The Nation Newspaper

Tag: National conference

In defence of NDF

THE last time we met on these pages two weeks ago, I predicted that the final meeting of the National Conference scheduled for August 11 was likely to end in a fiasco. This, I said, was essentially because, like virtually all our constitutional conferences since 1966, it was convened in bad faith. Alas, I was almost proved right.

The proofs of bad faith were many, among which were the timing of the conference so close to next year’s general elections and the wilful and blatant imbalance in the regional and religious composition of its membership. As if these were not bad enough, some delegates close to the presidency, apparently working in cahoots with a section of the conference’s leadership, tried to sneak a document into it which contained provisions that were widely suspected to be the real object of the conference in the first place. This was towards the end of the conference.

The 102-page document purporting to be the “Terms of Agreement of the Six Geo-Political Zones in Nigeria” contained such provisions dear to President Goodluck Jonathan and members of his kitchen cabinet like the six-year single-term tenure for the executive arm of government and 50 per cent of revenue allocation based on derivation, as opposed to the current 13 per cent.

That this document was introduced in bad faith soon became evident when a motion by Is’haq Modibbo Kawu, a member representing the Nigerian Guild of Editors, and supported by former Senate President Ken Nnamani, a delegate from Enugu State, calling on the conference’s leadership to explain its appearance forced the leadership to repudiate it.

“We,” said the Chairman, Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, as reflected in the Conference Hansard of June 30, “know nothing about the paper in circulation…We have nothing to do with it. That matter should be closed!”

When the conference resumed penultimate Monday for the final consideration of its decisions, it became obvious that those intent on imposing their principal’s hidden agenda on the conference were undeterred by the chairman’s categorical repudiation of their document; in place of “Terms of Agreement of the Six Geo-Political Zones in Nigeria”, another more daring document purporting to be “DRAFT CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 2014” was included among the documents circulated among the members.

Predictably, the Northern Delegates Forum (NDF), which forced the rejection of the first document, rose against the second. “We,” said its leader, former Inspector-General of Police Ibrahim Commassie, Sardaunan Katsina, in the press statement it issued on August 12, “unequivocally disown it, and emphatically disassociate ourselves from it.”

The Forum gave several reasons for its rejection, among which were (1) that being unelected members of the conference, they were not qualified to write any draft constitution; (2) their brief was to amend the 1999 Constitution not write a new one; and (3) making 2014 the effective date of a new constitution ahead of next year’s general elections was a camouflage to legitimise a third term for governors currently serving their second term under the 1999 Constitution and a way to evade the controversy that has dodged the legality of President Jonathan’s undeclared but apparent decision to contest next year’s presidential election.

To buttress their suspicions, the delegates variously pointed out that several decisions were inserted in the so-called draft that were extraneous to the conference’s proceedings. For example, they said, Section 2A in the so-called draft, which approved state constitutions, as in America, was never sanctioned by the conference. Again, the conference, they said, did not approve referendum as a mechanism for adopting a new constitution because that, in itself, entailed amending the current constitution, which approves for referenda only for state creation or boundary adjustments. Also, the conference, they said, never approved that Section 305, on the continued validity of certain pre-existing laws, including the Land Use Act and NYSC, be deleted, as contained in the so-called draft. And so on.

Not surprisingly, the Southern delegates, along with several from the Middle Belt, responded robustly the following day to the NDF’s rejection of the so-called draft. At a press conference addressed by the leadership of these delegates shortly after the conference adjourned from its final meeting that day, John Dara, a delegate from Kwara State and secretary of the Middle Belt Forum, which he claimed consisted of 14 of the 19 states in the North, said the delegates from the sub-region were “solidly in support of the outcome of this conference”.

Nigeria, he said, “would be operated on a new improved constitution, based on the deliberation of the conference subject to the approval of the people of Nigeria”. Those who objected to the labelling of the conference’s report as a draft constitution, he said, were not controverting the accuracy of the report but were merely “not mentally prepared for the idea of a new constitution and that the reality was a bit shocking for some people”.

Yinka Odumakin, the spokesman for Afenifere, the Yoruba cultural umbrella organisation, was even more scathing of the NDF than Dara in his reaction carried by Vanguard (August 13). Members of the NDF, he said, were only trying to blackmail the conference about the draft constitution. “What they are doing,” he said, “is just to blackmail the conference by saying that the draft constitution is Jonathan’s third term agenda. That is not the truth.”

