The Nation Newspaper

Tag: National conference

  • National Conference ruse  

    In proposing to convene a National Conference or Conversation, President Goodluck Jonathan is not attempting anything different from what past and now-discredited Nigerian leaders have done.  Former Military President, General Ibrahim Babangida did it; Former Military Head of State, General Sanni Abacha did it; and Former Civilian President Olusegun Obasanjo did it.  President Jonathan is now carving a place for himself among the failed and deceitful Nigerian leaders.

    To the discerning mind, all the conferences and talks had striking similarities.  First, it is no longer debatable that all the conferences referred to above were convened to further hidden and anti-democratic agenda of the convening incumbent.  In the case of Babangida, it was to create booby traps that would ensure an inconclusive transition Programme.  In the case of General Abacha, it was to create a seeming legitimate cover for his ambition to transform from a military Head of State to a Civilian President.  In the case of President Obasanjo, it was to promote and legalise his much-sought after (though often-denied) third term ambition in office.  (In the case of Obasanjo’s conference, it is almost hilarious, if it were not a serious matter,  to note that once the conference would not agree on a third term for the President,  he lost all interest in the conference he convened and never again referred to the work of the conference.)

    Second, the conferences and talks were convened by incumbent leaders who, having denied the need for, and benefits of, a Sovereign National Conference to discuss Nigeria and the fundamental issues that silently but poignantly threaten our unity, peace and progress, suddenly fell in love with the idea of convening these conferences and did a 90 degrees-turn on discovering the potentials of a conference to divert attention and legitimize their ambitions.

    Third, none of the conferences referred to above had the force of law or the force of the will of the people.  The reports and resolutions of the conferences were submitted to other persons and authorities who had the powers to alter them and thereafter give the force of law to aspects found suitable to the agenda of that ratifying authority.

    Thus, President Jonathan is merely playing an old hand as his proposal shares all the dubious features of the conferences gone by.  Is he not the President who, barely one year to general elections, is desperate to turn attention away from his colossal incompetence and failings that has led to unprecedented break down of law and order, tension in the polity and thievery of prized natural resources?  Is he not the President who, not so long ago, described the idea of a National Conference as dead and buried? And has he not, from the very outset, hinted that the conference or conversation will have no binding force at all and will be subjected to his and the National Assembly’s ratification?

    Should we then not be angry and deeply offended?  We should be offended that this administration is attempting to play on our collective intelligence.  Why has the President waited for this long to convene a conference and why convene a conference that has no power to do anything except submit a report that will be subject to the whims and caprice of the President?  If what the president wants is are optional pieces of advice, or a gauge of opinions to guide him, he can achieve that by holding widespread consultations with the different segments of the society without wasting the nation’s time and resources and diverting attention from urgent tasks rather than attempting to insult our collective intelligence by taking us all on a wasteful jamboree?

    We should be offended that this is another attempt to waste our resources and hard-earned tax payers’ money.  We should be angry and offended that the President has, by this laughable attempt, demonstrated his failure and inability to appreciate the enormous fundamental problems that affect and afflict this nation.  We should be angry that he is not aware that the anger and violence on display are outlets for deep-seated distrust for and disaffection with the current structure of government?  We should be angry that he has failed to grasp that the development of this nation has been held back by the failure to truly give the people a voice by convening a Sovereign National Conference backed by law to give a truly legitimate constitution to the people of Nigeria?

    I have always been an advocate of the need to convene not just a National Conference but a Sovereign National Conference because I realise that instead of denying our differences and attempting to force unity through a central government, we ought to discuss how the different ethnic and tribal nationalities will co-exist or if they want to continue to co-exist at all.  This is because, Nigeria, like most African countries, is an artificial creation and this artificial creation will only work if and when the federating units are given the opportunity to sit down to talk and agree on the rules for their co-existence.  The keyword is that the people should decide.

    Any conference that falls short of allowing the people to decide without interference should be rightly regarded as a ruse designed to further some hidden agenda.  To be credible and different from past deceptions, President Jonathan must demonstrate as follows:

    That there is ample and sufficient time for the conference to achieve anything meaningful and to implement the resolutions of the conference between now and the second quarter of 2015 when the term of the current administration must constitutionally end.  Realistically, it is now too late for that.

    That the conference will be all-inclusive and that the participants will be democratically chosen.

    That, the elections scheduled for 2015 will not be affected and that those elected into offices under the present constitution will not be eligible for election into those same offices under any new constitution emerging from the conference, if any.

    That the conference will not be barred from discussing any matter and, in particular, these four fundamentals: devolution of powers from the Federal Government; entrenchment of fiscal federalism, restructuring of the control of the Police Force and extensive electoral reforms.

    That the budget for the conference will not be profligate and capable of being used to ‘settle’ interests in favour of the ruling political party ahead of the 2015 elections.

    That the resolutions of the conference will not be subjected to ratification by the President or any other authority but subjected to ratification by a popular referendum.

    Without satisfying the conditions above, President Jonathan would merely be playing an old hand, consulting an old magic book and attempting to adopt a use-worn method to further his own agenda.  Time is precious, resources are fleeting and there are so many urgent tasks begging for attention than to leave the all-important task of charting Nigeria’s future to an incompetent and opportunistic administration.

  • Jonathan’s National Conference

    President Goodluck Jonathan, no doubt, is learning the ropes of intrigues and duplicity that is politics, in Nigeria. What in local parlance is called: “the more you look, the less you see”. That is to be expected. After all, if he does not know how to play the game, there are the Anenihs, the Ganas, the Nzeribes and other veterans available, to guide him. So, on the last Independence Day anniversary, President Jonathan, craftily spoke the language of an activist, asking Nigerians to brace for a conference/dialogue to challenge the debilitating orthodoxies that hold Nigeria down. He has since followed up, with a committee headed by Senator Femi Okurounmu, who once foreswore that President Jonathan was clueless.

    Many commentators genuinely doubt the sincerity of Mr President in this enterprise, while others have succinctly argued that quite a number of our developmental challenges can be solved without a wasteful conference. These arguments no doubt have their merits. However, it must be appreciated that our problem is more fundamental, and unless and until we summon the courage to deal with the structural contradictions of our political, economic, social and religious superstructures, no President, however well endowed will be able to make the urgently needed change, to move our nation state, onto the super highway to modernity. So the challenge should be, how can patriotic Nigerians use dialogue and the tide of political malcontent, to force the needed changes, if Nigeria as is, will survive.

    That should be the essence of the conference. For to hope that the current or future political actors, benefiting materially from the chaos that governance in Nigeria represents, will be able to detach themselves from the feasting, to proffer and foster the necessary paradigm shift, is a forlorn hope. Take for instance our progressive friends in the national legislature. How many have shown any distaste over the bazaar that our national assembly has turned to, under the guide of the national ruling party? Has anybody any doubt, that it was the attempted split in the Peoples Democratic Party that forced Senator Mark and President Jonathan to turn to activists for national conference. A case of, “if you Daboh me, I will Tarka you style of politics”.

