The Nation Newspaper

Tag: National conference

  • On the National Conference

    SIR: Between March 30 and May 20, Nigerians would be treated to another bizarre drama of a national conference that must be seen for what it is: an ominous blitheness that leads only to blind alley. A lot of banal gimmicks have been infused into the political space since President Jonathan’s body language indicated his readiness to cling on to power. The national conference is one of them. Those who will fall for the booby trap will have a date with history as less discerning, who decidedly turned a blind eye to the antics of a political actor and opportunist, who suddenly found an escape route in a clumsy political road. The trouble with Nigeria from colonial days to date is that its leadership have never allowed the citizenry to privately or collectively express their desire to live together. We are not so sure how the federal government came to the conclusion that the 492 delegates to the National Conference is a true reflection and sacrosanct representation of over 160 million Nigerians. The questions on the lips of many Nigerians are, why is the Presidency involved in a national frivolity whose outcome will not be subjected to, and validated by referendum? Who can can vouch for President Jonathan and the manipulative PDP machine to guarantee restriction of a rampaging presidency from stealing and appropriating the people’s voices in the national conference? President Jonathan does not need to restrict Nigerians if he is truly committed to charting a course for true nationhood. His modalities for nationhood does not include the people’s rights to validate – through referendum – that will not be subjected to the PDP manipulative machines. Moreover, that the outcome of the so-called “National Conference” will be ratified through consensus or by 75 per cent of the selected 492 delegates; therein lies the affront and impunity on Nigerians. No matter what, President Jonathan’s good intentions is not good enough for us. What does it cost a determined leadership to conduct an acceptable referendum in the interests of the populace and the nation’s being? Why waste humongous sum in billions on a frivolous outing whose out coming will be derided by future governments? The nation’s survival is far greater than the President’s vaunting ambition and the PDP’s everlasting claims to raw political power.

    • Erasmus Ikhide

    Lagos

  • Niger Deltans’s agenda for National Conference

    Niger Deltans’s agenda for National Conference

    Niger Deltans have articulated an agenda for the National Conference. It was at the Pan Niger Delta Conference organised by a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), Social Action.

    The conference with the theme: “Niger Delta and the National Conference” was held at the Atlantic Hall, Presidential Hotel Port Harcourt. It attracted representation from the states of the region, human rights activists, community leaders, women groups and youth organisations.

    Rights activist Ms Annkio Briggs, who was one of the speakers at the event, said the national conference must be based on ethnic representation instead of regional representation.

    She said: “Despite our enormous resources the Niger Delta, problems have remained unattended; the region is lacking access to basic necessities; that is why we must represent the aspiration of the people of Niger Delta. The Niger Delta must defend their right by ensuring that we have the right to serve for second term like other region and nobody should intimidate us for that. We have problem as people but the national conference offers us that opportunity to address those problems.”

    Prof. Kimse Okoko, a former President of the Ijaw National Congress (INC) and lecturer at the University of Port Harcourt, said some persons were exploiting Nigerians on the pretence of representing the people. He said the time had come when the people should make input on the issues that concern them.

    He said having President Goodluck Jonathan as President of this country is not enough for the region.

    “The issue of national conference should not politicise the people should be represented through various ethnic group to have a people constitution and not geo-political group. We need structures to facilitate the attainment of the best possible quality of life for the peoples of Nigeria. We seek a Nigerian state to be a community where individuals and groups would achieve their best potentials,” he said.

    The Itsekiri Leaders of Thought, a mouthpiece of the Itsekiri people, led to the event by Edward Ekpoko, a lawyer, said for Jonathan to succeed he needs the support of every ethnic nationality in the Niger Delta, urging that he must not be seen as a tribal president.

    “In this regard, the President should not be seen and taken to be an Ijaw man, or for anyone to see the Niger Delta, as synonymous with the Ijaw. The situation where political appointments and patronages in the South-South zone have become the prerogative of the Ijaws is not in the interest of Unity of the region. Handshake across the Niger Delta is gradually becoming a fisticuff.

    “We challenge our Ijaw brothers to have an attitudinal change; they should rather build more bridges than fences. We need one another for the sake of our brother President Good luck Jonathan. The federalism and resource control being agitated for the Niger Delta will be difficult to achieve and even more meaningless in the absence of unity which can only borne out of peace and justice.”

    Leader of Social Action, Dr. Isaac Osuoka, said he resisted politicians sponsorship and participation at the conference. He said the conference was sponsored by Social Action and other non-governmental organisations who share the same belief because they did not want politicians to hijack the conference.

    Osuoka said: “Some of the participants of today’s conference, including some of our eminent leaders know that the idea of the Pan Niger Delta Conference dates back to the 1990s, especially during the late Abacha military junta. Following the genocide in Umuechem (Etche), Ogoniland and parts of Ijawland, organisations like the Chikoko Movement, Southern Minorities Movement (SMM), Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), Rivers Coalition, Environmental Rights Action (ERA) Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) started discussing the framework for a process of joint analysis and collaborative intervention in mobilising our peoples to promote the demands of self-determination within the Nigerian State, as guarantee for environmental and economic justice.”