Blackmail or no blackmail, the chairman of the conference, Justice Kutigi, took the NDF’s objection to the so-called draft seriously enough to assure delegates in his closing remarks that if there were any errors in the conferences reports, they were not deliberate and that there was nothing like a draft constitution.

“What were articulated to the delegates,” he said, “were all issues agreed at the plenary session and there is nothing like a draft constitution. What we have are proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution. I repeat, there was nothing like a draft constitution.”

With this, the conference somewhat surprised sceptics like me and avoided ending in a fiasco. Hopefully, the chair will submit a report to the president tomorrow afternoon, which has accurately captured its decisions.

If it does so, many people may dismiss the NDF as a bunch of attack dogs that cried wolf where none existed simply because it wanted the status quo to remain. That would be grossly unfair.

A Daily Trust story last week, which said the chairman claimed his brief in his letter of appointment from the president was to produce a new constitution, suggested bad faith on the president’s side, assuming the story was accurate. I have read and re-read the president’s speech when he inaugurated the conference on March 17. Nowhere in the 56-paragraph, 2,574-word speech did he explicitly ask the conference to give him a draft constitution.

The closest he came to doing so was in paragraph 46, where he commended the National Assembly for proposing an amendment to the current constitution that would allow for referendum as a mechanism for adopting a new constitution, should the need arise.

“Let me,” he said, “at this point thank the National Assembly for introducing the provision for a referendum in the proposed amendment of the Constitution. This should be relevant for this Conference, if, at the end of the deliberations, the need for a referendum arises. I, therefore, urge the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly to speed up the constitutional amendment process, especially with regard to the subject of referendum.”

Surely it would be an act of bad faith for the president to even merely imply something in public only to explicitly declare it in private, assuming, that is, that was what happened. Sources close to the chairman said he has been critical of the Daily Trust story as a gross misrepresentation of what he had said, which was that the president had asked him in his letter to go well beyond merely making recommendations, as had been the case before, and propose ways and means by which its recommendations will be implemented.

Assuming he was misrepresented by Daily Trust, it should be obvious to anyone with even only half an eye that someone somewhere was trying to exploit his belief in the sincerity of the president to make mischief with the conference reports. This much was clear from the way John Dara and Company have tried to defend the so-called draft constitution as quoted above.

The man says the northern delegates did not controvert the content of the so-called draft when indeed they quoted chapter and verse where it contained gross misrepresentations of the conference’s decisions. Not only that, he went on to gloat about what he called “the reality” of a new constitution that those opposed to it would have to live this.

Justice Kutigi has insisted that the conference reports were merely proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution. That being so, to label anyone of them a draft constitution and even give the year in which it will take effect is a gross misrepresentation of what it is. After all there is everything in a name.

In any case you don’t have to be an expert in English grammar to see that the difference between DRAFT CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 2004 and DRAFT PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTIONOF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999 is not mere hair-splitting. Even an idiot can see that the second is, by far, a more accurate representation of the conference’s brief than the first, to the extent that the first is accurate at all.

Isn’t it then strange that many of those, like Dara and Odumakin, who like to dismiss the 1999 Constitution as one not written by “we, the people” are the same ones who would vehemently support another drafted by hand-picked government nominees who have nowhere near as much legitimacy as the elected majority of those who drafted the 1979 Constitution which, really, is what the 1999 Constitution is, give or take a few amendments?

August 20, 2014
Gains of National Conference, by delegate

The National President of the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR), Dr Rotimi Oladele, is a delegate to the National Conference. In this chat with Assistant Editor DADA ALADELOKUN, he reflects on the conference and its relevance to the future of the country.

To an average Nigerian, the National Conference is a mere jamboree. Do you see it in that light?

Indeed, one would not begrudge anybody who feels that way in the light of our past experiences with past conferences. Possibly they didn’t feel their impacts, but I wouldn’t want them to be discouraged because time changes. I think it was obvious from the beginning that President Goodluck Jonathan was determined to see Nigeria better than we met it and he put up this conference because the way the people therein were selected obviously proved that it was a serious intention, apart from political, cultural and ethnicity interests. That the disabled, youths, the elderly and professional groups like us are well represented speaks volumes. I don’t belong to any political party; so are some of my colleagues. Majority of the chartered bodies are there. Also, there are a lot of other professionals who also represent other interests; that means that we are looking for objectivity, fairness and good development propositions. So, I think it is a hopeful one.