    Now if genuine patriotic elites can mobilise, there is a possibility that with concerted pressure, more concessions or even the needed paradigm shift can be prized out from those currently holding Nigeria to ransom. Now when the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, turns up among the first callers at Bourdillion, the residence of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to pay homage to the leader of the opposition party, upon his return from medical tourism, it is not an act of love. It was a pledge of loyalty and plea for continuous support, without which he will become, a mere Representative, from Sokoto state. So, despite the pretences, the major political actors in their grandstanding are as precarious as the state, and what is needed is enough pressure, to help common sense become common.

    Now, those thinking that mere competence is what is lacking to move Nigeria forward, must ponder on these. Politically, Nigeria is neither a federation nor a unitary state. That, for example, explains the dissonance between calling state Governors the chief security officers of their states, and the constitutional prerogative of the President to send a viceroy, in the name of a Commissioner of Police, to tame any Governor that the President considers a security challenge to his interests. The same incongruity, explains why Nigeria’s President who is governing a country with extreme and tender political plurality, has perhaps the greatest concentration of political power, among the countries practicing the presidential system of government.

    Economically, the monthly gathering of near never-do-well puppies and their mother, called the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), where states gather to share the monthly booty from Niger Delta, is a major pointer to our incredulous economic system. No doubt many of the states, including several in the northern part of the country has enormous potential in human and natural resources to function as a country. Yet, with a misguided constitution and federal status fitfully crafted towards the end of the civil war, our country has come to depend solely on the dwindling hydro-carbon resources of the Niger Delta. The result is that Nigeria has since after the civil war, turned to a mono-economy, at the detriment of our common stability.

    Socially, while the constitution on one hand sell the dummy that, there is no dichotomy as to citizenship under the law, it nevertheless provided in many other instances the privileges arising from one’s state of origin, and also created dichotomies thence from. Furthermore in an attempt to forcefully build centralisation through legislation, the constitution created several behemoths that have made modern governance in Nigeria, a nightmare. One patented criminal outcome of this anomaly is the possibility for a handful of bandits, to corner the national wealth for themselves, as federal officials. The outcome, is the several scams in the pension business, petroleum and power industry, UBEC, presidency, national assembly and several other centralized agencies, centralising without effective monitoring, the nation’s common resources for easy stealing (sorry appropriation), by those in charge.

    I, therefore, support the view that it is time to restructure Nigeria, based on the rule of law, equity and good conscience. As I have argued on this page, there is need to expand the economic opportunities across the country. That is the only way to have peace, both for the exploiters and the exploited. One way to do so is what many call fiscal federalism. To expect that elected officials effectively empowered to steal to their hearts’ content, will be distracted by such necessity, without a shove, is unrealistic.

     

  • ‘National conference too critical to be left to the flip-flopping Presidency’

    ‘National conference too critical to be left to the flip-flopping Presidency’

    All Progressives Congress (APC) leader and former governor of Lagos explains his postion on the convocation of a national conference by President Goodluck Jonathan.

    Since I first made known my initial reaction to President Jonathan’s proposed National Dialogue/Conference, the daggers have been out against me. The paid public relations gangs of the administration and some sympathizers have gone into overdrive in the media and public fora to denounce me for the position I have taken. I thought I ought to enjoy the same right they have exercised by supporting Jonathan’s conference to also reject it and make my reaction known. Unfortunately it does not seem so.

    But I have news for them. I will not take anything I have said back on the proposed National Dialougue by this present administration. I insist that the planned national dialogue is a ‘Greek’ gift and public deception. I say beware of the Greek gift; let us first of all, ask a series of questions.

    The government’s proposal is a walk down a back alley that leads only to a dead end. It has the same empty taste as sitting down to dine after all the food has been eaten and the table cleared.

    I intend to raise fundamental questions/interrogations in the following response. I am known to have always reviewed the message or policy action of government after which I simply proceed to respond to the message and not the messenger. But this time around, my focus and response is to the messenger and not the message essentially. Questioning the messenger and his motives is my mission here as a Nigerian and a political leader. Also in warning against Jonathan’s proposed Conference, I will put forward a few practicable suggestions.

    The core questions to ask here is how credible, reliable and capable is the current President to be able to midwife a critical conference such as this? Will this President be sincere enough to let all the issues that are on the agenda be exhaustively discussed at the conference? Will this President have the guts to implement fully all final resolutions of the conference without fear or favor or any pandering?

    This is an administration that has been known to have flip- flopped on so many critical issues of national importance. President Jonathan was part of two issues of national importance in the recent past; Amnesty and the Uwais Panel on electoral reform. We all know what has happened to these two issues. The Amnesty conceived from inception has been corrupted and hijacked by the President’s clique. It is one of Nigeria’s drain pipes. A slush fund for political expeditions and a conduit to siphon money to the boys.

    The Uwais Panel report gathers dust and suffers from constant cherry picking. What about the much-publicized SURE-P initiative of this administration? Another ill-conceived and fraudulently implemented program of this administration. Billions of naira have so far disappeared into private pockets and the treasury still bleeds. I can go on and on. Is this the leader we want to trust with organizing a National dialogue or is it conference they call it? Where is the capability? Where is the sincerity? Where is the presence of mind?

    Recent Nigerian political history bears me out in this instance. Recall the call for a Sovereign National Conference began in earnest in the latter phase of the political transition programme of military president Ibrahim Babangida. Claiming that it was laying a solid foundation for a democracy that will endure, the regime turned Nigeria into a laboratory for all manner of political stunts.

    Nigerians came to conclude that the regime was pursuing a not-so-hidden agenda of self-perpetuation and called for a Sovereign National conference to replace a transition programme that had clearly lost its momentum and its direction.

    Next door, in Benin Republic, a Sovereign National Conference was being staged to chart a new course for a country that had virtually come to a standstill. Its crisp, bold and purposeful proceedings resonated in Nigeria, and Nigerians yearning for such a conference embraced the Beninoise model.

    The military regime seemed at a point to embrace the concept, too, and even tried to enlist some prominent citizens to translate it into practice. But when it appeared those citizens had taken the regime more seriously than it took itself, the regime scuttled the idea and decreed jail sentences for anyone purporting to stage a national conference.

    Then came the presidential election debacle of June 12, 1993, and with it, renewed calls for a Sovereign National Conference. The election crisis swept out the military regime, but not before it had planted a surrogate, the so-called Interim National Government, a clueless outfit that lasted three months but drove Nigeria to the edge of ruin, until it was overthrown by General Abacha.

    To win public acceptance, Abacha promised to stage a National Conference with “constituent powers.” This was another act of bad faith, for Abacha packed the assembly with his hand-picked nominees. Those who were not his nominees were products of an election that was widely boycotted, persons who could hardly be described as authentic representatives of their constituencies. The conference exercised nothing close to the “constituent powers” Abacha had promised. The five political parties that emerged from the constitutional framework designed by the Assembly all ended up endorsing Abacha as their presidential candidate. Abacha’s death ended the charade. Knowing that Nigerians were no longer prepared to put up with military rule, Abacha’s colleagues hastily put together a constitution to serve as the legal framework for the civilian administration inaugurated in 1999.