    He lamented that the efforts and sacrifices of Niger Deltans to end military have mostly been unappreciated.

    “In the 1990’s, our people, through their representative organisations, were unanimous in demanding for a restructuring of the Nigerian federation as a precondition for a democracy in Nigeria. Rather than merely conducting elections with frameworks set up by the military dictators, we all asked for a sovereign National Conference (SNC) and a representative Government of national Unity (GNU) to supervise participatory constitution making before elections.

    “Within this idea, the National Conference would serve as platform on which the different nationalities and social groups in Nigeria would democratically decide on such crucial issues as power-sharing between the various equitable structures for the Nigerian Federation, the control of resources, including land and minerals, the religious question, alternative economic recovery package, a fair electoral system and other such decisions which border on the destiny of the Nigerian state and its peoples.”

    Speakers at the event include, Prof. Ebiegberi Alagoa, Prof. Ben Naanen, Rev. Nnimmo Bassey, Ledum Mitee, Prof. Andrew Efemini, and Dr. M. Akobo.

  • Memo to the national conference

    Ordinarily, a national conference, gives a nation an

    opportunity to renew itself. However, considering the lack of

    will among the political elites to re-jig our faltering nation, substantially because they take advantage or hope to take advantage from the status quo, President Goodluck Jonathan’s confab, like others before it, may not achieve much. But we must invest hope in the project Nigeria. So here is my open memo to the national conference, which the secretary to the federal government, Anyim Pius Anyim, has announced, will start as soon as the 492 members are selected.

    As a guiding principle, let me quote Thomas Scanlon, a contemporary moral philosopher, who said: “all people everywhere equally have the moral right to be treated according to the outcome of a procedure: what constitutes morally right and wrong action is set by the principles that no one could reasonably reject”. Also, Michael Walzer, a political philosopher said: “a society is just if and only if its practices and institutions are in accord with the shared values and cultural understandings of its people. Democratic egalitarianism becomes a requirement of justice in modern societies, because this egalitarianism is an underlying important element of peoples shared values and cultural understanding”.

    The salient point is that we need a constitution that will set down in clear terms: procedures, institutions and standards that are fair and is agreeable to the men and women of our country; or at least a substantial majority of them. It also underscores that such standards will ensure equal opportunities for all the people, premised on shared values and culture of the people. I guess that it is when such shared values form the guiding principles of our fundamental laws, that, we begin to sincerely hear such notions as patriotism, national pride, and the willingness to pay any price for one’s country. In the absence of these core values in the laws and democratic practices of a country, centrifugal forces arise to counter existing orders, which the protagonists consider as unfair. So the confab should examine our current national, political, economic and social structures and proffer improvements.

    Under our national structure, the confab should deal with how we want to co-habit, as a nation. If we agreed at Independence to be a federation, how do we create the necessary equilibrium, to de-escalate excessive sectional contexts? While many have argued for the present state structure, some others have suggested a re-ordering to regions, using the six-zonal political arrangement, as the federating units. The advocacy for the zonal structure is strong, but to gift meaning to the federating units, whether the states or zones, it is important that the confab must advocate the transfer of substantial economic activities to the federating units. Also under this score, the national confab has to confront the fair demand by the south-east zone, which presently has the least states, for equalisation of states, for all the zones.

    In addressing our political structure, the national confab should compare the substantially negotiated 1959 Independence constitution and the subsequent constitutions of 1979 and 1999; that was organised by the military. The comparison will enable them to appreciate whether by the shared values and culture of the people, the abrogation of some of the fundamental principles of federalism under the military arranged constitutions has contributed to the underlining crisis. In this context, the confab should determine whether we will fair better under the presidential or parliamentary system, or a mixture of the two.

    In discussing the political structure, it is necessary for the confab to determine the political, economic and social rights of Nigerians who reside in other federating units, different from their places of birth or ancestry. An agreement on this score is important, considering that presently despite the provisions of the current constitution, there is recriminations across the country on this issue. The confab should determine at what point, a residency could confer all benefits, if ever, it will; and the process that should be followed by the federating units.

    No doubt, part of the challenges wrought on the nation by the current constitution is the over concentration of the economic activities of the country at the center, to the detriment of the federating units. The job of the national confab will be to determine whether the objective principle of creating an extra-ordinarily strong center to counter alleged forces of disintegration has achieved the desired objective; or whether it has become so obnoxious to a peaceful co-existence of the divergent peoples that make up our country. The confab should therefore examine the thesis that the dare devilry quest for control of political power at the center is a result of the excessive concentration of economic power at the centre.

    The national confab should also attempt to deal with our divergent religious, social and cultural beliefs. Their job will be to create templates to harmonious the existence of these contending forces. Some have argued, and I guess they have a point; that the Boko Haram insurgency in the north-east is only a military manifestation of the earlier attempts by the north-west to use ‘unlawful legislation’(under our present constitution) to make their states Islamic states, which former President Olusegun Obasanjo, described as ‘political sharia’. In this context, it is important to understand what drives the militant centrifugal elements, across the zones.

    Let me say that it is a misconception to think that a failure of the national conference will hurt President Jonathan as an individual. It is the same for members of his class. That is why those in temporal control of the political and economic heights of the country don’t really care for a real change; as they live the illusion that they can under the general disorder, steal enough, to insure their future.

