The Nation Newspaper

Tag: parliamentary

  • The Patriots seeks return to Parliamentary system of govt

    The Patriots seeks return to Parliamentary system of govt

    • Eminent Nigerians’ group backs independent candidature, single-day polls

    Members of Eminent Patriots of Nigeria yesterday called for an immediate constitutional framework that will ensure autonomy to the federating units, as obtained in the First Republic under the Parliamentary system.

    The group, which comprises elder statesmen, women and intellectuals, spoke in Abuja at the National Constitutional Summit it organised to unveil a Draft Constitution for Nigeria.

    It rejected the 1999 Constitution, as amended, insisting that the existing document was imposed on Nigerians by the military.

    The summit comes as the National Assembly is holding zonal public hearings on the review of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, across the country. It proposed several changes, including how to select members of a Constituent Assembly, which will midwife the new constitution, and what system of government best suits the nation.

    Chaired by a former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, the summit called for a new Constitution for the country to be drafted by elected members of the Constituent Assembly.

    In the resolutions of the summit jointly read to reporters by Professors Maxwell Gidado and Mike Ozokhome (SAN), the group called for an immediate constitutional framework that would ensure a system of government “where the federating units will enjoy their autonomy, as obtainable in the First Republic and in other genuine democracies of the world”.

    For the proposed constitution to get a legal backing, The Patriots urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to introduce an Executive Bill to the National Assembly to empower the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to organise elections into a Constituent Assembly.

    On the mode of constituting the delegates to the proposed Constituent Assembly, the summit recommended that members should be elected on a non-partisan basis as well as representatives of special interest groups.

    The resolutions read: “The assembly will rewrite a People’s Democratic Constitution that will be subjected to a referendum of the Nigerian people before it is presented to the National Assembly.

    “The assembly, in formulating the Constitution, will take into full consideration the 1960, 1963, and 1999 constitutions, the 2014 National Conference recommendations and orders for a return to genuine federalism…

    Read Also: Benue killings: When graveyards replace farmlands

    Delegates to the summit frowned at the current system of government, describing it as “too expensive, prone to abuse, and a hindrance to people’s welfare”.

    It is recommended that the Constituent Assembly should closely examine the most appropriate system of government for Nigeria.

    They called for the rearrangement of the six geopolitical zones in such a way as to ensure a truly federal system of government.

    The summit suggested that all elections should be conducted on a single day, as it is cheaper. It further recommended that the electronic transmission of results should be made mandatory, demanding that all election matters should be concluded before swearing-in.

    In reviewing the country’s bi-cameral federal legislature, the summit noted that the two-chamber system presently being run “is unsustainably expensive for Nigeria to maintain” and recommended a more appropriate, cost-effective system.

    Other resolutions the summit reached include independent candidature for aspirants who do not wish to run election on party basis, but said “once a person is elected on a platform of a political party, he shall remain there till the tenure is over and shall not defect to another party. The consequence, he will lose his seat”.

    The Patriots called for a legal framework that would give civil rights to Nigerians in diaspora to participate in the democratic process.

  • ‘Parliamentary system not the solution’

    ‘Parliamentary system not the solution’

    Former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential aspirant, Dr. Abdul-Jhalil Tafawa-Balewa, has said the adoption of parliamentary system is not the answer to socio-political and economic challenges.

    Tafawa-Balewa said this in an interview with News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Lagos.

    The politician was reacting to calls for a shift from the presidential system of government to the parliamentary system of government.

    Nigeria practised parliamentary system, modelled after the British Westminster system, from 1960 to 1966.

    Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was Prime Minister, while Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe served as the ceremonial Head of State or President.

    Read Also: Lagos kicks-off building of 950m road in Ibeju-Lekki

    “No (adoption of parliamentary system), but I think democracy has to be modified in Nigeria to be able to represent us.

    “To introduce something somewhat new, something radically different will be too costly for us, and it won’t make much sense at this time,” Tafawa-Balewa said.