What has been your experience?

The experience is a mixed grill. One, the conference itself is a platform which I always refer to on the floor as equal treatment for all unequals and unequal treatment for all equals. At times, if possible, you don’t have some kind of expectation or relationship or the class or group you are supposed to belong to; at times, you may not even be given access to talk and that also was because of the number – 492 delegates! So you can expect that you have twenty four hours in a day – 9 a.m to 6 p.m to operate. Initially, it was 10 a.m to 6 p.m. There is no way the chairman can call 492 to talk in a day. So, obviously, there will rule of the tongue; there will also be unequal treatment for all equals.

Then also, in terms of who we are, we are Nigerians of different backgrounds, perspectives, categories, ages, qualifications and professions. We also have murderers, kidnappers, ex-prisoners, looters, pastors, imams and traditional rulers. There is no caliber of Nigerians we don’t have. They are free people today because the ambit of the law must have forgiven them. The thinking is that with those experiences, even when negative, they should be able to offer positive thinking. For those who have never had that kind of experiences, if somebody has embezzled N1 billion and he realises that now that he is no longer in office and even with that money, he is living in one room, sleeping on one bed, eating only three meals pay day, wearing one or two clothes in one day, he will just see that it doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t immunize him against death and sicknesses; so, he hasn’t changed. I think that kind of thinking should bring them back to sanity.

What other lesson?

Apart from the ordinariness of human beings, I realised that the best thing is to do well. Whatever you do trails you all round and through your history. Somebody stood up to say when he was a governor, he did this, he did that; he has not sat down when three of four hands were raised up and said “but you were the same person who did this and that damage.” They counted about five or six which he could not disprove.

Do you see some misgivings marring the outcome of the conference?

I believe the interest of Nigeria must come first. Anybody looking at recommendations reached from the perspective of his political party, his ethnic group, gender or age group is not interested in the future of the country. We can’t have 100 percent consensus on every issue. Just like MKO Abiola described what leadership is about. Team work and leadership are agreements to work on what the majority agrees to be the best for the society. It doesn’t mean there is no minority. Even when the minority has reasonable ideas, when the majority decides that this is where we are going, leadership and team work behoves them to work together on the agreed agenda to push the society forward. So, that is the way every Nigerian should see the recommendations of the conference. Also, the president should realise that these recommendations are of three different kinds.

He should implement the ones that are advisory and suggestive without waiting for anything, he should implement. That will start impacting almost immediately on the society. The second are those that may require constitutional touches which have to go through legal processes through the National Assembly. The assembly should please do the same by not also looking at those recommendations from political and partisanship platform, but in the interest of this country.

They should equally consider the time element. Even when they affect them negatively, they should know that they will not be in the House or Senate forever. They should know that, if something that is good is now avoided because it will affect them, they should realise that they have left it behind for generations unborn. Somebody must pay the price of change. If I am a senator and a decision taken now affects me and I can sacrifice and make a preventive measure against it for future generations, I have made my contributions, although I lose money, prestige or whatever. That is the way we should look at it. Lastly, if we must go for referendum, which is very expensive because every Nigerian of voting age must be part of it, we can quickly decide on what item will go further and we do it along with the general elections to make it cheaper.

August 4, 2014
‘Lagos memorandum scuttled at National Conference’

There was deliberate discrimination against Lagos State delegates by the leadership of the National Conference, Chief Olorunfunmi Basorun, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), has said.

He accused the conference chairman, Justice Idris Kutigi (rtd), of preventing Lagos delegates from presenting a memorandum for debate.

Basorun, a former Secretary to the Lagos State government, is a delegate to the conference.

He said: “Why was there discrimination against Lagos State? Why did they not allow our delegates at the conference to present a memorandum, which they all signed, irrespective of political affiliation? They were prevented from making their contributions. I am at pain that the two eminent Nigerians at the leadership of the conference allowed the conference to be botched just the way the 2005 Conference was botched.”

The delegates have, however, published the memorandum in newspapers.

Basorun added: “For instance, 80 per cent of Value Added Tax (VAT) collected by the Federal Government comes Lagos State, but the state gets only 20 per cent of the total revenue. This is a lopsided arrangement, which is making the government at the centre to rob states of the lawful share of revenue generated within states.