     

     

     

  • National conference and perennial half measures

    National conference and perennial half measures

    If anything can be said for the national conference the Goodluck Jonathan government is organising, it is that the vacillation over what to call it – national conference, national dialogue or national conversation – has finally ended after many months of waffling. What have not ended are the debates over its relevance, whether to subject it to a referendum or not (which nuisance the government has passed on to the conferees themselves), uncertainties over the nomination process, and legal and constitutional issues surrounding its convocation and adoption. There are probably a few more uncertainties, but these will manifest as the conference gets underway.

    The opposition to the conference is quite sizeable and vigorous, encompassing many interest groups and the main opposition party, the All Progressives Congress (APC). Their opposition is hinged on the nearness of the conference – clearly an afterthought to the Jonathan presidency – to the elections of 2014 and 2015. Too many political events will be taking place this year for a weighty conference designed supposedly to end all conferences to receive adequate attention. In addition, reports of past conferences, which had received copious attention and active involvement of pressure groups, have been ignored without explanation. Moreover, the National Assembly is itself undertaking major constitutional amendments; so, why another exercise?

    But all these arguments have not swayed President Jonathan. He is determined to push through his effort to organise a fresh national conference. He is not interested in a new constitution and, alas, he has set the customary no-go areas for his own conference, but Nigeria’s unduly optimistic pressure groups are willing to give it a shot. More critically, the president has refused to be decisive on key issues capable of undermining the conference. He says conference decisions will be by consensus, but failing that, by 75 percent majority. What if neither general consensus nor 75 percent majority can be reached? And rather than determine the legal and legislative underpinnings for the conference’s decisions, the president has pushed that difficult, if not impossible, responsibility to the conference itself.

    However, the booby trap is that, as he acknowledged before now, the conference decisions will be incorporated into the existing constitution. But there is already a modality for constitutional amendment, which no external force other than the legislature can tamper with. The president, however, knowingly and deceptively tries to take advantage of the ongoing constitutional amendment process expected to end by June. He obviously hopes that some of the conference decisions will find their way into the final work of the legislature. Failing that, but without saying so, he expects the conference delegates and the rest of Nigeria to put pressure on the legislature to do what some of Jonathan’s ministers sarcastically describe as the needful.

    If the perverted nomination process enunciated by the government does not convince proponents of national conference that President Jonathan is playing ducks and drakes with the feelings of the country, and the unresolved and contentious issues surrounding the actual conference itself do not raise suspicion as to the president’s motives, then Nigerians must be indescribably inured to danger and to common sense. For instance, anticipating the fact that opposition states would decline nominating delegates, the president has accumulated the obscene power to carry out that responsibility on their behalf. If past conferences undertaken in fairly congenial atmospheres failed to see the light of day, what do we expect from a conference being hastily, if not feverishly, undertaken in an atmosphere of doubts, confusion, suspicion and sheer political chicanery and malevolence?

    By every indication, President Jonathan is both unreflective on the conference and mischievous in his politics. The desire to restructure the country has unfortunately lured many Nigerians into embracing the president’s half measures and into ignoring the many booby traps he and his cynical aides have strewn all over the path. Since he assumed office, Dr Jonathan has not been able to fix anything tangible. Yet, he does not think it presumptuous that he is attempting to fix a weighty and elegantly nuanced matter as the restructuring of the country, when he has been unable to fix the plainest and most elementary of Nigeria’s problems, say roads or electricity.

  • 492 delegates for National Conference

    492 delegates for National Conference

    The Federal Government released yesterday modalities for the conduct of the National Conference tentatively fixed to last for three months.

    According to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Senator Anyim Pius Anyim, 492 delegates are expected to be nominated between January 30 and February 20.

    To nominate the 492 delegates are the President, states and local governments, traditional rulers, political parties, retired civil servants, organised private sector, selected associations and professional bodies, civil society organisations and other stakeholders.

    Anyim said the national conference is entitled to discuss all subject matters, except divisibility and dissolubility of Nigeria as a nation.

    Decisions at the conference, he said, shall be by consensus and, where not achievable, it shall be by 75 per cent majority.

    The conference at the end of the three months, he said, would decide whether there would be a referendum on its decision or not.

    To conclude everything that has to do with the National Conference before the 2015 election season sets in, he said, the President will nominate delegates for any state that fails to nominate delegates before the time specified.

    Anyim said: “I now have the privilege to announce that the Government, after long and mature deliberations on the Committee’s Report, accepts the following recommendations for immediate implementation.”

    “(a) The official name of the conversation/conference shall be ‘The National Conference’ (b) The National Conference shall hold in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, (c) The National Conference shall tentatively last for three months and shall discuss any subject matter, except the indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria as a nation. Therefore the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable.”

    “(d) A Conference Management Secretariat shall be established to manage, administer and run the affairs of the Conference (e)Decisions at the National Conference shall be by consensus; but where it is not achievable; it shall be by 75 per cent majority.”

