The Nation Newspaper

Tag: new Nigeria

  • Towards a new Nigeria

    Towards a new Nigeria

    There have been many suggestions on how to build the Nigeria of our dream beyond the rhetoric of politicians, who promise to build bridges where there are no rivers. The Nigeria I have in mind is one where the constitution meets the people’s aspirations, by providing a workable federation structure and processes of governance that take the diversity of the country into account. It should be a constitution that provides opportunities for self-fulfillment for various groups, thereby making separatist agitations undesirable. What is still unclear is a word picture of how such a new Nigeria might look like.

    While, despite liars and saboteurs, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been working hard to stabilise the country through globally acclaimed economic reforms, the debate rages on the kind of Nigeria he should aim at building. There are two major suggestions.

    The constitutional approach

    The constitutional approach has been the default approach, with two distinct groups leading the advocacy. One group argues that there really is nothing wrong with the 1999 constitution (as amended). The problem, they argue, is with the implementation. The country would be fine if only political actors respected the constitution they swore to obey. True, the constitution is flouted here and there, but that is only part of the story.

    The other group argues that the constitution is so flawed that it must be thoroughly reviewed. Once the constitution is amended properly, they argue, all our problems will be solved. However, despite many attempts at reviews, including two major constitutional conferences, the constitution stays flawed.

    There are far too many problems with the constitution, two of which are paramount. One, it lacks legitimacy, because it was a military imposition, which adopts the American presidential system in appearance but not in details or in practice. It was an attempt to give an acceptable face to the unitary system of government first imposed by the military after the notorious coup of 1966 and then codified into the 1979 constitution.

    However, a close look at the 1999 constitution shows how far away it is from the American model. For example, the American constitution guarantees relative autonomy of the 50 federating states, including control over their own local governments, resources, education, agricultural activities, elections, and police for security. The 1999 constitution does not guarantee such level of autonomy to the 36 states and even recognizes 774 Local Government Areas, thus raising questions about their status as political units and complicating the power of states to control them. Moreover, the distribution of the LGAs is far from the realities on ground. For example, Osun and Ondo states have comparable populations, but Osun has 30 LGAs, while Ondo is given only 18!

    Two, the 1999 constitution over-concentrates power in the federal government, by giving the centre exclusive control over education (via UBEC, JAMB, NUC, NBTE, TETFund, and so on); elections; domestic security via unitary police; and many others. The constitution also gives the centre a greater share of resources as well as control over the sharing of resources generated by the federating states.

    Dr. Joe Abah succinctly outlines the negative consequences of over-centralisation of power and resources in a recent lucid essay (see Rebuilding Nigeria through devolution and decentralisation, The Daily Times, October 1, 2025). They include wasteful spending; corruption; and impunity. Worse still, states depend on monthly federal allocations, leading citizens to overlook states and blame the federal government for everything. This is the dilemma faced by the Tinubu administration, which continues to be blamed, despite providing states with more than double their previous allocations.

    The devolution approach

    The devolutionists believe that the present arrangement has three major shortcomings. One, the structure of the federation is so unworkable that a new arrangement is needed that provides the incentive for federating units to look inwards rather than to the federal government for sustenance. Less than half of the existing 36 states could be regarded as viable in that sense. Many of them are unable to pay the new minimum wage, while also owing salary and pension arrears.

    Two, it is imperative that power and resources devolve from the centre to the federating units in order (a) to encourage the federating units to manage their affairs more productively and empower their residents to strive for self-fulfillment; (b) to allow the federal government to concentrate on its core duties of national defense, economic policy, and citizen welfare; and (c) to shift the blame game from the federal government to the federating units, thereby making both more accountable to the people.

    Two tasks must be accomplished to achieve these goals. First, the federating units have to be delineated into manageable entities, while reducing the expensive overhead costs the present 36-state structure entails. Moreover, the new units must be empowered to manage their own affairs for reasons well articulated by Chief Bisi Akande, himself a fervent advocate of devolution of powers and resources: “Federating units or subsidiary units are usually the theatre of action. That is where you have the land, the forests, the farms, the schools, the hospitals, the manufacturing industries, and even the roads and the citizens, together with daily economic and social activities.”

    Read Also: Cardoso: CBN implementing Tinubu’s reforms to strengthen Nigeria’s economy

    There are two competing suggestions on what the federating or subsidiary units would look like. One group advocates a return to the old regions. The advocates of this approach tend to be older citizens, who grew up during the old parliamentary system in which three or four regions were the subnational governments. Critics of this approach cite the large but unequal size of the old regions and the trapping of minority populations within them.