    The constitution was not published until it came into effect. It was not debated. Those who took office swore an oath to defend a Constitution they had not seen, and the provisions of which they did not know.

    Soon, it became clear that it was riddled with grave defects. Despite its portentous preface, “We, the People,” it was not a people’s constitution. The people played hardly any role in its writing. It did not reflect their yearnings. Some legal authorities even went so far as to call the document a forgery.

    And so, demands for a Sovereign National Conference broke out afresh, to design a new constitutional order for Nigeria, one anchored on the core principles of federalism and warranted by the preface, “We the People.”

    Then came the Obasanjo’s constitutional review process by the National Assembly in the twilight of his administration. The process came up with 118 recommendations most of which were far reaching and dealt with critical and contentious issues of nationhood. It became ill-fated due to the failure to smuggle in the third term tenure extension provision.The rest as they say, is now history.

    Now, we are about to embark on a similar futile exercise. And here is why. Until some two to three months back, our demands for a sovereign national conference found little sympathy in the Executive and Legislative branches of government, until some three weeks ago when Senate President David Mark, issued a qualified endorsement. Then, in his National Day Broadcast, President Jonathan Goodluck, announced to everyone’s surprise that the Federal Government would indeed sponsor National Conference, at which Nigeria’s ethnic nationalists would discuss and negotiate the terms of continued association.

    Within days, Dr Jonathan named a chairman and members of a committee to advise on modalities for staging the conference and submit a report within one month.

    I, like other well-meaning Nigerians must welcome this shift. It is an admission, at last, that the wide cracks in the national fabric can no longer be papered over, and that the time has come for fresh thinking on fundamental problems, the existence of which has for too long been denied.

    Yet, President Jonathan’s epiphany–if epiphany it is and not an expedient calculated to enhance his 2015 reelection bid – should be subjected to searching questions.

    It is difficult to lay aside the suspicion that his sudden conversion is all about 2015. Otherwise, why the sudden endorsement of a National Conference, not merely in principle, but with a rush toward some form of implementation? What has happened that was not already in play in all those years during which the authorities rejected demands for a National Conference?

    Second, it is also difficult to lay aside the suspicion that the government is now embracing the idea with a view to watering it down, if not smothering it altogether. What its proponents have been canvassing is a Sovereign National Conference organized by the sovereign people of Nigeria, not one staged by the government. Government will figure in that Conference only as a facilitator, not as organizer.

    Many of the ethnic nationalities clamouring for a Sovereign National Conference are contesting nothing less than the legitimacy of the Nigerian State as presently constituted. It cannot be an answer to their misgivings that the Federal Government, the agent of that state, is set to take charge of a Sovereign National Conference designed to chart a new path.

    Third, Dr Jonathan did not indicate whether the Conference will be sovereign or exercise constituent powers. That omission is not reassuring. What Nigerians have been demanding is a Sovereign National Conference whose decisions can only be ratified or rejected by the people in a national referendum. There is no room for a Government White Paper of Blue Paper or Paper of any colour whatsoever in such a scheme.

    Fourth, it must be asked whether this is an opportune moment for the conference, when the ruling party is in disarray, a large portion of the country is convulsed by Boko Haram violence and killings, and permutations over a general election have already taken centre stage in the affairs of the nation two years ahead of schedule.

    Would staging a National Conference in such a setting not overheat the polity? Would it not be better to defer the Conference until after the general elections? There is still so much to do to ensure that the election is free and fair, conforms to the best practices, and represents the true will of the people.

    Though I remain an unrepentant supporter of a genuinely Sovereign National Conference, I am suspicious of this present concoction because it is half- baked and fully deceptive. Government’s sincerity is questionable, the timing is also suspect. Now that this government is sinking in a pool of political and economic hot water of its own making, it seizes hold of the national conference idea as if it were a life jacket.

    This government habitually puts the wrong leg forward. In the face of debilitating terrorist attacks by Boko Haram, kidnappings across the country and a general insecurity, this government wants to open up another political front by hurriedly organizing a national conference rankles the brain.

    This government has not the honesty, foresight, tolerance and objectivity to hold a National Conference of any type. This government is so partisan and parochial it can’t even hold its own party together how dare it even think it can organize a national conference that lives up to its name by being truly representative of all the nation’s constituent parts. At most, all they can conduct is a conference comprised of one section of their party and those shell, artificial civil society groups that purport to reflect the public’s mind yet do nothing but spew government propaganda and get paid good naira for their service. This government cannot hold a National Conference anymore than a comatose man can stand and hold up a candle that the rest of us might see our way to a better Nigeria.

    Before embarking on new public relations ploys to whitewash its tarnished record, the government should treat some long outstanding issues and matters. This government cannot give what it does not have.

    If the conference must be held now, we must return to the spade work already done by the Obasanjo government in the aspect of constitutional review. Let the Jonathan government bring it out, remove the third term toxic component and set up a technical review committee to examine the 118 recommendations therein. We must continue from where we disagreed. Nation building is a progressive work and to totally jettison the considerable spade work already done is to set back the hands of the clock. Time is not on our side.

    Secondly, this government should implement the Uwais recommendations on electoral reforms. That report was the work of imminent Nigerians and it was done after widespread consultations to constituencies far and wide. We all know that our electoral system is broken and unfair. If the President has done nothing to fully implement this corrective report that would fix a system so blatantly broken, why would he implement recommendations of national conference if those recommendations do not suit his narrow purposes? The government should first implement this important work in order to demonstrate to Nigerians that it can hold and honor the outcome of a National dialogue.

    This government should do so to show that it has nothing to hide and is willing to engage in the upcoming electoral contest on a level playing field.

    This government must first show good faith for Nigerians to believe them. President Jonathan is not the man to give Nigerians a true National Conference. He can only give us a “Jonathan conference” as bitter icing on the sour cake his government has become. This government lacks the presence of mind and the decency to implement a national conference.

    This administration has not achieved any tangible transformation because it has no concrete goals. Now it tilts and staggers under the weight of insecurity. Claims of transformation and of building an economy that is robust and institutions of democracy, by the President shows someone who believes fiction is more important than fact and imagination is more genuine than reality. While I would not mind such a person to be a leading figure in our Nollywood film industry, I am frightened that he is the chief resident in Aso Villa.”

    Both in timing and in style, previous administrations adopted the same tricks of National Conference as a framework to structure their agenda to which people presented memoranda and attended plenaries before realising it was a trick.

    This government’s offer of a National Conference is a wingless bird. It will not fly. The advisory committee set up to design a framework and come up with recommendations as to the form, structure and mechanism of the process will soon find out they are on a journey with no destination save the wall of futility.