    “(f)The National Conference shall advise the government on the legal framework, legal procedures and options for integrating the decisions and outcomes of the national conference into the Constitution and laws of the country; and (g)The National Conference shall have a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson of unimpeachable integrity.”

    On steps to be taken, he said: “Furthermore, the Federal Government has since approved the next steps necessary towards actualising the National Conference as follows: (i)30th January, 2014 -Formal release of the modalities for the National Conference; (ii)30th January, 2014 -20th February, 2014Nomination of Delegates;

    (iii) Inauguration of the Conference will follow soon after the delegates’ list is concluded.

    “Pursuant to the foregoing, the modalities for the nomination of delegates to the Conference are as provided in the attached table.The list of nominees shall be submitted either online to www.osgf.gov.ng or in hard copy to the Office of the Permanent Secretary (Special Duties Office), Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase I, 3rd Floor, Central Business District, Abuja.”

    On the nomination of delegates, Anyim said the President will nominate Elder statesmen, one per state and the FCT making 37.

    There will be 18 retired military and security personnel comprising three delegates per geopolitical zone for Military, Police and State Security and NIA to be nominated by stakeholders.

    Traditional Rulers, two per zone and one from the FCT, making 13 delegates, are to be nominated by Stakeholders.

    Retired civil servants, one per zone, are to be nominated by stakeholders.

    The Nigeria Labour Congress(NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) shall each nominate 12 delegates, making 24, which should reflect geo-political and gender balance.

    The Organised Private sector, including NECA, MAN, NACCIMA, NESG shall each nominate two delegates.

    Youth organizations, comprising National Youth Council of Nigeria, NANS, shall each nominate six delegates, one from each geo-political zone. The Federal Government shall nominate six delegates, one from each geo-political zone, for other (outstanding youths and role models), all totalling 18 delegates.

    For women groups, the National Council of Women Society (NCWS) shall nominate 12 delegates, two per geo- political zone. Market Women Association shall nominate one per geo-political zone. FIDA, NAWOJ, WINBIZ shall each nominate two delegates.

    Political Parties that have representation in the National Assembly, including the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), All Progressives Congress (APC), APGA, Accord, Labour Party shall each nominate 2 delegates, totalling 10 delegates.

    Stakeholders shall nominate six Christian and six Muslim Leaders while Civil Society Organisations shall nominate 24 delegates across board.

    Nigerians in diaspora in four categories of Europe, America, Africa, Asia, and Middle East shall nominate two delegates per location totalling eight delegates.

    People living with disabilities shall nominate six delegates, one per geo-political zone.

    Newspapers Proprietors Association of Nigeria, Nigeria Guild of Editors, Nigeria Union of Journalists and the Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria shall nominate two delegates each.

    Socio – political/ cultural and ethnic nationality groups shall nominate 15 delegates each, per geo-political zone to reflect religious and ethnic diversities, all totalling 90 delegates.

    Professional bodies, including NBA, NSE, CIB, NMA, NIM, NIA, ICAN, ANAN, NIPR, AAPN, NIESV, Nigerian Environment Society and Nigeria Economic Society, shall each nominate one delegate, totalling of 13 delegates.

    National Academies, including the Academy of Science, Academy of Engineering, Academy of Education, Academy of Letters and the Academy of Social Sciences shall each nominate one delegate.

    The President shall nominate six persons who are not on the bench from the Judiciary.

    Former political office holders including former governors, Senators Forum, House of Reps Forum and the Association of former Speakers shall each nominate one delegate per geo-political zone, totalling 24 delegates;

    The Federal Government shall nominate 20 delegates, six will be women.

    The state governments shall each nominate three delegates. The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) shall nominate one delegate, based on senatorial district. At least, one of the nominees must be a woman. The nomination shall be done by the governors and where the state fails to nominate, the President shall nominate the required number from the state;

    The ALGON shall nominate one former local government chairman each from the six geo- political zones.

    The President shall nominate the chairman, deputy chairman and secretary, but will observe geo-political spread in the nomination.

    The formal inauguration of the conference will take place as soon as the nominations are received and collated, Anyim said.

  • 492 delegates for National Conference

    The Federal Government on Thursday released modalities for the conduct of the National Conference tentatively fixed to last for three months.
    Releasing the modalities in Abuja, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator Anyim Pius Anyim, said that 492 delegates are expected to be nominated from January 30 to February 20.
    Those entitled to nominate the 492 delegates, according to him, include the President, states and local governments, traditional rulers, political parties, retired civil servants, organized private sector, selected associations and professional bodies, civil society organizations and other stakeholders in the relevant field.
    He said the national confab is entitled to discuss all subject matter except divisibility and dissolubility of Nigeria as a nation.
    Decisions at the National Conference, he said, shall be by consensus and where not achievable; it shall be by 75 per cent majority.
    The confab at the end of the three months, he said, would decide whether there would be referendum or not.
    To conclude everything that has to do with the National Conference before the 2015 election season sets in, he said the President will nominate delegates for any state that fails to nominate delegates before the time specified.
    He said: “I am pleased to inform you that government gave the most expeditious consideration to the report of the advisory committee. In doing so, we sought explanations and guidance from the members of the committee as at when necessary.”
    “We were also deeply encouraged by the calls by Nigerians from all works of life for us to proceed with the report of the committee with uttermost urgency, so that the nation can be through with the dialogue well ahead of the approaching political season.”