    Instead, he said the country should be restructured to allow for devolution of power from the centre to the federating zones.

    The PDP chieftain noted this would make the zones to develop along their comparative advantage, adding it would make most of the country’s challenges disappear.

    “Honestly, I feel that each zone can specialise in particular ideas.

    “To develop the different zones for what their specialties are will make Nigeria a much better country, I believe,” Tafawa-Balewa said.

    According to him, the Southwest can concentrate on the service industry and the Southeast on marine industry, manufacturing and commerce.

    The PDP chieftain said Southsouth could stay with the petroleum manufacturing derivatives, while the North could concentrate on agriculture.

    “If we are able to invest properly in those areas, Nigeria will be better. The standard of living will be better…’’

    Decrying the cost of governance, Tafawa-Balewa said the National Assembly had been over-bloated and over-strained.

    “I don’t think that we need that. Maybe, we need few representatives from the different systems that can join the federal, a much slimmed-down federal body,” he said.

  • ‘Parliamentary system of government more democratic than presidential, but…’

    ‘Parliamentary system of government more democratic than presidential, but…’

    Prince Adewole Adebayo, the presidential candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the 2023 general election, came fifth in the election. In an interactive session organised by the Nigeria Leadership Series, hosted by the Africa Leadership Group (ALG), Adebayo speaks on several issues. Excerpts:

    State of Nigeria’s democracy

    My impression of our democracy is that democracy is yet to come. What we are having are attempts towards democracy. So, we are like people who want to study medicine and they are doing pre- med studies. So, if they get the right grades, they can start medicine. We are in civilian rule, but we have not managed to enter into democracy because democracy is not a permanent state. It is the presence of certain dynamics. Even a previous democratic state can slide away from democracy. So, the tools of democracies are not complete yet.

    For two reasons, power is still not flowing from the people yet because of the psychological self-dis-empowerment by the people where they don’t recognize that they are the ones forming the government and that the government is their servant, their commissioning agent to work for them. They still have this monarchical, dictatorial idea, where they think the people in government are their rulers, their leaders, their owners.

    Secondly, people don’t want to take responsibility for making choices in a democracy. To make choices in a democracy, you need to know the issues at stake and make your choice of leadership based on where you stand on these issues. So, it requires continuous education.

    They have to own the government. The political parties have to evolve from the people.

    Holding office holders accountable

    Why is there no change despite all these ideas and speeches? Speeches are not difficult to make, but turning them into a reality is the challenge. The problem with Nigeria so far is that people don’t change their behaviour. They can change their word of mouth, but hitherto, even up to this point, it doesn’t matter what your character is, or what your past is. There’s no memory. Nobody’s going to question you, so it makes many people who are outside the government just believe that if they are outside the government, they can say whatever they like, but when they get into office they can do whatever they want as nobody will query them. Many of the people who said this and that, if you look at their lifestyle, if you look at what they have done, this has not been consistent with what they are saying and that was why at the beginning of this intervention, I said that as far as Tinubu is concerned, you can be his worst critic or you can be opponent like me, but you can never say that he’s not doing what he said he would do. 

    Plan to win the election without a strong structure like in PDP and APC

    How did we plan to win without structure? We knew it was difficult to win without structure. However, when we audited ourselves, we were present in all the local governments. When you talk of structures, they didn’t have more structures than us.  Our campaign was run on the basis that the Nigerian people could choose between the people who had been ruling since 1999, and what they have been doing wrong, compared with our ideas. We have learned our lessons and realized that the message doesn’t sink in within nine months of the campaign. If we were to do that, it should have started much earlier, and that the elite whom we were trying to take power from, were clever enough to divide themselves into three. The APC, PDP, and  LP, are all incumbents. They all had been in the same system before. They took all the oxygen away and now we are going back to work on our grassroots.

     Working with the National Assembly

    As to how I would have worked with the National Assembly successfully if I had won? What we believed was that the momentum that was going to push a first-timer to become president would also push a lot of first-timers to become members of the National Assembly. So, I wasn’t the only one running.