    The other group advocates the reconstitution of the present six zones into federating units. Among the advocates of this approach are internationally recognised administration and governance experts, including Dr. Abah and Professor Adamolekun, who has even authored a book on the subject (see Reflections on Governance and Development in Nigeria, published in April 2025).

    However, the above task is not achievable unless the constitution makes it possible. Hence, the present constitution must be replaced by one in which the citizens are invested, and which changes the structure of the federation into one in which the present zones are the federating units. The zones would become states, to be known by their geographical nomenclature as Southwest, South-south, Southeast, Northeast, North Central, and Northwest or by some other agreed names. Each state will decide on what to do with the various units within it. However, there should be relative uniformity in the nomenclature. In the United States, for example, the political unit immediately below the state is the County. However, subunits of counties are known by various local names.

    A critical aspect of the new constitution should be the allocation of resources. Dr. Abah has suggested a 20-30 percent share for the federal government, while the subnational units receive 70-80 percent. I align with Professor Adamolekun’s suggestion of 35:65 share as in the 1963 constitution.

    As indicated at the beginning, state allocations have more than doubled because of President Tinubu’s economic reforms. Yet the evidence of the bonanza is scanty across many states. Unless steps are taken to make the subnational governments more responsible and accountable, it will be difficult to sustain the gains of the reforms. A devolved federation along the lines suggested above is sorely needed to make the subnational governments more responsible and accountable, while making “life more abundant” for the citizens, in the words of the sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

  • New Nigeria lauds PTAD

    The management of the           New Nigeria Newspaper (NNN) has lauded  Pension Transitional Arrangement Directorate (PTAD) for  timely placement of their pensioners on monthly payment.

    The firm spoke when its management, led by Acting Managing Director, Maruf Ibrahim,  paid a courtesy visit to PTAD Executive Secretary, Sharon Ikeazor.

    This was made known in a statement by the Directorate‘s Corporate Communications Department.  Other members of the team included managers and pensioners’ union executives.

    The statement read: “The NNN officials said they are very happy at the speed at which PTAD was able to resolve, compute and pay their pensioners. They acknowledged the competence and diligence of PTAD staff in putting the pensioners first.

    “PTAD had in October placed 470 New Nigerian newspaper Pensioners on monthly pension payment for life. The Directorate advised those who have not received their payments to contact their bankers while PTAD re-present the 23 failed payments which is largely due to pensioners inactive accounts.

    “The team was assured that government will soon set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee to look into and dispense with the issue of pension arrears that has accumulated over the years.”

     

     

    Also, the payment to the 109 NoKs is being computed and they will be contacted once the funds are released”, it stated.

     

  • Pathway for new Nigeria

    The author’s English language usage is simple and precise. His tone is mild and yet blunt. The author in his introduction of the book, Nigeria On The Precipice: Issues, Options and Solutions. Lessons For Emerging Heterogeneous Democratic Societies stated that Nigeria, being a multi ethnic society, makes it a sociological complex society. This, he said, is why there are unflinching loyalty and primordial affinity to people’s respective roots and cultural values. He said despite Nigerians’ struggle to live harmoniously from all fronts, yet, its cultural differences constitute a major challenge to national harmony and peaceful coexistence.

    Chapter One has three subtexts. Here, the author provided the context on the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates in 1914 by Sir Lord Lugard. He noted that there is an expression of disappointment by the union as the ethnic and cultural differences were so compelling and couldn’t have worked.

    The book recorded that the British Colony made a huge mistake and suggested that colonial administrators should have looked deeply to understand the cultural differences and see if it could work before the 1914 amalgamation. Thus, they failed both in intelligence and capacity to know that Nigeria was not going to work due to the heterogeneous nature of the people. Simply put, Nigerian people were foisted on one another and there are incontrovertible facts that they are incompatible and are not able to live together peacefully. This is why after almost 60years of companionship the country remained divided along ethnic lines fuelled by primitive cultural background.

    On Constitutional development, he recalled when Nigeria emerged as a country and the development of various constitutions, which were designed to provide systems of government and ways of administration. During this period, the scope and structure of the systems of government were indeed, the reflection of the philosophy, ideology and personalities of those who were involved in the process. Part of the writer’s argument was that among the constitutions that have so far been fashioned for the country that none contained the antidote required to assuage the fears of the minorities or other linguistic groups perceived to be marginalised.