  • National conference: towards citizens’ advisory

    National conference: towards citizens’ advisory

    The president needs to pay special attention to recommendations that are likely to privilege some groups and marginalise others. 

    Now that the Main Report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue and the Minority Report of the same committee are largely available for perusal by citizens, it should not be out of place for citizens to add their voices to the recommendations contained in the two reports. In a democracy, the existence of a special committee set up to advise the president on how to go about anything should not rule out views from the general public, more so if reports from the formal advisory committee leave room for such interventions from citizens.

    As the president is still in the process of digesting the reports, it is important to draw his attention to some aspects of the main and minor reports. With respect to the chapter on Methodology, it would have been more helpful for the committee to include in the detailed description of the methods of consultation a short analysis of the memoranda submitted and how the recommendations are derived from such memoranda. For example, such analysis would have given citizens an idea of how many of the 710 memoranda opted for the use of referendum; the use of an enabling legislation that empowers the conference to determine how to transform its recommendations into a constitution, etc. Such analysis would have communicated more effectively than just leaving the memoranda in an appendix.

    Similarly, the chapter on Terms of Reference would have been more informative if it contained analysis of submissions to the committee on drawing up a feasible agenda for the proposed conference. It is not enough for the committee to affirm the commitment Nigerians expressed and exhibited throughout the exercise, it would have been more reassuring if the report had indicated the number of memoranda supporting this position. This inclusion would have further made the job of the president easier, as he would have been able to sense the percentage (even in the context of random samples made possible by the nature of the consultation across states) of states and groups that opt for just one No-go area: dissolution of the Republic. Analysis of memoranda would have given the president and citizens opportunities to tell the percentage of citizens and groups with interest in issues that are not constitutional, such as cost of governance, corruption, God-fatherism, de-militarisation of national psyche, restoring national ethics and values; institutionalising Almajiri and Nomadic education, as distinct from those that address issues of re-constitutionalising governance in the country, such as restructuring of the country, political and fiscal federalism, decentralisation of national education policy; decentralisation of national agricultural policy, etc.

    The president needs to pay special attention to recommendations that are likely to privilege some groups and marginalise others. For instance, Recommendation 6.4.3 that says “the credibility of the Conference will be enriched by nominating representatives of the main regional socio-political organisations such as the Afenifere, Arewa Consultative Forum, Ohaneze Ndigbo, Middle-Belt Forum, South-south Peoples Assembly, etc., is capable of introducing avoidable problem in terms of fairness and equity. The fact that only five regional bodies are mentioned by name in the report for special inclusion suggests that there are many others that even the committee is unable to identify, hence the use of etc in the committee’s recommendation. Surely, mentioning five is enough for anyone to believe that the chairman of the committee has no intention to favour Afenifere, an organisation of which he is a leading member.

    But many citizens and socio-cultural organisations across the country are bound to wonder about how the Conference committee arrived at the consideration that Arewa Consultative Forum is more significant than Northern Elders Forum or Arewa Youth Forum. The same point can be raised about the choice of Afenifere over Afenifere Renewal Group or Oodua Peoples Congress, both socio-cultural organisations in the Yoruba region. These five organisations are already part of at least five of the six regions or zones. What special purpose are they going to serve as special delegates to the conference? Nigeria is, first and foremost, a country of citizens, not of socio-cultural organisations. Each of the socio-cultural organisations mentioned by the committee is almost as partisan as regular political parties. Why leave out political parties while privileging partisan socio-cultural organisations?

    Still on recommendation 6.4., the president should notice the temptation to load the conference with nominees of the president—direct or indirect. So-called Interest Groups should just be given the number to send to the conference, without having to pass their nominations through the presidency. Better still, it is better to leave socio-cultural organisations out of the groups to be given special status, more so that doing this is capable of avoidable politicisation of the selection process. Not too long ago, some socio-cultural organisations went to pay special visit to the president while others did not. Choosing an organisation that did that over the ones that did not or have not paid special visits to the president can raise the issue of partiality or favouritism on the part of the president. Special delegate status should be limited to professional groups whose membership is pan-Nigerian while socio-cultural groups that are region or state-specific should be encouraged to use some of the spaces given to states or regions. Equally unnecessary is the recommendation that the president shall have the power to nominate one delegate per state, should there be any governor that is unable to identify a representative for his or her state. Why should the president be given such powers in a pro-federal system in a bid towards full federalisation of the polity?

    In addition, if the issue of referendum was predominant in the presentations made to the committee, how did the committee arrive in chapter 9 at leaving the matter of integrating decisions and outcomes of the conference into the Constitution and Laws of the nation in the hands of the conference, more so after recommending in chapter 8 creation by the National Assembly of an enabling legislation for the conference? If an analysis of the distribution of memoranda over what to do with the recommendations of the conference had been provided, there would have been no reason for any minority report, since the crux of the matter between the main and minor reports is the issue of giving the decision to ultimate owners of sovereignty in Nigeria. Another section that may be unhelpful to anyone being advised is the last recommendation under chapter 8: “In the alternative to the above, the president may exercise his inherent powers under Section 5 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and convene the Conference.” Using such powers had been done before. General Obasanjo did this and nothing came out of the conference he called. Encouraging the president to use this option is capable of making him play into the hands of Nigerians who have expressed serious doubts about his capacity to carry the national conference to fruition. Moreover, providing an analysis of the distribution of memoranda over creating a new constitution or recommending amendments to the existing constitution would have been more helpful to anyone that needs to know the scope of what the conference should do.