    The parties had candidates in other places that were not from the government side that we had discussions with. We were 14 political parties that had one year of coming together, so we thought that with different parties, and the way the election was supposed to go, even ADC would have at least three senators, and the Labour Party would have some, but it turned out that wasn’t the case at all. So, we have learned our lesson, but I will not say the lesson we learned, because you don’t make the mistake of running 2027 on the lesson of 2023. After all, every election system brings its new challenge.

    Media’s responsibilities

    The media is a constitutional entity. The media is a permanent government. Media and Law are the two professions that are mentioned in the Constitution. So, they need to recognize that. You will see that in the situation we find ourselves in Nigeria today, it is not only the media that is messing up, even I as a lawyer, my profession is messing up because it is my profession that will occupy one arm of government, the judiciary, all of us there are lawyers.

    Read Also: First Lady raises the alarm over waning values among youths

     Now the idea of people exploiting politicians, they are exploiting themselves because they don’t realize that the politician has no money to give. People used to tell me in those days when we started, you are not spending money, I said look, I am spending more money than most of the politicians you are mentioning because they are spending government money, your money. I am giving you money I made from my profession. If you think that you can fool a politician by collecting their money, you are fooling yourself. Because that’s your social welfare money that is being spent on you ahead, that is why you have no leverage, especially for youth and women, they give a one-time wrapper for everybody. So, once you buy them wrappers and a T-shirt, then you are welcome and youth like all these. Even people posting on social media, many of them are being funded by politicians. I know the economy is hard but we need to know that the solution to your problem comes from having good political leaders, which means you need to make contributions not encourage money politics.

    Between the presidential and parliamentary systems of government

    We have tried the Parliamentary system before. I am a student of it, and I observe it working in Canada, and the UK. I don’t think it can work in Nigeria.  It’s easier to operate the presidential system than the parliamentary system because the parliamentary system is not stable. No government has tenure, so it’s just by coalition. If you know what Balewa went through, he had to work with a lot of undesirable elements in order not to lose the majority. If you look at the argument Babatunde Jose, the MD of Daily Times had with Balewa, where people were talking about the corruption at P&T when they sold that land at Ijora Way, that was the First Republic and they were asking him to discipline the minister who was involved.

    He called Babatunde Jose and said how can I discipline the minister? I am in a coalition government. I told his party to remove him, they said they were not going to remove him, so, if I removed him they would withdraw and we have to call another election and there are so many other problems.

    The parliamentary system is more democratic than a presidential system, however, a presidential system is more stable and that was why at the Constitutional Assembly in 1977, everyone who was alive, Awolowo, Aminu Kano, all of them who were in the parliamentary system voted for the presidential system. So, I think if we obey the presidential system, it will work better, that is my point of view but as the country goes on later, you can have a hybrid system like South Africa where the president himself is also an automatic member of parliament, then he can be called to parliament to be questioned. You can do that.

  • Debating the parliamentary system again

    Debating the parliamentary system again

    Suddenly, almost out of the blue, debate has begun over what system of government Nigeria should adopt or return to. It is not certain that the debate stands any chance of gaining sufficient traction, not to talk of procuring the outcome its proponents desire; but for now, apart from some vague acquiescent whispers on social media and knowing winks in the traditional media, the debate is given life solely by a coterie of national legislators. They want a return to the parliamentary system of government to save or manage cost of governance in the face of dwindling revenue. Sponsored by House minority leader, Kingsley Chinda, and 59 other House of Representatives members, the bill virtually repudiates the presidential system practiced in Nigeria since 1979, pockmarked by some cruel and violent hiatuses.

    Sixty out of 360 House of Representatives members, or one out of six, may not seem significant enough, but the pro-change lawmakers have at least enlivened the debate on Nigeria’s system of government. It is of course class suicide, for dozens of them now flourishing in a bicameral legislature might be edged out in the race for relevance in a unicameral system. They are probably sensitised to the risks they face advocating for a return to the First Republic system of government, but given the eagerness with which they pursue their latest cause, they seem inexplicably unperturbed. How equanimous they would be in the face of unplanned and unexpected electoral setback in the future remains to be seen.