“Where a body in Abuja would be disciplining a judge in Lagos or have a report on a judge in a state is bad. They have agreed that it should be changed. The Federal Government, through the National Judicial Council, should no longer interfere with judges’ appointment procedure. Where they don’t appoint, they cannot discipline.

“Those at the conference should have some other way of bringing sanity to the aspect of revenue sharing than to talk of creating more states. Some states are not viable; they depend on monthly allocation from Abuja. If they create new states, would they bring money from abroad to run the states?”

July 28, 2014
Our grouse about conference, by northern delegates

Northern Delegates to the National Conference said yesterday that the leadership of the conference was manipulating the order of proceedings to favour a section of the country.

It said voice vote was not supposed to be used to adopt controversial positions, which require voting.

Operating under the Northern Delegates Forum, the delegates expressed surprise that a minority report that was ruled out of order at the conference plenary is beginning to gain the momentum at the conference.

The northern delegates threatened to pull out of the conference, if things were not done the right way due, forcing the conference to adjourn abruptly

Their spokesman, Anthony Sani, told The Nation that the conference was taking advantage of the fewer number of delegates from the North and using voice vote to purge them.

He said: “The position of the Northern Delegates Forum is that the conference is taking advantage of the fewer number of delegates from the North and using voice vote to put them at the short end of the lever.

“This is out of order because the order allows for only consensus or 70 per cent in case of division that calls for vote.

“Northern delegates believe issues of national importance like local government and creation of states as well as resource control should not be by voice vote. Nigerians believe local government is the closest to them.

“And that has been the reasons why there has been the clamour for removal of the provision of Joint Account in order to free them from shackles of state governments and enable them freedom to deliver on the promise of democracy.

“To now recommend removal of local government as third tier of government and their removal from access to the Federation Account and place their creation in the exclusive reserve of state governments should not be effected by mere voice.”

July 15, 2014
Why National Conference must not fail, by Anglican Bishop

The Bishop, Diocese of the Lagos West, Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, the Rt. Rev. James Odedeji, has urged delegates to the National Conference not to fail the nation.

He described the conference as the last hope.

Addressing reporters yesterday during the collation of archdeacons of the Anglican Communion, at Church of the Pentecost, Festac, Lagos, Rev Odedeji said the conference must find a solution to the country’s problems.

He said: “I am afraid if this conference fails, this country will enter into another year of difficulties. It is expected to find solution to unemployment, insecurity, unity and harnessing the resources of the country.”

The Bishop, who spoke against the backdrop of the division between the North and South over resources control and other issues.

He said the people have invested so much on the conference, explaining that anything short of solution would be counterproductive.

“We expect the conference to tackle issues of our children roaming the streets.”

He urged the government to expose Boko Haram sponsors.

The cleric said government should expedite action on the release of the Chibok girls, who have been in captivity for 90 days, adding that if negotiation with the group will bring back the girls, it should do that.

“If releasing the relations of Boko Haram in prison will back our children, government should do that. The parents are already dying of hypertension.

The Bishop of Ijebu West,Rt. Rev. Babatunde Ogunbanwo in his sermon, urged politicians to better the lots of their people and charged the archdeacons to focus on winning converts to God.

The newly collated archdeacons are Rev. Canon Babatunde Adegoroye, Rev. Godwin Danniel, Rev. Humphery Chjindu, Rev. Emmanuel Dosumu, Rev. Canon Ebenezer Adedipe and Rev. Canon Solomon Okeowo.

July 14, 2014
National Conference: Northern delegates shun Kutigi’s meeting

•No, flight disruption affected the peace parley

The division at the ongoing National Conference sank deeper yesterday following the boycott of a peace parley with the Chairman of the conference, Justice Idris Kutigi by Northern delegates.

Kutigi was scheduled to meet with a team of “50 wise men” randomly selected among the delegates.

The peace session was to seek the way forward following the split of the 492 delegates over derivation formula and five per cent intervention funds for the North-East, North-West and North-Central.

While the Southern delegates favour increase in derivation formula from 13 per cent to 18 per cent, Northern delegates are demanding five per cent Intervention Funds for the North-East (3%), North-West (1%) and North-Central (1%) which had been plagued by Boko Haram insurgency.