    Yes, we need to talk. However, we need a national conference that is truly sovereign and not one dictated by the reactionary and regressive elements of the ruling party. This is not the way to clear Nigeria from danger. This is a selfish ploy that will place the nation deeper in darkness and indirection.

    Nigeria is adrift and unless we start a discourse aimed at updating and improving our political economy and its structures, we might wake up one day from a night devoid of dreams because we have turned into a nation devoid of hope.

    However, an imposed national conference by individuals who have shown total disdain for anything nationalistic that does not unduly benefit them and who have demonstrated lack of respect for the opinions of others because they are in “Power” will have little success. It will be an empty and expensive futility with no true dividends for a people wanting their leaders to show them a way out of the pit and not a way deeper into it.

  • What manner of national conference?

    What manner of national conference?

    Nigerians are still divided over the proposed National Conference. While a section has hailed the proposal, another  has expressed caution and reservations because of the timing. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN highlights the conditions for a credible and successful national dialogue. 

    President Goodluck Jonathan’s proposed National Conference has not been taken hook, line and sinker. Although some stakeholders have applauded the President for his sensitivity to the strindent calls for it, others have expressed reservations, based on past experience. The timing has been faulted, even by pro-National Conference agitators. However, some people also believe that Nigerians can insist on some conditions for the dialogue to become credible and successful.

    For decades, pro-National Conference advocates have argued that, Nigeria, a homogeneous society, can be re-negotiated by the ethnic nationalities. They believe that the former colonial master had decided to amalgamate them into a country without due consultations. Also, they argue that economic interest motivated the colonial authorities to lump them together. After, the amalgamation, the country wobbled on in disunity.

    The Governor-General between 1920 and 1931, Sir Hugh Clifford, described Nigeria as “a collection of independent native states, separated from one another by great distances, by differences of history and traditions and by ethnological, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers”. This description vividly captures the problems of Nigeria.

    Under normal circumstances, the amalgamation should have provided a firm basis for establishing closer cultural, social, religious, and linguistic ties. Instead, there were division, suspicion, unhealthy rivalry and disparity in development.

    The ethnic nationalities have a grouse. They claim that they have not made inputs into, accepted or rejected any constitutional framework through a referendum. Thus, the advocates of constitutional conference have always disputed the basis for peaceful co-existence.

    Conference without sovereign powers

    A university don, Dr Tunde Ogunyemi, described the proposed national conference as step in the right direction. But he faulted President Jonathan’s approach, saying that, by hand picking the 13-member advisory committee headed by Dr. Okunrounmu, the conference will lack a “sovereign status”.

    Ogunyemi said the national conference is not the prerogative of the President, but the responsibility of all Nigerians. The Obafemi Awolowo University teacher said, before the announcement, the President should have consulted the critical ethnic groups, including the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Afenifere, Ohaneze Ndigbo, Ijaw National Union, and other political interest groups.

    “The planning should involve the critical mass of the population, who are found in ethnic representation, such as Afenifere, Ohaneze, Ijaw union, Arewa Consultative Forum and political leaders. They should also include technocrats, bureaucrats, lawyers, medical practitioners, academics, technical personnel on defence, foreign affairs and religious groups.

    “The President missed the point in setting up the planning committee without carrying the people along. It is unexpected because this government is known for taking decision before thinking. It hardly consults on critical issues before making pronouncements,” he added.

    Despite the shortcoming, Ogunyemi implored Nigerians to embrace the idea to rebuild the collapsing foundation. He said this is necessary to move away from the brink and to prevent the experiences of Rwanda, Burundi, Sri- Lanka, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia in Nigeria.

    A lawyer, Tony Emordi, observed that many have deluded into thinking that the conference is critical to the resolution of the country’s problems, unmindful of the fact that the fashionable political theory being badied about in the country today is that past conferences have failed to achieve this objective.

    Emordi noted that Nigeria had wasted billions of naira on constitutional debates and constitution making without success. He feared that the current exercise may end in fiasco, unless lessons are drawn from the experience of the past.

    Critics are worried about the prospect of a national conference without “sovereign power”. They argue that, without a sovereign power, the conference resolutions may end up in the archives.

    Civil rights activist Shehu Sani has labelled the proposed conference as diversionary and a waste of time and resources. According to him, any decision taken the conference is not binding on the people. He said Nigerians are not asking for a mere conference, but a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) that will give teeth to all issues that will be discussed and the outcome of such conference must be respected.

    His words: “Nigerians are not just asking for a conference, but a sovereign one. It is not the usual conference that will come out with a communiqué, but a conference with a resolution that is binding on the Nigerian people.

    “Right now, the country is operating under the military constitution authored by the Abacha and Abdulsalam military regimes. We need to use the opportunity of our centenary to freely discuss all issues that bother the Nigerian state, to strengthen our unity, democracy and enhance the wellbeing of our people”.

    Emordi also shared this view. He reiterated that the Sovereign National Conference is the only option left to save the country from disintegration, adding that that it should be convoked as quickly as possible. Emordi said the primary duty of the SNC is to address and find solutions to the key problems afflicting Nigeria, since 1914. “The concern is to remove all obstacles, which have prevented the country from establishing political justice, economic justice, social justice, cultural justice, religious justice and to construct a new constitutional framework in terms of the system of government-structurally, politically, economically, socially, culturally and religiously.

    “The SNC is to rebuild the country from scratch and establish a new constitutional structure for a new Nigeria where every ethnic group will find succour; and where the masses, the neglected, the persecuted, the deprived and the cheated will find solace”.

    But Professor Itse Sagay (SAN) urged Nigerians not to be carried away by the proposal. He said that it is painful that the conference lacks a sovereign power. Yet, he advised Nigerians to embrace it because it is better to start from somewhere.

    Sagay said: “If it is National Conference without sovereign powers; it is okay, it is a good development. Although a Sovereign National Conference is preferable, what is important is that there is the need for the people to sit down and dialogue on the problems affecting the country. We have never really met to discuss the future of our country. But we were compelled to live together, first by the colonial administrators, and later by the military that foisted constitutions prepared by them on us.

    “It is necessary for us to meet and decide for ourselves how we want to live together, how we want to move the nation forward. It is then, that peace and tranquillity would prevail and there would be development.

    According to Sani, government needs to be educated about the sovereign conference. He said: “A sovereign conference is not a talk-shop; it is also not a musical gathering. It is an assembly of Nigerians to discuss issues and come up with the best possible means of addressing and proffering solutions to problems. There is no need for us to hold a conference that its decision would not be binding.”

     

    Agenda for National Conference

     

    Many stakeholders want the conference to deliberate on everything under the sun. They frown at the attempts to erect no-go areas. To them, the unity of Nigeria is negotiable.

    Ogunyemi raised a 10-point issue for deliberation at the conference. He noted that the structure of Nigeria is faulty with 19 states in the North and 17 in the south. The criteria for state creation, according to him, should be the people, and not the land mass. He said the one per cent allocation from the Federation Account for the development of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to finance Abuja from its 53.8 percent allocation. The one percent special allocation to FCT is illegal, he said.