    There has so far not been a reliable computation of what it costs to operate Nigeria’s democracy. Structurally and culturally, that cost is presumably very high. Structurally, because the current presidential system is bicameral, it will require almost twice what it costs to run a parliamentary system, in terms of personnel and material costs. And culturally because Nigerian officials have not quite mastered the art of running things efficiently, nor are they disquieted by the obscenity of grandiloquent appearances, whether they pertain to legislative buildings, duplicated ministries and agencies, or even disproportionate perks and emoluments. But in vague and general terms, assuming Nigeria does not still find an ingenious way to make a unicameral legislature extravagant, a parliamentary system appears cheaper. The sponsors of the bill thus have a prima facie case against the presidential system. If they do not run out of steam sooner or later, they will win many unwary minds to their side.

    The 60, or their representatives, have toured a few states and met with a few statesmen in their advocacy campaigns. They have received some attention, and have been serenaded by some of their hosts, but it is doubtful whether the lawmakers have so far presented any persuasive argument anywhere. They talked about costs mainly, but running a democracy, whether parliamentary or presidential, requires much more than mere frugality. It also requires discipline, knowledge, vision and a clear and robust understanding of the total concept of democracy. Britain, perhaps the biggest exemplar of parliamentary system of government, does not even have a written constitution. Nigeria’s First Republic constitution was not only written, that republic’s lawmakers had the opportunity of a new system not yet polluted by ethnicity, politics or religion. Yet, they blamed that system for everything that went wrong with the republic. Now, who or what do they blame for their repudiation of the presidential system – the constitution or their lack of character and discipline?

    Read Also: How Nigeria, others can attract foreign gas investors

    In contrast to Britain, the United States of America (US) is the greatest avatar of the presidential system. In the past few decades Americans had made it seem as if their greatness, influence, wealth and global dominance were attributable to both their system of government and democracy as a whole. But they had been independent and democratic since 18th century, and only began to assume global influence and dominance after World War II, when for some reasons, they jettisoned their policy of isolationism. Despite the Donald Trump factor, the US can in fact be deduced to have shaped not only global politics but also global culture. But to suggest that all their influence, wealth and power were shaped by either democracy or the presidential system may fly in the face of history and even experience. Democracy may be relevant today, but it does not explain the rise of past empires, nor the power and influence of Russia and China today. The US is not more likely to embrace the parliamentary system than Britain is likely to change to the presidential system. Factors weightier than costs and ability to finance a system of government explain the durability of a system. The Group of 60 may have a herculean time explaining why the US has retained its presidential system and Britain its parliamentary system; worse, they are even more unlikely to explain why Nigeria tried both systems and failed at them.

  • House of Reps first 100 days of parliamentary action

    House of Reps first 100 days of parliamentary action

    On September 20, 2023, it will be exactly 100 days since the 10th National Assembly was inaugurated and a new leadership elected. TONY AKOWE examine the activities of the House so far.

    Since inauguration on June 13, the House of Representatives has had only fifteen seating, passing about 173 motions on notice and a few others that came as motions of urgent national importance. In addition, about 468 bills have been introduced to the House for first reading while a few other bills that were passed by the 9th Assembly, but either did not get concurrence from the Senate or not signed by the President have been reintroduced in accordance with the standing rule of the House. Such bills have been referred to the committee of the whole for consideration and passage. What this mean is that such bills will not have to pass through the rigours of second reading and public hearing before they are passed. Two of such bills that the House has already passed are the Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria (repeal and re-enactment) bill and the Niger Delta Development Commission bill. A close study of the bills already introduced revealed that many of them have been recircled from the previous Assembly. While some are being recircled by lawmakers who sponsored them in the 9th Assembly, others have been brought back to the House by other Lawmakers who had no link with them in the 9th Assembly. Within the same period, the House instituted over 40 different investigations into various areas of governance in the country. The Nation findings revealed that some of the areas of investigations are areas that the 9th Assembly already investigated, with no concrete result, forcing Nigerians to ask the question of whether the investigations are mere wild goose chase or whether they are necessary at all.