    It may not be too late for the committee to let the president know the percentage of memoranda in favour of ethnic nationality representation, enabling legislation to allow the conference take its recommendations to the people in a referendum, and reserving seats for gubernatorial and presidential nominees. The resultant weight of evidence is likely to assist any advisee to opt for what majority of citizens at the interactive sessions prefer. For the president to have opted for a national conference that is not sovereign already limits the scope and power of the conference. To encourage the president to nominate up to one-third of conference delegates will be an overkill, the type that can produce an Obasanjo-type of conference.

  • National conference: what if a minority report exists?

    National conference: what if a minority report exists?

    What is left for the presidency to resolve now is the conflicting claims propagated in the media about a minority report by Chief Solomon Asemota

    Last week, we argued for immediate release of the report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on national conference, invoking principally the citizens’ right to know what a committee funded from the common purse recommended on a matter of obvious importance to lovers of national unity. From the release of the first installment of the report in The Guardian last Wednesday, it is now clear that the presidency must have been thinking about the need to let the public know what report has been derived from the various memoranda sent to the Conference Committee. What is left for the presidency to resolve now is the conflicting claims propagated in the media about a minority report by Chief Solomon Asemota.

    Ordinarily, there should have been no confusing statements about the existence of a minority report. Unfortunately, there has been. Senator Okurounmu said at the presentation of the committee’s report that there was no minority report. To support this, he reminded his audience that all members of the committee were present at the presentation of the report. Chief Asemota, who was present, did not indicate that he had a minority report. Yet, newspaper reports abound on the existence of a minority report submitted to the presidency. Given letters from readers of this column to the writer, it is obvious that the public is still largely confused about this simple but important matter.

    First, let us address the philosophy behind writing of minority reports. For too long, the concept of minority report has been an abiding aspect of the culture of democracy and democratic governance. Even in very sensitive cases of judicial adjudications, judges are allowed to submit minority report if they have good reasons to hold opinions that differ from those held by majority of members of a judicial panel. Once a committee, regardless of the subject of contemplation, includes more than two members, it is in most democracies not unusual if some committee members to choose to do a minority report, particularly if such members feel strongly about issues of divergence between them and the majority of committee members. Doing this does not diminish the main report or recommendations submitted by majority of committee members. If anything, a minority report is capable of enriching the report of the main report, as it is likely to show the sources of disagreement and their implications for proper handling of the matter at hand.

    No president or leader constitutes a committee in which individual members have no right to hold opinions that are different from those held by most members. As democracy represents a model that respects and formalises plurality of perspective, minority report on the bench or on the street underscores the freedom of individuals to hold opinion of their own on matters of significance to all. The axiom that the majority must have their way while the minority must have their say captures this aspect of democratic culture. The current confusion regarding minority report on the interactions between conference advisory committee members and citizens across the country is unnecessary. Majority members of the committee have the right to present a report that captures the views of most members while minority members also have the right to express their views.

    Given the size of the doubt about Chief Asemota’s minority report, it is only the presidency that can shed light on the matter at this point. It is important to pay attention to the intellectual as well as the political implications of such report. Intellectually, giving the public an opportunity to know the basis and degree of disagreements between the Asemota side of the committee and the Okurounmu side is a significant part of the form and method of argumentation. Secondly, constructing distinct arguments on the interpretation of the data submitted by citizens can assist the President and even citizens to choose which argument is more cogent. Kicking off from a clear understanding of what citizens prefer in terms of form, process, and content of the national conference is the best way to gain the confidence of the public on the important matter of turning Nigeria into a union of affection, rather than one of coercion constructed largely by military dictators before the advent of civilian regimes. Furthermore on the intellectual side, there are two related questions that the presidency can answer at this point: Is there a minority report? Has it been submitted or presented to the president? If the answer to these questions is no, then newspapers will become better informed on what to pass to the public on this issue. Should the answer be yes, then the presidency ought to share the recommendations of the Asemota report with the public. Not to do so will be tantamount to repressing views of a section of the conference advisory committee.

    There is a political dimension to the Asemota report, if it does exist. And the presidency ought to realize that citizens need to be assured that what they took to the conference committee is what formed the basis of both the committee’s main and minority reports. It is the citizens and various organizations that submitted memoranda to the committee that are in the best of positions to assess the degree of congruence or divergence between the preferred modalities they gave to the committee and the recommendations derived from these in each of the two reports. Keeping the minority report out of view has more negative political implication than letting citizens know the contents of the report.