But the Southern delegates insisted that the five per cent should be designated as National Intervention Funds to cater for emergency situation nationwide.

Another area of disagreement is the demand for ballot process to make delegates feel free on any decision.

Northern delegates alleged that voice vote is being manipulated by the conference leadership to “achieve a predetermined agenda.”

The differences made Northern and Southern delegates to engage in shouting match on Thursday leading to the constitution of a team of 50 wise men by Kutigi to build consensus.

Investigation by our correspondent revealed that only 25 out of the 50 wise men showed up for the meeting.

Findings showed that most Northern delegates in the wise men’s team boycotted the meeting with Kutigi and his deputy, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi.

One of the frustrated wise men, who spoke in confidence, said: “We could not form the quorum; we had to discuss informally which is not binding.

“Most of the Northern delegates did not honour the session as agreed by latching on one excuse or the other.

“I think some Northern delegates have a hidden agenda which would not augur well for the survival of the National Conference.”

But a source close to the Secretariat of the National Conference, however, said: “The closure of Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport to traffic affected the peace meeting between Kutigi and the 50 wise men.

“”Most of the 50 wise men and co-chairmen and deputy chairmen said the closure would affect their movement to their respective states to see their families and for that reason, they won’t be able to attend.

“Only about 25 of them showed up. They just discussed at random and left thereafter.”

A delegate from the North, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, who spoke with our correspondent, said: “The meeting was boycotted by the North. First and foremost, Kutigi was aware from the leadership of the Northern Leadership Forum at the conference that the Northern delegates among the 50 wise men were not going to attend.

He is not the chairman of the northern delgates.”

“Our leader, ex-IGP Ibrahim Ahmadu Coomasie stood up at the floor of the National Conference and said the northern delegates will no longer attend the meeting of the 50 wise men unless a ballot process is put in place to decide on any recommendation.

“If they tell you anything, do not believe them. I am aware that some respected delegates like Umar Hadejia, ex-Minister Bashiru Dalhatu, Buba Galadima, Prof. Auwalu Yadudu and Sadiq Mohammed among others did not attend the meeting called by Kutigi. Actually, Sadiq Mohammed came with me this afternoon from Abuja.

”If there was an attempted meeting it failed, it must have been a figment of their imagination.

On the way forward, Dr. Junaid Mohammed said: “Ask Kutigi who does not want democracy; who does not want us to chart the way forward.

“We came to this conference to defend and protect our interests; we do not come to participate in the reengineering of Nigerian state. The majority has been turned into minority. The North has 62 per cent of the population of this country. Yet out of 492 delegates we are less than 180 at the National Conference.

“We are insisting on ballot because they have been corrupting the voice vote. The rules of the conference say we must have consensus three times and if it failed, we must have physical counting. Since we started, neither Kutigi nor Akinyemi has allowed ballot.

“We either respect the rule or break the conference. What the chairman and the deputy want, was to blackmail the Northern delegates. We would not be blackmailed, we would not be intimidated, and we would not be fazed. As true democrats, we would not shy away from the ballot process.

A key Southern delegate, who spoke in confidence, said: “The only thing we are ready to concede is five per cent intervention funds and it will be named as National Intervention Funds which would be accessible by all the six geopolitical zones.

“If the conference concedes 5 % intervention funds to the North, it means technically we have voted funds for Boko Haram. We will be saying insurgency is the right way to live as citizens.

“We have had insurgency; invasion devastation and war in the South-East, Zaki-Biam, Gabramatu Kingdom, and Odi, there were no intervention funds to rebuild these areas. We are saying the intervention funds should be for all the zones.

“All the leaders and delegates from the South have agreed that it is either National Intervention Funds or nothing else.”