    Many of the investigations which are currently ongoing were inagurated by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Okezie Kalu on behalf of the Speaker. Some of them include the probe into job racketeering in government Ministries, Department and Agencies of government and the mismanagement of the Integrated Personnel Payroll and Information System (IPPIS), the none remittances of deduction from workers salaries for the National Housing Fund and the mismanagement of the proceeds, abuse of tax waiver by both public and private organisations and a host of others. Even though all the ad hoc committees were given four weeks to turn in their reports, it could not be ascertained whether all of them have commenced their work, while some, others chose to conduct their investigations behind closed doors. For example, the committee that was saddled with the responsibility of investigating agencies who fail to comply with the Act establishing the Industrial Training Fund held all its meetings behind closed doors away from the media. The committee probing the Great Green Wall attempted to exclude Journalists from its investigations after their first meeting for undisclosed reasons. A clerk attached to the committee told Journalists that the committee chairman dis not instruct him to invite the media because “it is not for media coverage”. This is in spite of the promise by the Speaker that the 10th Assembly will run an open parliament. Some others have been bugged down by controversies as well as silent allegations against members. For example, a contractor awarded a 42 kilometer road contract in Oyo state is accusing a female member of the House of working with some official of the Federal Ministry of Works to deny them the contractor, revoke it and reward it to another contractor after reviewing the contract sum from an initial N9 billion to about N54 billion. He is also alleging that the lawmaker has been fronting for another contractor to get the job. The Lawmaker who moved the motion to led to the investigation as well as official of the Ministry have denied this claim.

    At his inauguration as Speaker of the 10th House of Representatives on June 13, 2023, Hon. Tajudeen Abbas who secured the highest number of votes to emerge Speaker in the history of the House told his colleagues that “this victory is not just about me; it is about all of us coming together as a united House to serve the Nigerian people diligently. It is about honouring the trust that has been placed on us and working tirelessly to deliver on our promises of good governance and effective representation. It is worthy to note that speakership campaign witnessed in the past few months was democracy at play. But today, all of that has come to pass, and it is time to forge ahead and work together for our people for our common good. I do not take this mandate bestowed on me as the Nigerian Speaker for granted. I want to assure you today that I shall be just and fair to every one of you irrespective of our perceived differences”. He also promised that “under my watch, the 10th House shall sustain and even surpass the gains of the 9th House. That is my prayer. We shall carry out the TASK before us JOINTLY. We shall introduce reforms and innovations for the benefit of Nigerians. In a few weeks, we shall be reeling out the legislative agenda that will shape the 10th House of Representatives.”

    Abbas recognised the challenges confronting the nation at the time he was stepping into leadership position to lead on of the most critical arm of government. He said now, “we stand at a crucial juncture in our nation’s history, where challenges abound, but so do opportunities. We will champion legislations that will uplift the lives of our fellow citizens, promote social justice, and drive sustainable development. Through legislations, the 10th House will promote entrepreneurship and support small and medium-scale enterprises. We shall diversify our economy and provide sustainable employment opportunities for our youth. We are aware of the challenges in our education, healthcare, and infrastructure sectors amongst other. We hold our respective offices in trust for the Nigerian people. We MUST, therefore, justify the confidence reposed in us by our constituents to represent their interests and work committedly for our dear nation. Working closely with my deputy, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Kalu, we shall provide purposeful leadership in the 10th House of Representatives”.