    For a conference that is promised to give citizens opportunity to talk frankly about how they want to create structures to sustain the country’s unity and progress, there is no better way to start the process than to be forthcoming and upfront with citizens on the two sets of recommendations from the committee. There are already many pieces of rumour regarding what kind of conference citizens want. For example, the main report argues that there is no constitution that can be brand new, given the fact that materials from preceding constitutions are often carried over into the new one. But the main report is not sufficiently clear on the preferences expressed by citizens when committee members interacted with them. What is the percentage of the memoranda that calls for amending the existing constitution and for creating a new constitution? Retaining materials in a new constitution does not automatically justify handing recommendations from the conference to the national assembly for approval or ratification.

    In addition, what does the minority report say about creating an enabling legislation to set the conference in motion and including in the motion the use of referendum to determine citizens’ view of the recommendations? Should the minority report have a different view on this aspect of the conference, it will be necessary for citizens to know which committee report says what in respect of pre-conference or post-conference legislation by the federal legislature. While the president is not obliged to accept any of the two reports from a committee set up to advise him, it is important for the presidency to assist citizens, through full disclosure on the number and details of reports, to add their voices to the debate on how best to create a constitution that is acceptable to the majority of Nigerians.

  • Matters arising from the national conference report

    Matters arising from the national conference report

    Not disclosing the details of the report to the public is capable of encouraging well-meaning citizens and groups to pay undue attention to speculations

    As should be expected in a country that has developed a unique trait known as the Nigeria Factor, the issue of a national conference promised a few months ago by President Jonathan has started to get compounded but not unavoidably. Instead of the public having a full knowledge of the contents of the report submitted to President Jonathan by the Advisory Committee, it is now being entertained with media presentations of personal disagreements between Senator Femi Okurounmu and Prof. Ben Nwabueze, two well-known advocates of political restructuring and two persons invited by the president to serve on the committee principally on account of their views on the need to restore true federalism after decades of constitutions authored by military dictators. If care is not taken, brickbats between Okurounmu and Nwabueze may degenerate into larger conflicts that may eclipse the real issue: What is in the report submitted to the president from views garnered from Nigerians across the country?

    Before such a thing happens, it is necessary for the presidency to share the report with citizens. There is the impression that because the committee is advisory, its report is meant only for the eyes of the advisee. Another way to look at this is that the committee was not appointed to advise the president as a private person but as the head of state and that the pre-report meetings of the committee were funded from public purse. Therefore, the principle of the need to know applies, without any prejudice to the president’s right to accept or reject the report. The right of citizens, particularly those who made presentations to the committee during its fact-gathering meetings in different parts of the country, to know to what extent the committee captured their views must be respected. It is only after the public is caused to know what the report recommends that it can assess on one hand the proximity or distance between the report and citizens’ memoranda to the advisory committee and, on the other hand, the extent of congruence or divergence between what the committee recommends and what the president eventuallyaccepts.

    Therefore, the ongoing media war between Senator Okurounmu and Prof. Nwabueze may be unnecessary until the presidency releases details of the report to the public. There is no good reason for any individual or group to start blaming the messenger before the message is disclosed. There is no good reason to encourage citizens and groups to start acting on conjectures. Not disclosing the details of the report to the public is capable of encouraging well-meaning citizens and groups to pay undue attention to speculations.

    Although the Igbo Leaders of Thought working with Prof. Nwabueze had raised many important issues about how to organise the conference, it is, however, premature to do this before knowing the contents of the report of Okurounmu’s committee. Without access to the full report, such issues as using existing federal constituency as basis for selecting delegates, turning the conference into an exercise to amend the 1999 Constitution, and throwing away the call for referendum as the basis for accepting or rejecting a new constitution are essentially academic. There is so much that the presidency can do to ensure that there is no drift from the real issue to interpersonal disagreements between two of his original nominees to advise him on the conference. Were Prof. Nwabueze not hobbled by age-related ailments, he too would have served on the committee with Senator Okurounmu.

    The first test of transparency is for the presidency to release the full report of the committee. This will allow citizens and organisations to participate in post-report thinking that can assist the president. If queries from readers of this column are anything to go by, citizens from across political and class spectrums are already anxious to know what the president intends to do with the recommendations they believe must have been derived from their memoranda to the committee.

    There are already too many ideas about the report and the conference that are likely to add to the view that the president may not be as serious about the conference as he must have come across to the general public. For example, the issue that the conference will not start until March 2014 is already giving some citizens a lot of concern, particularly that INEC has announced its intention to lift suspension on direct political campaigns around the middle of the year, preparatory to holding presidential and other elections in early 2015.

    Another controversy-laden issue being popularised in the informal media is the suggestion that the president may be nominating 120 delegates to the conference. It is only an early release of the full report that can stem such speculations and assure citizens that the 2014 national conference is not going to be a clone of the one held under the presidency of General Olusegun Obasanjo.