July 12, 2014
Current National Conference

The current national conference has been going on now for almost three months. At the onset of the conference, many people were of the opinion that nothing good would come out of it. Some people even felt it was a deliberate government attempt to divert the attention of the country from serious problems of underdevelopment and insecurity plaguing the country. A major political party like the APC even decided to boycott the conference but it later softened its stance by conceding the rights of representation to states under its umbrella. Right at the beginning of the discussion on the conference, it was my considered opinion that the conference was worth supporting and that everything should be done to encourage participation by everybody who had something to say either as representatives or as opinion leaders particularly in the press. The government in nominating the retired Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kutigi and supporting him with Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, erudite and distinguished professor of Political Science, former Director-General of Nigeria Institute of International Affairs and former Foreign Minister brought credibility to the indaba. Although some of the conferees are people who have been in politics and governance and public affairs for such a long time that many people felt what new things can they really offer? I do not think we can buy experience. The Bible says old men shall dream dreams and young men shall see visions; perhaps, there are too many old men in the conference that is why many of them were sleeping at the onset of the conference. Initially, I felt that there were too many people at the conference and the allowances that they were going to be paid I believe were a little too much and some of them also insisted in eating sumptuous and exotic lunches at the expense of the state. This brought a lot of criticism to them and justifiably so. Some of the members in response to public criticism announced that they were going to donate their huge allowances to charity and I sincerely hope they are going to fulfil their promises and announce the charities they have donated their allowances to. The serious work of the conference was done at the committee level and some of these committee work was apparently excellent and the committees have now reported to the plenary. Unfortunately it seems there now exists irreconcilable clash of interests of members of the conference which the plenary is unable to resolve. It is unfortunate to note that this disagreements are taking the form of north-south dichotomy and sometimes, super-imposed on this are religious differences. Perhaps this should have been expected in a country where people are driven by self-interests and religious hypocrisy. Poverty knows neither religion nor region. A poor person is a poor person no matter which part of Nigeria he resides in, he comes from or what religion he practices or how insecure he is. The duty of government is to make provisions for all people including the poor and to ensure all citizens are assured of their security and guaranteed freedom of worship. These are universal aims of government. I believe that this should have been the first platform to establish so that unnecessary and primordial sentiments are not introduced to serious discussions of state.

The issue of federalism if properly articulated and discussed and understood, should take care of the divisive and fundamental issue of resource control. If we agree to continue to stay together, it should be clear to everybody that the states that are the Cinderellas of Nigeria today could in future become the rich relations. If this is so, whatever economic and constitutional paradigm established today should be good enough to apply at all times in the future. So if well argued, we can find a formula for sharing of God’s given bounty in such a way that those whose land produce it are taken care of while those who are not so lucky are also accommodated in a just and fair way. If twenty percent derivation is offered to the hydrocarbons producing states, I see no reason why this should not be acceptable to all because in the whirligig of time, states that are poor today could become rich tomorrow following the discovery of hidden treasure under their soil.

I personally feel that it is the structure of government in Nigeria that is the main problem. This is why I find it extremely surprising that the conference should recommend creation of additional 18 states to bring the total number of states in Nigeria to 54 even more than the states in the United States which we foolishly compare Nigeria with, not realising that the state of California alone is bigger and a hundred times richer than Nigeria. Every thinking person was hoping that what we will have in this country should just be six states or zones with political and economic power extensively devolved to them so that the centre would no longer be as powerful as it is today and an object of do or die politics. Reasonable people had thought that once these zones are constitutionally enshrined, they should be left to create whatever number of local governments they wish to have and that the present states should be seen as nuclei of provincial administration. What the conference has now recommended would ruin Nigeria economically and lead to bloated governments with 90 to 95 percent of resources going to political administration with little left for capital development. If this happens, the serious youth unemployment and consequent insecurity will be exacerbated. It is also surprising that the simple issue of policing has become contentious.There is no federation that I know of that is centrally policed like Nigeria. Every state and even cities and local governments can have police of their own and in some countries even university campuses have police. Those who are in favour of a centralised police without knowing it or perhaps deliberately are preparing grounds for dictatorship in this country. Finally, as it has been argued by many before me, there is no legal basis for the conference itself, one would have expected that the recommendations of the conference would be so formidable and reasonably argued that by popular demand for its adoption, the federal legislature and the executive would have been forced to embrace them and be forced to put in motion legal processes to make their recommendations the new grundnorm for a new constitutional order for Nigeria.