    On education, Ogunyemi wants the tertiary education to be exclusive to the Federal Government. State governments should concentrate on primary and secondary education, while the proliferation of private universities should be curtailed to enhance quality’, he added.

    Ogunyemi also observed that the governors, who are the chief security officers in their states, lack the power to command state police commissioners. He stressed the need for state police. He also suggested that the 36 states should be grouped into six autonomous regions, with their own constitutions, recalling that that was the structure in the First Republic.

    Ogunemi advocated a cut in the power of the President. He described the President as the most powerful leader in the world, pointing out that he controls the army, the police, customs and immigration, Central Bank, the Federation Account, and Prisons. He canvassed for the delition of indigeneship from the constitution, saying that emphasis should be on citizenship.The Federal Government, according to him, should devolve more responsibilities and funds to the states. The centre should hands-off from railway, roads and prisons, he added.

    Sani urged the conference to address the issue of ideology, that is, what should be the ideological direction of Nigeria; the relationship between the federating units, especiallyon the issues of economy and political power distribution, production of a new constitution for the country and social welfare programmes.

    He said it should also discuss and resolve the character and nature of the economic system for sustainable improvement in the material lives of the ordinary people. The conference, according to him, should be concerned with establishing an economic system that will guarantee economic rights for the rich and poor.

    “The ordinary people must enjoy the right to work or unemployment allowance in the absence of jobs, cost-free housing, education, health, water, and electricity in a restructured polity. The access to social services by the masses should be regarded as fundamental rights.

  • National conference as ‘defensive radicalism’

    National conference as ‘defensive radicalism’

    The late political economist, Professor Claude Ake, had an uncanny ability to create fascinating concepts to illuminate aspects of social reality under his scrutiny.One of such concepts coined by the erudite scholar is that of ‘defensive radicalism’, which he utilised in his book ‘Revolutionary Pressures in Africa’, to explain some of the antics employed by conservative, even reactionary, ruling classes in Africa to maintain destructive strangleholds on their societies. The concept is seemingly problematic. It sounds contradictory. Yet, its explanatory power is phenomenal.

    Ordinarily, there is nothing defensive about radicalism. It is a necessarily offensive concept. Radicalism denotes an aggressive momentum to dislodge the status quo. It embodies a commitment to fundamental change and transformation in society. When then does radicalism become defensive? This happens when individuals, groups and social forces benefitting from a given iniquitous and inequitable status quo affect deceptive radical stances and become emergency advocates of change. This deft move disarms opposing forces and reinforces the capacity of the pro-establishment elements to maintain and continue to exploit a system that requires urgent and drastic change.

    Thus, beneficiaries of the status quo become the most eloquent and passionate exponents of social or national transformation. Yet, this strident advocacy is a grand pretence. In reality, the more things seem to change, the more they remain the same. There is so much motion but little or no movement. While their feigned transformational radicalism lulls society to somnolence, fuel subsidy gangsters continue to smile to the bank, pension fund fraudsters continue their feast of obscene opulence, the Nigeria Ports Authority Board remains the preserve of party election fixers and aircraft routinely drop from the sky as alleged acts of God while satanic party contractors aggressively white wash airports. Some transformation!

    An excellent example of defensive radicalism at work was former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s unprecedented anti-corruption war. It was fierce. It was intense. It was relentless. Yet, it was horrendously hypocritical and ineffectual. Right from inception in office, the Ota farmer projected himself as a veritable anti-graft radical saint. He ensured the enactment of stringent anti-corruption laws by the National Assembly. He set up anti-corruption agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). He mercilessly made a mince-meat of his corrupt political opponents who were foolish enough to play into his hands. It seemed that the slightest scent of corruption made the immaculately clean General sick and mad.

    Yet, behind this huge obscurantist cloud of anti-corruption radicalism, government contractors, mega companies and even public institutions were corralled into donating lavishly to our hero’s private presidential library project. He was allocated huge shares in the Transcorp Corporation project initiated by his government. The petroleum sector, particularly the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) remained a cesspit of graft throughout his tenure.

    The National Assembly’s probe of the Petroleum Trust Development Fund (PTDF) revealed that our ‘Chichidodo’ could enjoy a feast of maggots after all while affecting a public disdain for faeces. And we can all still recall the brazen third term agenda that remains the single most atrocious case of political and alleged pecuniary corruption in this political dispensation. That then is how defensive radicalism works. An aggressive anti-corruption war was feigned only as a cover for the consolidation of corruption.

    The masters of political deception are at it again. Radicalism has suddenly gone rampant in unexpected quarters. First to set the ball rolling was none other than the Senate President, the venerable Saint David Mark. At the resumption of the Senate, he announced his conversion to the idea of a national conference. It appears that his dramatic encounter with truth occurred, not on the road to Damascus like Saint Paul, but on the highway to Boko Haram’s Damaturu. But then, he was only John the Baptist; a voice in the wilderness preparing the way for a greater one whose shoelace he was unfit to untie.

    And verily verily, on October 1, the political Messiah emerged. In his national day broadcast to a surprised nation, he announced: “Repent ye, for the kingdom of the national conference is at hand. Verily verily, I say unto you, unless you are born again to the cause of a ‘national conversation’, you cannot enter the Kingdom of the new Nigeria”. And of course, the desired effect is largely being achieved. President Goodluck Jonathan is being lauded to the high heavens by advocates of a national conference who see this as a triumph of their long cherished desire. The ever so lucky President must be chuckling happily to himself: “Ah! The kingdom of a second term come 2015 seems to be at hand”.

    But then, have advocates of a national conference clamoured for it over the years simply for the sake of having a dialogue? I do not think so. The calls for a Sovereign National Conference have been made within the context of the erosion by the military of the country’s federal and democratic ethos. After the thorough devastation and despoliation of the country for close to two decades, the discredited military oligarchy beat a retreat in 1999, but carefully engineered the emergence of the PDP as its successor to ensure the preservation of the decadent and dysfunctional status quo even in a supposedly post-military Nigeria. The PDP has faithfully performed this task over the last 14 years. It has largely retained the military’s structure and philosophy of governance and virtually all sectors of our national life have steadily degenerated under its inept and venal watch.

    Why is Nigeria in the pathetic and prostrate condition we witness today? It certainly is not because a national conference has not taken place. On the contrary we have had several national conferences. It is the absence of a progressive, change-oriented government at the centre since independence that has retarded Nigeria’s progress and aborted her potentials. The lesson of our history is that without a government with the requisite ethos, vision and values at the centre, a hundred national conferences cannot change Nigeria. And if you have such a government with the courage and competence to initiate fundamental change, a national conference may be totally unnecessary.