    From the volume of memoranda submitted to the committee and given the enthusiasm demonstrated by citizens and groups at the presentation of such memoranda, it is saying the obvious to observe that citizens are craving for a transparent and credible national conference. There are too many important issues for discussion at the conference that certainly require time for serious dialogue and deliberation on how to enhance the country’s unity. Such issues include the following: At what point is the national assembly going to create an enabling legislation for the conference? How are delegates to be selected for the conference? Will the conference write a new constitution or is it to repeat what federal legislators have been doing in the last three years in respect of amending the current constitution? How long will the conference sit to enable it conclude its assignment before the 2015 elections? Will the conference give a voice to citizens through a popular referendum on its recommendations? Some of these issues must have been addressed in the report submitted to the president, but it is hard for citizens to discuss them without knowing what exactly the advisory committee has recommended to the President Jonathan. There is no good reason for the presidency not to share the report with citizens.

  • ‘National Conference not Nigeria’s most pressing need’

    ‘National Conference not Nigeria’s most pressing need’

    Senator representing Ondo North in the National Assembly, Professor Ajayi Robert Boroffice, in this interview with Assistant Eitor, Remi Adelowo, shares his thoughts on the recent governorship election in Anambra State, the defection of five PDP governors to the APC and other issues.

    What is your assessment of the last governorship election in Anambra State?

    The Anambra election is an eye opener to the satanic plan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to perpetuate itself in power. The dastardly act of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) under the guidance of the ruling party has been exposed and there is no more hiding place for them. The international community is watching what is going on and are beginning to doubt Jega’s credibility. The credentials of righteousness and integrity, which Jega brought to INEC, have been drastically eroded. The APC has rejected the election and called for its cancellation. That is what we expect from Jega. Let me assure you that whatever may be the sinister plan of PDP and INEC for 2015 will not succeed. We are going to enforce a free, fair and credible election.

    President Goodluck Jonathan has proposed the convening of a National Dialogue. Do you think this will address the multifarious challenges facing the country?

    A lot has been said about the National Conference, but my take is that the political undertone is suspect. The conference may just end up being a waste of time, a waste of tax payers’ money and also diversionary. The government should address more pressing problems confronting the nation rather than dissipating energy on this conference. Nigerians have been stigmatised by impunity of criminality and corruption; we have been traumatised by insecurity to lives and property and we have been brutalised by political intimidation. The National Conference will not diagnose this malaise and prescribe treatment for them. For instance, when will our universities reopen? When are we going to have steady power supply? When are we going to have good and safe road and rail transportation system? When will our industries begin to work and provide employment for Nigerian youths? These are the issues that this government should address instead of wasting our money on a national conference that will not yield any result.

    Do you share in the notion that the recent defection of five PDP governors to the APC is likely to alter the country’s political dynamics?

    The defection of PDP governors to APC is divine and it is an answer to the prayers of Nigerians who have been groaning under the burden of bad governance laden with corruption and impunity of criminality. What we have is a dysfunctional government clinging on intimidation for survival. What we are seeing is an unfolding political evolution which is taking the dimension of a revolution. If APC has not emerged, Nigeria would have witnessed a Nigerian spring. APC has kept the hope of Nigerians for a brighter future. It is obvious this political development has destabilised the PDP even though they are pretending that it is inconsequential. If you realise the fact that the governors that defected control states with high concentration of voters in the North and the South, then PDP is in trouble. PDP has always relied on rigging in claiming electoral victory. With the emergence of APC, there is a balance of power which will make rigging very difficult. Jega’s INEC should be ready to meet the wrath of the people if they try to play any funny game. A post-mortem of the elections conducted in recent times has revealed all the rigging strategies of INEC. APC will counter them. I can assure you that APC will take over the centre in 2015 and will control 29 of the 36 states.

    With the recent political development, is there likely to be a paradigm shift in the National Assembly?

    On the issue of paradigm shift in the Senate, I think the Senate will reflect the reality of the political situation in the country. What is happening now is part of a process and the trajectory of the evolution cannot be configured with certainty now. But there is no doubt that there will be mutual respect between the APC and PDP in the Senate and this balance of power will definitely affect the way the Senate conduct its affairs.

    The Federal Government will be marking the country’s centenary celebration next year. In view of the many challenges the country is facing, is the event really worth being celebrated?

    The celebration of the centenary of the amalgamation of Nigeria as a country is a historical landmark which should invoke feelings of pride and gratitude in all Nigerians if we have progressed as expected. But the truth is that 100 years after amalgamation, Nigeria is still a geographical expression and not a nation in the true sense of it. Religious and ethnic cleavages are getting wider and wider every day. Those countries that were at the same political take-off point with us are far ahead of us in all facets of development. Our infrastructures are still at the primitive level. If not, how can you explain the fact that we are still building narrow gauge single track rail line in this century? None of our airports is of international standard; none of our universities is among the best 500 in the world, while the larger percentage of under-15 children are out of school, according to UNESCO.

    The recent defection of some PDP governors to APC has raised fears of an implosion in APC, particularly in the choice of its presidential candidate in 2015. Do you nurse such fears too?

    I want to assure you that there will be no implosion in APC resulting from the picking of the presidential candidate and the running mate. The process will be democratic, smooth and acceptable. Nigerians will hail it and the prophets of doom, looking forward to the implosion in APC, will be shocked and disappointed.

    What is your score card as a Senator?

    I believe I have served my people well in bringing to them dividends of democracy. I have provided many communities with solar street light, solar powered water borehole, transformers, classrooms and employment for our youths. The projects are there for people to see and we plan to do more.