July 10, 2014
Photo: Confab delegates

CONFAB delegates,Is’haq Modibo kawu(left) Comrade Ajani Olawale,Emir of Dutse,Dr Nuhu Sanusi and Comrade Olakunle Olaitan at the session in Abuja on Wednesday

CONFAB delegates,Gen. Jerry Useni rtd.(left) Naseer Kura and Prof Shown Gayus at the session in Abuja on Wednesday

CONFAB Chairman, justice Idris Kutigi at the session in Abuja on Wednesday

CONFAB delegates, Alayemore of Ido Osun,HRH Aderemi Adedapo(left) Alh. Abubakar Mohammed, Owaooye of Okemesi,HRH.Michael Gbadebo and Olu of Ilaro,HRH. Kehinde Olugbenle at the session in Abuja on Wednesday

CONFAB delegates, Alayemore of Ido Osun,HRH Aderemi Adedapo(left) Alh. Abubakar Mohammed, and Owaooye of Okemesi,HRH.Michael Gbadebo at the session in Abuja

July 9, 2014
Ijaw activists to confab: we‘ll return to creeks

Ijaw activists are angry with the National Conference over its resolution on the creation of 19 additional states without protecting the interests of the Ijaw.

Five of the activists on Tuesday warned delegates against excluding the requests of the ethnic group for the creation of Toru-Ebe and Oil Rivers states.

They vowed to lead a fresh arms struggle against the Federal Government, if their demands for the two new states and resource control were not granted.

They were livid that all their aspirations at the confab had been dashed.

Leaders of the Ijaw Peoples Development Initiative (IPDI) Austin Ozobo; National Association of Izon-Ebe Law Students (NAILS) Ebi Wayas; Coastal Heritage and Economic Watch (CHEW) Wellington Bobo and Rural Development Movement (RDM) Asiayei Enaibo insisted on leading another oil war.

They described the resolutions of the conference as a deliberate attempt to keep the Ijaw in perpetual slavery.

They described the confab resolution as discriminatory and an invitation to anarchy.

Ozobor said the Ijaw were not comfortable remaining in Nigeria, adding that the ethnic group was ready to lead a separatist war.

He said: “The rejection of Ijaw state creation proposal is a call for war.

“It will cause a disaster, which will be worse than Boko Haram because we are going to attack the economic base of this country.

“I envisaged another era of militancy coming, if this injustice is not addressed.

“We have no reason to remain as one Nigeria. This is provocative. We will blow up all pipelines, and that is where Nigeria existence will come to an end.

“The Ijaw are disappointed, we have lost confidence in Nigeria’s peaceful coexistence, and have no joy to identify with Nigerian entity any longer.

“I see the act as insubordination, contemptuous and a time bomb.”

Wayas described the rejection of Ijaw’s requests as barbaric, tortuous and infuriating.

He said it was unfortunate that the Ijaw’s collective interests were being treated with levity.

“We are not comfortable with the present structure of Nigeria. We will not accept any discrimination from any part of this country.

“We can’t watch our oil being used to fund these additional states,” he said.

July 9, 2014
Why North’s delegates met Kutigi, others, by Gambari

Leaders of northern delegates to the National Conference explained yesterday why they met last week with the leadership of the Conference.

The co-convener of the Consensus Bridge Building Committee, Prof. Ibrahim Agboola Gambari, told delegates that he led a delegation of the Northern Delegates Forum to Conference Chairman, Justice Idris Kutigi (rtd), over some contentious resolutions adopted by the conference last Thursday.

But a former Federal Information Commissioner, Chief Edwin Clark, said he was “very very disappointed” that northern delegates sent a delegation to the leadership of the conference without consulting others.

Clark reminded northern delegates that the 1914 amalgamation of Nigeria was done on the basis of equality.

“Nobody is a slave in Nigeria,” he said, adding, the country was at a stage where no section of it could impose its view points on other sections.

Gambari said northern delegates demanded at the meeting with Justice Kutigi that the use of voice vote should be minimized in arriving at resolutions.

He also said northern delegates canvassed the reversal of some contentious resolutions reached on Thursday July 3rd 2014.

The leadership of the conference, he said, assured the delegation that “the points we raised were invaluable and that they will go back to the records and check where votes were close and wherever adjustment could be made, would be made”.

Gambari said: “I led the Northern Delegates Forum to the leadership after close of business on Thursday where we drew the attention of the management to two points.

“On the abuse of vote, we believe that on issues of fundamental importance to this country, we have to be very careful and very clear when we vote aye or nay.

“Secondly, we feel very strongly that proposed amendment during the adoption of reports’ recommendation should not be raised to the same level as conclusions of reports that have been carefully considered by the committees.

“In the spirit of transparency and beyond what we read in newspapers, we had a very constructive meeting with the management.