    The author concluded with the subtext Fears of the Founding Fathers.

    He also stated that leaders of the major political parties involved in constitutional conferences leading to the making of various constitutions had deep reservation about the manner in which the British colonial administrations bound the various ethnic nationalities together. He said this raised fears, provoking an atmosphere of skepticism about the Nigerian project to the extent that every move and utterance made by the founding fathers to one another were viewed with suspicion, particularly between the Northern leaders and their Southern counterparts.

    However, the fears of the founding fathers bordered mainly on the premise upon which the British founded the country. This brought about an attitude of frustration provoked by an inability to work on the same political page, hope for a united Nigeria gave way for despair, with related panic for the possible break-up of the country. Indeed, this general negative feeling amongst the founding fathers came from parochial interests induced by tribalism and religion, which posed serious threats to the unity of the country.

    Chapters Two focused on The Federal System as an acceptable social contact with subtext Federal System of Government in the First Republic. The author noted that the federal system of government was an acceptable social contract that worked in Nigeria. During this time, there was autonomy of the federating regions, thus neither the centre nor the region or states are inferior to one another. He remarked that if it was not for the coup of 1966 that brought in the military, which altered that system of government, Nigeria would have transformed and grown into an enviable polity on the African continent and even in the world.

    Here, the writer stated that the federal constitutional arrangement at the first republic tacitly encouraged each region to develop at its own capacity. He stipulated that the composition of federating regions was based almost on linguistic groupings. This provided a huge advantage due to assemblage of people with identical and similar behavioural patterns, attitudes, social values, and political beliefs, making it easier for them to live together under the same inclusive government compared to other circumstances. Also, the federating units had their own constitution, regional police and coat of arms. Their independent style of administration had a touch of peculiar needs incidental to their culture, values, and heritage.

    Chapter Two’s subtext Fiscal Federalism,  talked about how states in a federal system of government needs money and resource to meet their statutory obligation while Principle of Derivation talks about the allocation of natural resources on a percentage basis amongst various levels of government in a country.

    Chapter Three talked about The Unitary System as the origin of Nigeria’s endless dilemma and Transition from the Federal System to the Unitary System by the Military with a subtext Abrogation of the Principle of Derivation’ and ‘Resource Control.

    Chapter Four The Challenge of the Niger Delta People talked about oil as Nigeria’s foreign exchange earner, Oil as a source of revenue for the Government, Oil as a Burden on the Niger Delta, effects of oil on the Niger Delta soil and the 50 per cent derivation, or massive development of the Niger Delta region.

    Chapter Five explained the rise of agitation in Nigeria as well as the national question, injustice and insecurity. Number one of the agitations is Biafra as a symptom of discontent and militancy as a sign of frustration in the Niger Delta.

    Chapter Six Rescue Efforts and a subtext Failed Attempts at Resolution examined areas that federal government has tried to restructure the dysfunctional federation through policies and actions considered appropriate to make up for the gap and enable it work. In Impact of Nationhood the author observes that there is disconnect between Nigerians and its constitution.  It concluded this chapter with a subtext, observing that current developments in the country suggest the future is bleak under the flawed federalism.

    In Chapter Seven, the author asked where does Nigeria go from here as a country? He suggested that leaders should muster courage to face the truth by restructuring the country to operate a system of government based on true federalism. Otherwise, confederalism or break up should be explored.

     

  • New Nigeria of our dream

    SIR: We are into the final lap of what must be the most hotly contested general election in our nation’s history and one that many would consider to be a pivotal moment. To many, the match is between the incumbent the People Democratic Party (PDP) and the opposition All Progressive Congress (APC). To some the choice is between General Muhammadu Buhari (GMB) and Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (GEJ), whilst to others it is between maintaining status quo or change.

    This election is not about PDP or APC. Why? For usually in any contest, the winner is the one with the better skills, strategy, funds and luck even. But in an election, the winner or loser is decided not by the contending parties but by the audience or in this case the voters. For in a democracy, we, the person more literally, have the power to decide who wins or lose, who to serve us as our government and who to serve us as the opposition for the next four years. This election is really about us, the voters, being able to exercise our democratic right to vote in a free and fair election.

    If you are still undecided or unconvinced if you should vote, let me offer some reasons why you must vote in this election.