    While inaugurating the Senator Femi Okunrounmu-led advisory committee, for instance, President Jonathan averred that the 1957 conference “effectively prepared Nigeria for independence”. So why had the country degenerated to military rule and outright civil war six years after independence? The answer is the lack of a visionary government at the centre. The President lauded the 1978 Constituent Assembly for saddling us with the 1979 presidential constitution “with its attendant checks and balances and fundamental human rights provisions”. But a succession of inept and visionless administrations at the centre have utilised the immense powers of the wasteful presidential system to undermine accountability, erode the rule of law and worsen underdevelopment.

    President Jonathan claimed that the 1995 conference gave us the informal concept of a six-zonal structure. But governments at the centre that do not believe in a genuine federal ethos have still kept us bound to an essentially unitarian structure that breeds inefficiency, corruption, poverty and is fast turning Nigeria to a failed state. Without a fundamental change in the values, orientation and vision of the government at the centre, the planned constitutional conference jamboree will be another exercise in futility.

    For the first time since independence, the mainstream, unitarist forces that have ruled Nigeria since independence under both civilian and military rule are politically vulnerable. The President’s undisguised second term ambition has badly fractured the ruling party at a time when the opposition is getting its act right for the first time ever. Thus, we have this sudden manoeuvre of having a distracting national conference when the 2015 elections, according to the electoral law, must hold by December next year. It has taken 14 years for the PDP to see the light. Are Nigerians too gullible not to see through this trickery? I hope not.

  • Security and the national conference

    Security and the national conference

    I have dealt with the important issue of security as the foremost responsibility of government in a liberal democracy more than I really wish to. But recent events have brought it to the fore of our attention one more time. The unfortunate execution of innocent students in their sleep is the worst nightmare of any parent and of a government that cares. And it’s unclear how many more we must experience before we come to the realisation that our government has failed us in the matter of security. The second is the embarrassing face-off between the federal government and the Rivers state government and its fall-out on the security of the state.

    In view of its importance, then, security has to be a priority item on the national conference agenda. Since reasonable citizens have disagreed over the monopoly of internal security by the federal government, we have to have a rational discourse over how best to security the lives and properties of citizens and why state police should be a practical option.

    We must realize, firstly, that those opposed to the creation of state police have not taken a stand on its constitutionality. They know that doing so would beg the question whether the constitution rightly prohibits the idea. And since the debate itself is predicated on the present legislative efforts to amend the constitution, it would have been grievously out of sync to argue against it from a constitutional perspective.

    Secondly, there is a consensus on the part of citizens that the present federal police systemhas undermined the security of citizens. From its inadequacy in dealing with armed robbery, kidnapping, militancy, and other crimes that endanger citizens and undermine the development of the nation, it is crystal clear that the system is broken.

    Third, a majority, if not all of our political leaders know about the effectiveness of state and municipal police in other lands. So it would be disingenuous of anyone who has seen it work elsewhere to doubt its effectiveness here.

    Two concerns have been raised against the institutionalisation of State Police. The first is the potential for the abuse of statepolice by politicians, especially governors and the party in power. The second is the issue of financing the system. In other words, everyone appears to agree on (i) the present perilous state of internal security, (ii) the inadequacy of the federal police to deal with it, and (iii) the universally acknowledged effectiveness of state and local police in dealing with internal security in any nation. But because of the fear—imagined or real—that politicians, especially governors are likely to use it as an instrument of oppression, and uncertainty about where the funds are going to come from, reasonable and well- placed patriotsare against the institution of state police.

    Neither of these concerns appears to me unresolvable. At most, they are challenges that reasonable people can meet and overcome. Take the case of funding. If security is the foremost responsibility of government, surely state governments can be expected to source for the means of discharging this responsibility even if it requires moderating expenses in other sectors. Indeed, an effective system of internal security has the great potential for generating internal revenue that not only pays for itself but also yields substantial dividends for investment in other sectors. Certainly such a regime can expect to attract a decent amount of domestic and foreign investment into the state. With business and industrial investment, opportunities are created for youth employment which in turn creates buying power, which leads to more investment and the circle can only be a virtuous one.

    There is a second consideration about funding. Even now that the police falls under the exclusive list of the Constitution, state governors cannot be unconcerned about resources available to the police commands in their states. For, they are still responsible for securing their citizens. A good number of governors have created State Security Commissions that raise funds for the police, while some raise their own vigilante groups. It may be argued that what such Commissions source from businesses and charitable organizations are grossly inadequate to fund state police. The point, however, is that when duty calls, human creativeness always provides an unfailing response.

    How about the major concern that state governors and their party members will use State Police to harass their opponents? This is not an imaginary fear because it happened during the First Republic. But the reality of the experience of almost half a century ago, vivid as it still might be in the inner recesses of our minds, cannot be a reliable yardstick for determining how we should live our lives. Consider an analogy. Fifty years ago, we were sleeping with our doors and windows wide open, enjoyingdivinely endowed fresh air. We would be crazy fools to indulge in such fun today no matter how remote our villages are. Instead we rely on fans or air-conditioners and generating sets.

    The mark of our humanity is rationality, and endowmentwith which we are able to think through the most efficient and effective means of meeting the challenges that we face and identifying the most efficient means of satisfying our wants and needs.

    If we are wary of the experience of the past—premiers using state police to torment opponents—and we know that federal police has not worked efficiently and effectively to secure us, then we have to put on our thinking caps and device an effective means of avoiding the unacceptable experiences of the past. We might want to ensure that governors—we got rid of Premiers—do not have a monopoly of supervisory authority over the State Police. We do this by creating a police system that is civil but apolitical. Each state might have a State Police Commission that is transparently independent,with representation from major sectors of the civil society, and financially autonomous, with constitutionally guaranteed revenue.

    Secondly, if we are fearful that governors may use state police to rig elections—harassing political opponents while empowering the rigging industry of supporters—then again we need to device a means of avoiding this inauspicious outcome. Presently, state governmentsare responsible for local government elections while INEC is responsible for federal and state elections. This is in itself an anomaly in a federal system which the conference must also open to discourse. In any case, if the first proposal is acceptable and the governor has no monopoly power over the police, then the fear of using it to rig elections would have been misplaced.

    There is a final consideration. For almost 20 years now, since the elections of 1993 and its aftermath, there has been one constant refrain against proposals for changing our way of doing things, especially those that we all agree are not working. Whether it is change from dictatorship to democracy; or unitarism to federalism; the opposition has always expressed a baffling lack of confidence in our collective maturity. We were told that we were not mature for democracy; that the kind of federalism we seek is dangerous in light of our present political circumstance. And now we are told that state police is for mature societies. The people making these claims consider themselves mature. In fact it is their maturity that gives them the audacity to advise against taking steps that they believe the country is not mature to take.

    Will this country ever be sufficiently mature to take one small step toward its destiny? And when it is deemed ready, will there be a country?The President’s Committee on National Conference has its work caught out.

  • ARG offers ‘cautious’ endorsement of National Conference

    A fenifere Renewal Group (ARG) yesterday endorsed the proposed National Conference with reservation.