    Read Also: Sanusi, Elumelu, Saraki, others in New York for UNGA 78

    100 days after this solem promise, and after accepting the mandate to lead the House, one question Nigerians are asking is whether the House has shown any sign of helping to move the nation out of its current doldrum. With over 40 investigations going on in the House, many of which has been done away from the camera as against the promise of an open National Assembly, it may not be out of place to say that it has been motion without movement. Within a short period of 100 days, the House has embarked on two breaks. The first starting two days after their inauguration, lasting for two weeks, while the second which is still on, started on July 27 and is scheduled to terminate on September 26. It is however instructive to state that the two months break is the annual vacation of the lawmakers. But many of them have not been able to embark on the vacation as they had to stay back to participate in the investigative hearings by various ad hoc committees. Unfortunately, there appear to be attempt by critical stakeholders in and out of government frustrate the work being carried out by the ad hoc committees aa many of them have stayed away, while kind blowing revelations are being reeled out daily. Even threats of arrest has not moved those who are supposed to attend to do so.

    In the area of interventions, the House started on a sound note, trying to ensure that the strike called by Resident Doctors did not hold. The Speaker called them to discuss their plight and extracted an assurance from them not to embark on their planned strike. While asking them to give him two weeks to address their issues, with a promise to take their demands to the President, the Speaker also constituted a high powered committee headed by the House Leader to continue the dialogue with the Doctors. He followed up with a meeting with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the matter two days later. Unfortunately, while this was going on, the young Doctors went back on their words and commenced their industrial action. The House and the Speaker felt disappointed by the action. It is not known how far the committee has gone in addressing the issues raised by the doctors. Apart from issuing press statements, the House did not show up when the Nigeria Labour Congress came calling.

    But one thing that many members looked forward to before the House went on break was the composition of committees and headship of such committees. The exercise no doubt left several lawmakers disappointed while others went home smiling. However, the increase in the number of committees was one thing that not many envisaged. The increase from 109 committees in the 9th Assembly to 134 has left many wondering what some of the committees will be doing. For example, the Education Committees were increased from two (Basic and Tertiary) in the 9th Assembly to six with Tertiary education taking four committees (University Education, Federal Polytechnic, Federal Colleges of Education and TETfund) while basic education has two (Basic and Basic Education Examination Board). Some other committees have been broken down to create smaller committees which many have argued may turn out to be ineffective inspire of the promise by the Speaker that the issue of oversight will be handled with all seriousness.

    The Committee on Banking and Currency has was broken down into Banking Regulations, Banking Institutions and Digital and Electronic Banking, while the Science and Technology committee was broken down into Science and Technology, Science Research Institutions and Science Engineering. While some argued that breaking that creating more committees will enhance the oversight function of the parliament, others have argued that too many committees are not needed to achieve the goal which they have set for themselves. A close study of the committees revealed that out of the 17 women in the a house, about 11 of them were appointed Committee Chairmen, while three were appointed Deputy Chairmen. However, three others did not get any leadership position in any committee.

    One striking aspect of the House under the Abbas leadership is the cordial relationship that has existed among members despite party affiliation. Some have argued that this is a continuation of the practice in the 9th Assembly. Interestingly, the 10th House has the largest concentration of political parties in the history of the National Assembly with about eight political parties. The All Prpgressives Congress,with majority of members, Peoples Democratic Party, Labour Party, New Nigeria People’s Party, African Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party, Young People’s Party and All Progreasive Grand Alliance are all part of the 10th Assembly and have worked together in a way that tends to suggest that the Assembly is made up of one political party. In spite of that, the opposition has not allowed themselves to be muzzled or trampled upon and has come out strongly to make their voice heard.

    The House has also been able to remove itself from strong external influence, especially in the selection of their leaders. Long before the emergence of the Speaker and his Deputy, the opposition had agreed on their leadership without allowing the parties to foist leaders on them. While the APC waited for their own leaders in the party to come up with a zoning arrangement, members met and decided on who their leaders should be when the party was not forth coming. Even though this did not go down well with the leadership of the party, the Leadership of the House stood it’s ground.