    It isour duty as responsible citizens. Choosing not to vote is like a family member who chooses not to take out the trash in the house but then complained about the stench, or who chose not to participate in the decision-making process of repainting the family house but gripes about the colour chosen. We lose our right to complain about the state of affairs in this country when we choose not to vote when we can.

    It is where everyone is truly equal. It doesn’t matter if you are the Senator or a labourer, rich or poor, young or old, male or female, as long as you are a Nigerian above 18 years, with no criminal record and are of sound mind, you have one vote each. That is the beauty of democracy; everyone is truly equal at the ballot box. In this way, in a functioning democracy, this system ensures that the rights of the masses are protected and the rich and powerful cannot exploit the system to their advantage. If we don’t realize this fact and allow the rich and powerful to buy our votes or to bully us into voting for them, then we don’t have a democracy.

    It is the only way to hold government accountable. Perhaps we are where we are as a nation is because we have given the keys of power to the same group for the past 16 years and they have gotten drunk with power to the point that they don’t feel the need to be accountable to us anymore. We need to remind them who are the real boss in a democracy.

    We are voting for our children, for a government that would carry us into the next four years.  If we are dissatisfied with the way our country has been managed and believe that things should be better, then this is our chance to vote for change. The choice is for us to make, save the future generation or be part of a failed generation. Even the incumbent president has admitted the fact that his own generation has failed, possibly he meant the PDP generation of leaders, which will surely be judged right come February 14.

     

    • Comrade Ahmed Omeiza Lukman,

    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Towards a new Nigeria

    The 2015 elections are almost here with us. And, the President is demonstrating daily how awesome his powers are under the 1999 constitution. As Commander-in-Chief, he could literally exclude some areas, states from the polls. He could even precipitate crisis nationwide and find excuse to postpone the elections citing relevant sections of the constitution.

    This would be easier done in a pseudo one-party state. But, at a time that another party has arrived to challenge the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), attempting to use such powers could actually turn out an ill-wind that would do no one any good.

    The article being reproduced below was first published in 2003, at the height of the Obasanjo autocracy. It is as relevant today as it was then. It only remains for me to warn that plans to use the military and Police to manipulate polls and hand over the mandate to a man rejected by the people would have dire consequences.

    ONE question that must of necessity agitate the mind of anyone sufficiently knowledgeable about the working of democracy is whether there is a Nigerian brand of democracy. Democracy has been defined in many ways but what is important to notee is that there are some universal principles that define the system. One, there are periodic elections. Two, there is a grundnorm binding on all operators within the system. Three, there is a due process (call it the Rule of Law) that must be followed to the letter. Four, and perhaps the most important of all, the will of the people must prevail at all times.

    In this country, all the rules have been breached. It has been demonstrated over and over again that the will of the people amount to nothing in the court of politicians. The most ingenious among them are busy at all times devising means of thwarting the will of the people. When elections are held, meetings are held late into the night right from the compilation of the voters register with a view to discarding with the masses’ choice.

    Just a few weeks after the hotly disputed elections held in April, the government has started unfolding its own interpretation of the mandate purportedly received at the polls. Last week, it unveiled a new regime of petroleum products prices. In a sense, it is a way of showing that the people might have endorsed the plan to hike prices of such basic commodities. No one bothered explaining how the extra money to be “saved” from the exercise would be spent.

    The 1999 Constitution makes the Nigerian President the most powerful in the world. He is really not accountable to anyone. He is, indeed, like the emperors of yore. He is the Chief Legislator, the most powerful judicial officer and, of course, the Chief Executive. Did you say how? Under the Constitution, the President proclaims, inaugurates and dissolves the National Assembly and most Bills are initiated by him. As we have seen over and over again since 1999, the President also, in unofficial capacity, appoints principal officers of the National Assembly and they enjoy office at his pleasure. With regard to the Judiciary, he appoints the Chief Justice of Nigeria. And, another appointee of his, this time, one responsible to him and him alone, the Attorney General, plays a crucial role in the National Judicial Council which administers the judiciary.

    By virtue of Section 315 of the Constitution, the President could make and unmake laws. This power was first demonstrated over the fate of the Petroleum Trust Fund inherited from the military. The President simply scrapped the body without recourse to the legislature. When the legislators asked questions about the source of his power to abolish a statutory body without a repeal of the relevant law, he brandished Section 315. Looks more like 419.