    ARG’s National Publicity Secretary Kunle Famoriyo, said in a statement that, although the conference was necessary, many Nigerians have cause to doubt the government’s sincerity.

    The statement reads: “Afenifere Renewal Group would like to reiterate its endorsement of President Goodluck Jonathan’s inauguration of an advisory committee on national conference. We would like to believe that this signals a move, if the intention is genuine,towards resolving the critical nation-building challenges confronting this country.

    “Nigerians have relentlessly canvassed for dialogue, and over the years, especially in view of the fact that the problems of the country continue to multiply, this decision by the president should be seen as a welcome development.

    “Being an unwavering advocate – definitely the loudest in the country – of such a platform that allows Nigerians to examine its basis of existence, ARG cannot but now avail the committee its full support and avail it of its vast library of materials that can guide the committee towards a successful deliberation.

    “However, we are not unmindful of certain doubts about the President’s motive, which some have even described as less than wholesome

    “ARG believes such doubts are not unfounded, emanating from deceits of past leaders. Even some of the past actions of the President himself have hardly engendered confidence. All we can say for now is that: it is left for President Jonathan to decide if he would like to be remembered for any worthy legacy.

    “For us in ARG, we are accepting this offer on its face value, and wish to enjoin everyone to do so, believing it would lead Nigeria to that much-desired destination. The outcome of this move might really be beyond the president, as it is about the collective yearnings of the generality of the people of this country.

    “This is our expectation, which we believe is shared by millions of Nigerians. We want to emphasise that it is this expectation, not the presidential mandate, that places a huge responsibility on the shoulders of this committee’s members and we urge them not to disappoint Nigerians.

    “But we must not only expect, we must also work tirelessly and put the members of this committee on their toes. We must let them realise how much the survival and future prosperity of this nation require that they do the right thing.” the statement said.

  • How national conference should be held, by Awolowo Foundation

    How national conference should be held, by Awolowo Foundation

    With Monday’s inauguration of the national conference planning committee by President Goodluck Jonathan, stakeholders have said the proposed conference must not exceed nine months and not more than 400 delegates.

    Participants at an executive leadership seminar, convened by the Obafemi Awolowo Foundation spoke on the conference in Lagos . They noted that the proposed conference can contribute to the creation of a viable Nigerian polity.

    Tagged: ‘The national conference: Roadmap to Nigeria’s stability, the seminar was convened by the group’s Executive Director, Dr Olatokunbo Dosumu and chaired by Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi.

    At the event were President, Guild of Editor Mr. Femi Adesina; Prof Ayandiji; Daniel Aina; Prof Princewill Alozie; Prof. Bolaji Aluko; Dr Chris Asoluka; Prof. Bukar Bukarambe; Mrs. Ayo Obe; Prof Ayo Olukotun; Dr. Tunde Oseni; Prof. Akin Oyebode; Prof. Itse Sagay and Alhaji Yerima Shettima.

    Praising the President, the participants noted that the Senator Femi Okurounmu-led committee was skewed against the youth, who will have to live with the consequences of the decisions to be taken on the confab.

    A communique signed by the participants recommended that 90 per cent of the suggested 400 delegates to the conference should emerge through an election on non-partisan basis from the ward to the zonal levels and 10 per cent nominees of professional bodies, trade unions, civil society organisations, youth/students, women and pan-Nigerian religious bodies.

    They said the draft constitution that will be produced should be subjected to a national referendum not later than three months after the end of the conference.

    “There should be no ‘no-go’ areas in the course of this national discourse. The fact that people are not restricted will enhance frankness of discussions as well as greater acceptability and respectability of the conference outcome.

    “The conference should address true federalism as established by the founding fathers, with emphasis on granting the federating units room to develop competitively at their own pace.

    “It should be channelled to build a more tolerant, egalitarian and prosperous modern state with a constitution that emphasises the protection of individual rights.

    “The present state structure should be reconfigured to more manageable and sustainable units.

    “The outcome of the conference should address and lay appropriate emphasis on the needs and aspirations of the Nigerian people,” participants said.

     

  • Why I changed my mind on national conference, by Jonathan

    Why I changed my mind on national conference, by Jonathan

    •Okurounmu Panel gets six weeks to submit report

    The Federal Government pressed further yesterday its attempt to convoke a national dialogue by inaugurating in Abuja its appointed panel of planners.

    President Goodluck Jonathan told those who contend that Nigeria’s integrity would be compromised by such a conference that it would not lead to the nation’s disintegration.

    He said although he was opposed to a national conference, a new reality changed his position, adding that he pandered to the yearnings of the people.

    Of the 13 members of the panel, 12 attended the inauguration, including its chairman, Dr Femi Okurounmu.

    The members are: Alhaji Dauda Birma, Prof. George Obiozor, Sen. Khairat Gwadabe, Sen. Timothy Adudu, Col. Tony Nyiam (rtd), Prof. Funke Adebayo, Mrs Mairo Ahmed Amshi, Dr. Abubakar Sadiq, Mallam Bukhari Bello, Mr. Tony Uranta and Dr. Akilu Ndabawa, who is the committee’s secretary.

    The 13th member, Prof Ben Nwabueze (SAN), opted out of the assignment on health grounds. The octogenarian recommended another member of his elders’ club, The Patriots, Mr Solomon Asemota (SAN), to replace him.

    At yesterday’s inauguration, it was not clear whether his suggestion was approved by the government or not.

    Unlike the one month period he announced in his Independence Day broadcast, the President yesterday gave the panel six weeks to submit its report.

    Dr Jonathan described the Okurounmu panel as “a child of necessity to midwife this Conversation”, saying they are “Nigerians with wide experience from various disciplines to facilitate a most acceptable process that will bring our aspirations to fruition”.

    He said the committee’s work would set the stage for developing a harmonious and truly united nation.

    His words: “Today, we are taking historic and concrete steps that will further strengthen our understanding, expand the frontiers of our inclusiveness and deepen our bond as one people under God.

    “In my address to the nation on the occasion of our 53rd Independence and Golden Anniversary as a Republic, I announced that in response to the yearnings of our people, we had decided to take on the responsibility of decisively and genuinely exploring the option of a National Conversation.”

    The conference, the President said, will “review the foundational principles that drive our action, and also address a few matters arising.

    “This is a national project, a sincere and fundamental undertaking aimed at realistically examining and genuinely resolving, long-standing impediments to our cohesion and harmonious development as a truly united nation.”

    He faulted those claiming that there was no need for another conference after many conferences had been convened.

    Dr. Jonathan said each era and season had its own challenges and that leaders in a democracy must respond with the best available strategies to ensure that the ship of state remains focused in its voyage.

    “I was one of those who exhibited scepticism on the need for another Conference or Dialogue. My scepticism was borne out of the nomenclature of such a conference, taking into cognisance existing democratic structures that were products of the will of the people,” the President said, adding:

    “However, we are in a democracy and in a democracy, elected leaders govern at the behest of the citizenry. As challenges emerge, season after season, leaders must respond with best available strategies to ensure that the ship of state remains undeterred in its voyage.”