“We were assured that, yes, the points we raised were invaluable and that they would go back to the records and check where votes were close and wherever adjustment could be made, would be made.

“They also assured us that due process would be observed in future.

“That is why we call on the leadership of the conference to continue to provide guidance to delegates as we approach the conclusion of our assignment and follow closely the procedure rule book.

“For instance, we believe that all subsequent decisions, as we go into critical issues of state creation, devolution of power and others, we should follow strictly the rule book.

“In addition, all already taken decisions that were conflicting or contradictory have to be reconciled.

“The management assured us that at approximate time, these would be brought to the attention of the delegates.

“In our view we should minimise the use of voice vote. We have done all reports but one and gone along with voice vote but as we approach the end of our work, we must minimise the voice vote.

“To avoid delegates being left with uninformed decision, all amendments to substantive issues or recommendations by the committees should be circulated to all delegates prior to adoption.

“So far we have managed to achieve success, don’t let us ruin the good work we have done so far.”

Clark, who gave what appeared a response to Gambari’s speech, noted that it was sad that as the delegates were approaching the terminal date of the conference, divisive tendencies were beginning to creep in.

In apparent reference to the sentiment being expressed by some delegates, Clark noted that geo-political zones came to the conference on equal standing.

He said: “It is sad that as we approach the end of the conference issues are now being raised. We have considered 19 reports remaining only one. People are now having second thought.

“But let me say this, this country called Nigeria, which was amalgamated North and South, was made of equal citizens. That is, we all belong to a country where we are all equal.

“Nobody is superior to the other. That was the basis of our coming together. If I know any moment that you are superior in this country and I am inferior then I do not argue with you.

“It happened in South Africa, it happened in the United States of America. We came to this conference in order to have harmonization and consensus.

“Some of us came out and consulted our fellow leaders. Can we have a meeting, a pre-conference meeting? This was up to last week.

“I consulted Alhaji Gambo Jimeta. I consulted with Alhaji Coomasie. I consulted with Jerry Gana, and we met Olu Falae, Gen. Ike Nwachukwu and others. We set up an 18-man committee to meet and resolve issues before we come to the floor.

“They met once in African Independent Television (AIT) conference room. After that, there are people who believe they know so much. Some of us here we also have children who went to some of the best universities in the world, and no one should come to flaunt his professorship to others here.

“Prof Yadudu (Auwalu), who was not selected by the North, came there and objected to everything. He wrote a letter to Dokpesi (Raymond) that they have withdrawn, that no surrender.

“So we said, ‘can we meet so that we can resolve issues?’ Then we came to the open here. It is very unfair. Who defines important matters and who defines matters that are not important? Nobody!

“For instance, the committee recommended unicameral; some of us said no. I think it will be unfair, Mr. Chairman, for some people to believe that only their point of view should be accepted.

“It must be at the term of everybody in this country. No one is more important than the other in this country. I am, therefore, appealing to all fellow delegates that we have come a long way. Nineteen reports have been considered by voice votes, where they found that there should be bracket, bracket was put there.

“I am very very disappointed that people should send a delegation, meet with the management without consulting others. I have said if there was any issue raised, the leaders of the North should consult some of us.

“The decision we arrived at on Thursday, what do we do? We are no slaves to anybody and nobody is slave to us. Let us live in a country where every citizen is equal.

“It has been said, and we have been reading papers that there will be crisis. There will be no crisis. We belong to this country and let us work together.

“We have just entered the second hundred years of this country. Some people wanted states to be created from their areas so that they can be equal with other Nigerians.

“We have not come here to create states in every part of this country. Even if it were to be created, there must be a reason for states to be created.

“For example, a situation where you have a state and only one part of the state produces the governor is not fair.

“So these people deserve states to be created so that they can also enjoy. States should be created. No sentiment should be brought here. We belong to a country where everybody is equal.

“It is fair for those marginalised to agitate for a state so that they can also enjoy.

“Delegates, let us be united; no sentiments, division or pre-arrangement should be brought to this conference. We belong to a Nigeria where all are equal.”

Yadudu said that it was unfair for Dokpesi to have accused him of working to break up the conference.

He also said that Dokpesi was wrong to have said that he (Yadudu) was not nominated by northern delegates for the meeting of the Consensus Bridge Building Committee.

He added that it was unfair to him that some delegates read proper motive to his actions.

July 8, 2014