    Again, only last week, the President in what appears a flagrant disregard of the Constitution, decided to set aside the law by seeking to abrogate the Local Government Councils by fiat. To the best of this writer’s knowledge, Section 7 of the Constitution has not been abrogated. But the President has exercised his power to make and unmake. Makes him look more like the French King Louis XIV of the 17th Century.

    As time rolls by, with a former military leader as president, more of such powers would be exercised to the discomfiture of the electorate. In Nigeria, the electorate is certainly not the king.

  • Towards a new Nigeria

    Towards a new Nigeria

    IN the wake of the seizure of allocations due to the local government councils of Lagos State in 2003, I wrote then that something must be done about the powers attached to the President and the presidency by the 1999 Constitution. I called attention of all patriots to the need to whittle down the powers. The call went unheeded. It is interesting that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has picked up the call.

    Last week, he told a distinguished audience at the Leadership lecture about the need to get the legislature to prune down the presidential powers if Nigeria is to move forward.

    One way this may be done now is to restructure along the lines suggested by Professor Pat Utomi at the forum: the states should give way to regions and the load on the exclusive legislative list drastically reduced.

    At the moment, the President could literally decide anyone’s fate in the country. He controls more than half of all the resources available and commands the armed and civil forces. He appoints the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the President, Court of Appeal and Justices of the Supreme Court. He also determines who is made the Inspector General of Police as well as heads of all security agencies. No other person or body has any say in this. He is the benefactor of whoever is handed the power to organise elections. The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), other national commissioners and even the State Resident Commissioners owe their appointments and renewal of terms to him.

    Reproduced below is the article published almost a decade ago. As it was then, so it is now. This constitution review exercise is another opportunity to look beyond narrow partisan interests in deciding the way forward. Unless we take decisions that could radically alter the national equation, we would be back to this point in another 10 years.

    What manner of democracy is this?

    One question that must of necessity agitate the mind of anyone sufficiently knowledgeable about the working of democracy is whether there is a Nigerian brand of democracy. Democracy has been defined in many ways but what is important to note is that there are some universal principles that define the system. One, there are periodic elections. Two, there is a grundnorm binding on all operators within the system. Three, there is a due process (call it the Rule of Law) that must be followed to the letter. Four, and perhaps the most important of all, the will of the people must prevail at all times.

    In this country, all the rules have been breached. It has been demonstrated over and over again that the will of the people amount to nothing in the court of politicians. The most ingenious among them are busy at all times devising means of thwarting the will of the people. When elections are held, meetings are held late into the night right from the compilation of the voters register with a view to discarding with the masses’ choice.

    Just a few weeks after the hotly disputed elections held in April, the government has started unfolding its own interpretation of the mandate purportedly received at the polls. Last week, it unveiled a new regime of petroleum products prices. In a sense, it is a way of showing that the people might have endorsed the plan to hike prices of such basic commodities. No one bothered explaining how the extra money to be “saved” from the exercise would be spent.

    The 1999 Constitution makes the Nigerian President the most powerful in the world. He is really not accountable to anyone. He is, indeed, like the emperors of yore. He is the Chief Legislator, the most powerful judicial officer and, of course, the Chief Executive. Did you say how? Under the Constitution, the President proclaims, inaugurates and dissolves the National Assembly and most Bills are initiated by him. As we have seen over and over again since 1999, the President also, in unofficial capacity, appoints principal officers of the National Assembly and they enjoy office at his pleasure. With regard to the Judiciary, he appoints the Chief Justice of Nigeria. And, another appointee of his, this time, one responsible to him and him alone, the Attorney General, plays a crucial role in the National Judicial Council which administers the judiciary.

    By virtue of Section 315 of the Constitution, the President could make and unmake laws. This power was first demonstrated over the fate of the Petroleum Trust Fund inherited from the military. The President simply scrapped the body without recourse to the legislature. When the legislators asked questions about the source of his power to abolish a statutory body without a repeal of the relevant law, he brandished Section 315. Looks more like 419.

    Again, only last week, the President in what appears a flagrant disregard of the Constitution, decided to set aside the law by seeking to abrogate the Local Government Councils by fiat. To the best of this writer’s knowledge, Section 7 of the Constitution has not been abrogated. But the President has exercised his power to make and unmake. Makes him look more like the French King Louis XIV of the 17th Century.

    As time rolls by, with a former military leader as president, more of such powers would be exercised to the discomfiture of the electorate. In Nigeria , the electorate is certainly not the king.

     

    This article was first published in Vanguard June 27, 2003