    Reviewing the past attempts, he said: “Let us remind ourselves of the gains from previous conferences and dialogues. The conferences that were held before 1960 were designed to produce a political system and a roadmap to Nigeria’s independence.

    “The Constitutional Conference of 1957 in London, for example, effectively prepared Nigeria for Independence. The Eastern and Western regions were granted self-government in 1957 while the Northern region got its own in 1959.

    “The Office of the Prime Minister was created and it was also decided that the Federal Legislature would be Bi-cameral.

    “Furthermore, the Constituent Assembly of 1978 gave us the 1979 Constitution and also created the current Presidential System with its attendant checks and balances and Fundamental Human Rights provisions.

    “The 1999 Constitution we operate today, is a successor to the 1979 Constitution and records show that the 1999 Constitution also benefited from reports and recommendations arising from the 1994/1995 Constitutional Conference.

    Even though the current six geo-political zones for equitable distribution of projects and public offices in Nigeria was not enshrined in the 1999 Constitution, he noted that it was a product of Dialogue that emerged from the 1994/1995 Constitutional Conference.

    Jonathan continued: “The 2005 National Political Reform Conference produced a number of key recommendations that were sent to the 5th Assembly, which were however not perfected. In 2010, I reasoned that the outstanding recommendations from the 2005 Conference be revisited.”

    “It was my view that government is a continuum and that we must find ways to strengthen the foundation of our Union. I proceeded to set up the Justice Alpha Belgore Committee with a mandate to review the report for possible implementation, especially the areas where there was a common agreement. The committee worked hard and came out with its report that included a number of Bills, which were forwarded to the National Assembly.

    “The urgency of a National Conversation in the present therefore, need not be over emphasised.”

    Apparently explaining why the conference is necessary, the President said: “As we continue to strive to build a strong and virile Nation, especially in the midst of agitations and tensions, we cannot deny the fact that sitting down to talk is one right step in calming down tensions and channelling our grievances, misgivings and suggestions into more positive use for the good of our Country.”

    He thanked the Senate for its support for a national dialogue.

    “The concept of participatory democracy is such that even after the people have given their representatives the mandate to make laws and act on their behalf, there is also a space for the governed to make further input into the political processes, without undermining the authority of the statutory bodies,” Dr. Jonathan said, adding:

    “Sovereignty continues to be with the people even as the people evolve strategies and tactics to strengthen its foundation for the benefit of successor generations.”

    “I will therefore like to allay the fears of those who think the Conference will call the integrity of Nigeria into question. This National Discourse will strengthen our union and address issues that are often on the front burner, and are too frequently ignored,” he said.

    Urging the members of the committee not to disappoint the nation, the President urged them to consult widely before sitting down to develop the framework that will guide and guard the proceedings of the discussions.

    “In the task before you, no voice is too small and no opinion is irrelevant. Thus, the views of the sceptics and those of the enthusiasts must be accommodated as you formulate this all-important framework. This Conversation is a People’s Conversation and I urge you to formulate an all-inclusive process that protects the people’s interest.”

    He gave the committee the latitude to decide on the appropriate name it should be called.

    Okurounmu thanked the President for the confidence reposed in them.

    He said: “It can be argued that no committee in our polity today is more sensitive or carries higher expectations from the peoples of Nigeria than this committee.”

    He noted that there had been calls from many sections of Nigerian Public Opinion, for over two decades, for the convening of a National Conference in one form or the other.

    “Advocates of such a conference were prompted by what they perceived as the injustices and inequities prevalent in the polity, all of which they attributed to the inadequacies of the constitutions foisted upon us by successive military regimes since 1966.

    “To this clamour for a National Conference, there has also always been a strong resistance from other sections of the public who, while they may not have been as loud and numerous as the advocates of a conference, nevertheless have much political clout. These two conflicting pressures have always put our leaders in a very precarious position, making them reluctant to endorse the convening of a national conference or dialogue.”

    He praised Jonathan’s “sincerity and commitment”, which “are further buttressed by the fact that he has not established any so called “no go” areas for this committee.”

    Okurounmu promised the president “that we shall not let him down. We shall not fail the nation”. “We shall not be another case of failed expectations. We shall not betray the confidence which the president and over 160 million Nigerians have reposed in us.”

    In an interview with reporters later, Okurounmu said he believed that the position of a leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, that the conference is a “Greek gift” must have been misquoted.

    He said Tinubu had been an advocate of a conference, adding that the Pro National Conference (PRONACO) held in the past was sponsored by Tinubu.

    Former Head of State, Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar (rtd.), yesterday backed President Goodluck Jonathan’s planned national conference.

    He told State House correspondents after making a presentation as the Board Chairman of the proposed Centenary City that it was better to dialogue than to go to war.

    “It is better to jaw jaw than to war war.”

    On the proposed centenary celebration, he said Nigeria has many reasons to celebrate its 100 years of amalgamation.

  • Afe Babalola hails Jonathan on national conference panel

    Founder of the Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti (ABUAD), Aare Afe Babalola (SAN) has hailed President Goodluck Jonathan for setting up a committee on the proposed National Conference.

    In a statement by his media aide, Tunde Olofintila, Babalola said he hoped the 13-member panel, headed by Dr. Femi Okurounmu, would proffer solutions to the country’s challenges.

    Babalola said the president’s decision tallies with his (Babalola’s) many years of advocacy that the ‘conditions for the country’s continued co-existence need to be properly and conclusively discussed’, adding that he had previously submitted some well-thought out papers to the Office of Mr. President and that of Justice Alfa Belgore, a former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).

    The lawyer said: “It is apposite to state that Nigeria, a huge country with multitude of tribes and scores of ethnic groupings, speaking over 250 languages and dialects, with multiplicity of religious beliefs, varied cultural backgrounds, social exposures and political antecedents among others, has problems.

    “These problems were acknowledged by the country’s founding fathers, who sought the regional system of governance, which emphasises that each region should develop at its own pace with a relatively weak centre as practised in the First Republic.

    “It, therefore, goes without saying that a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) will afford Nigerians the opportunity to frankly marshal their differences, fears and commonalities and address such sundry issues as insecurity, corruption and intolerance among others.

    “Nigeria must be pulled back from the brink and from the precipice with a constitution made democratically through a conference and affirmed in a referendum by Nigerians, not subject to anybody’s approval.

    “There is a nostalgic feeling in the land for the kind of federalism practiced in the First Republic as against the warped and undemocratic federalism foisted on the country by the military and which the successive civilian governments have retained.

    “The SNC will have to discuss whether institutions such as the National Assembly should be full time or part time; whether it should be bi-cameral or uni-cameral because the National Assembly, as it is presently constituted, is too expensive for Nigeria. It needs streamlining to reflect the country’s realities and the worth of its contributions to governance.”

    With the president’s step, Babalola said a new epoch was being opened in Nigeria’s history, for which the present and future generations would be grateful to Jonathan.