sharing.

    However, there is one issue on which the littoral oil-bearing states stand on a weak wicket. It is that of their claim to offshore oil as well as onshore oil. These states cannot legitimately claim exclusive ownership of offshore oil, the proceeds of which should be shared by both the states and the Federal Government. This position was affirmed at the UN Law of the Sea Conference of 1982 in which I participated when I was Ambassador at the UN and which the northern delegation referred to in their position paper. The littoral oil-bearing states cannot claim 50 per cent of the revenue accruing from offshore oil as offshore resources belong to the entire country and should be shared equally among them. Neither can the Federal Government claim exclusive ownership of revenue from offshore oil. After all, without the states there can be no Federal Government. There is no provision in the convention agreed at the UN Law of the Sea Conference vesting total ownership of offshore oil in the Federal Government.

    It should be possible for these huge differences over revenue sharing to be resolved at the conference. What is needed all round is compromise and a spirit of give and take on all sides in the overall interest of the nation.

     

  • How close is Nigeria to federalism? (3)

    How close is Nigeria to federalism? (3)

    If the South is to take care of environmental challenges resulting from oil and gas exploitation, why can the North not find solutions to the problem of diminishing land for cattle grazing in the North?

    We concluded last week’s piece on the note that the North’s desire to make the current Centralism the defining character of the Nigerian State encouraged it to present a position paper that views the North as the major shareholder of the Nigerian State while the former Eastern and Western regions are minor shareholders. We added that constructing Nigeria as a space occupied by main and minor owners is, more likely than not, capable of threatening the national unity that the North seems eager to sustain.

    Just about every page of the 46-page paper on “Northern Nigeria: The Back Bone and Strength of Nigeria” is marked by inflation of the self (the North) and deflation of the other (the South). The major motifs celebrate the North as the sole financier of Nigeria as a whole and of the South in particular. This self-adulation makes it easy for the North to claim that Nigeria is using the demand for resource control to victimize it, in order not to show appreciation for what the paper called the willingness of the North to sacrifice its own interests for the development of Nigeria: “The North sacrifices in resources and human life to develop the oil industry, and protect the Niger Delta from total eclipsing by the protagonist of the Biafra contraption.”

    Claiming further that the contribution of petroleum to Nigeria’s economy is exaggerated, the North wants the country to remember that its contribution to agriculture is more substantial than the funds allocated to the region from petroleum earnings. For example, it claims that the funds allocated to the region’s largest state, Kano, come to an average of N462 per person per month and that it is other self-generated “sources that provide the bulk of the revenue for sustenance than the revenue received from the Centre.” If Kano is able to generate more revenue than what it takes from the Federation Account, perhaps, the North needs to re-examine its opposition to federalism. Most proponents of federalism base their argument on the premise that subnational governments are in a better position to bring development to citizens.

    With respect to contributions to the economy of the country and of states, figures for 2005 available at the Federal Ministry of Finance demonstrate that no other activity brings as much to the Federation Account as petroleum: 88.1% of revenue to the Federation Account came from mineral resources during the first four months of 2005. If this figure is accurate, this shows that the contribution to the federation account is not exaggerated and counters the North’s claim about “fallacious assumption that oil is the major contributor to the national income.” The North also needs to examine some other points about federal allocation to states. For example, in November 2013 revenue allocation to the regions is as follows: North West N28,330.739.1; North East N21,366.583.3; North Central N25,935,033.7 with the North earning 56.9% while the South earns N132, 727,401.15 43.02% distributed as follows: SS N19,989.106.9, South East N16, 433.120.2; and South West N20, 672.818.3. In addition, Local governments during the same month in 2013 received the following allocations: North West N34,269,981.8, North East N21,387,387.1, North Central N23,250,883 adding up to N78,908.252.6 2, or 54.9% in contrast to the following allocations to the South: South-South N21,684,502, South East N16,404.741.38, South West N26,856.234.4 with a total of N64,945.477.98 or 45.1%. If these figures from the Federal Ministry of Finance are accurate, then the oil-producing areas are making substantial contribution to the development of the North in a way similar to the North’s claim that it made substantial contributions to the development of the South between 1914 and 1946.

    The North’s desire for further strengthening of the current Centralist constitution, designed to provide additional advantages to the “owner of 80% of the country’s land mass” appears to have forced the North to accommodate a lot of omissions and contradictions in its “Key Issues before the Northern Delegates to the 2014 National Conference.” One of such omission is the North’s claim that it helps the economy of the South by sending cattle to the region. Was the North not paid for the cattle it sent to the South? When the North claims to have contributed cattle tax revenue to the federation account, it must have forgotten that it was the buyers of the cattle sent from the North to the South that paid such taxes, along with the cost of the cattle supplied to the region. A similar omission is the claim by the North that it supplies agricultural produce to the South, as if it gives such produce to the South free of charge.

    One contradiction is the North’s call for an immediate end to all forms of special initiatives for the South: Ministry of Niger Delta, NNDC, at the same time that the North calls for special assistance from the federal government for agriculture in the North. How is the call for special grazing corridors and reserves all over the federation for cattle farmers from the North devoid of special initiatives for the benefit of the North? If the South is to take care of environmental challenges resulting from oil and gas exploitation, why can the North not find solutions to the problem of diminishing land for cattle grazing in the North? Modern animal husbandry methods in other countries have put a stop to any form of nomadic cattle breeding.In addition, the claim by the North that the federal government has abandoned funding for agriculture in the North is not supported by what has been spent on agriculture as parastatals’ expenditures so far in 2014: N17.166.3 million or 57% of total expenditure in contrast to N12.850.1 million or 42.8% in the South. The ratio of expenditures on water resources shows that N12.307.2 million or 62.9% of federal funds has been spent in the North while N7 million or 37.1% has been spent  in the South.

    The North’s demand “that Traditional Rulers should be accorded specific responsibilities with commensurate delegated authority for security management” and for inclusion of “traditional institutions at national, state and local levels in the areas of religion, security, and immigration matters” assumes that Nigeria is no longer neither a secular State nor a Republic. Furthermore, by invoking  the 1999 Constitution to support the North’s claims, the region forgets that it is the flaws in the 1999 constitution that necessitate National Assembly’s efforts to amend the constitution as well as the convening of the ongoing national conference by President Jonathan.

    For the sake of sustaining the country’s unity, it is necessary for all the regions to avoid self-celebration and denigration of other regions in their position papers at a conference that  is charged to find ways to enhance the country’s unity and make it sustainable.