    The Speaker who sponsored the highest number of bills in the 9th Assembly has shown determination to lead the legislative business of the House from the front. The Speaker and his Deputy has sponsored the highest number of bills so far in the House with some of the bills proving to be land mark bills that will impact positively on the nation if passed and assented to. One of them which is a reintroduction from the 9th Assembly is the Road bill which aim to make provision for funds for the maintenance of federal roads. However, the House has passed into law, four bills that were rolled over from the 9th Assembly, while two of such nills have been signed into law by the President. The laws passed are the Electricity Act amendment Bill, Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria Act (Repeal and reenactment) Bill, 2022 Supplementary Appropriation Act (Amendment) Bill and the Niger Delta Development Commission Act (Amendment) Bill. Out of these, The Nation learnt that the supplementary appropriation act and the NDDC amendment Act have been signed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. But the passage of the supplementary appropriation has not go be down without controversy as many have alleged that the parliament approved N70 billion for itself as palliative. This argument was advanced by those who canvassed it because the supplementary appropriation sought by the President was aimed at giving palliatives to Nigerians to  cushion the effect of the subsidy removal. But unknown to many, the N70 billion approved for the National Assembly was not for palliatives. Among those who advanced this argument was the Nigeria Labour Congress, through its

    Assistant General Secretary, Christopher Onyeka. Onyeka had claimed that the Executive arm had given N100m to National Assembly members as palliatives. But spokesman of the House, Akin Rotimi denied it saying “this claim is baseless and devoid of any factual accuracy. Transparency and truth in public discourse are necessary for a functioning democracy. While we doubt that Mr. Onyeka was actually conveying the official position of the NLC on this claim, it is nonetheless important to correct such misinformation. We state categorically that Mr. Onyeka lied in his claim that National Assembly members were given N100m as palliatives. For the avoidance of doubt, at no time did Members of the House of Representatives receive any money from the Executive arm as palliatives. We, therefore, consider this statement as malicious, irresponsible and in bad faith. We consider it irresponsible and most unfortunate that Mr. Onyeka would misrepresent facts in a bid to lend credence to otherwise valid demands of the NLC, while seeking to denigrate the National Assembly, and inciting the public against the institution.

    Rotimi said further that “in less than 100 days in the tenure of the 10th Assembly, we have demonstrated our commitment to the welfare of Nigerian workers and all Nigerians. In addition to other measures, the House of Representatives speedily carried out requisite legislative action on the Executive Arm of Government’s request for approval of funds for palliatives for Nigerians. We have also consistently advocated for the Executive to expedite these palliative measures to reach vulnerable Nigerians effectively and efficiently, as well as added our voices to the call for an immediate review of the minimum wage.  We wish to invite the NLC to see the National Assembly as partners rather than adversaries. The 10th Assembly of the House of Representatives wishes to reassure Nigerians that we remain committed to advancing the wellbeing of our constituents. We empathise with all Nigerians on account of the pains being experienced due to the impact of the removal of the fuel subsidy, and will continue to compel the Executive to expedite measures to alleviate the pains of Nigerians at this time, and more importantly work with all stakeholders to rebuild our country to ensure no Nigerian is left behind.”

    On his part, Leader of the House, Prof. Julius Ihonbvare said they are poised to make the difference and advance the course of Nigeria and Nigerians. He said “In the 10th Assembly, there is total commitment to join hands with the executive and other branches of government to reposition and rebuild this country. It is not going to be based on, conflict,  but shared understand and exchange of ideas, mutual respect and the commitment to doing the right thing. There is nothing the NNPC will do that will not attract public interest. This is a very critical one. You may have taken the best decision”.

  • Budget 2019: where is parliamentary decorum?

    The hallowed chamber of the National Assembly was a House of Babel yesterday. Decorum was sacrificed on the altar of partisanship. President Muhammadu Buhari and the nation were embarrassed. The parliament became a laughing stock. The legislative/executive feud assumed a new dimension. Hope of cordial relations dimmed. Nigerians were taken aback. Many observers asked in bewilderment: is the Senate and House of Representatives worthy of national pride?

    The president and the lawmakers had turned up for a strict constitutional duty. The nation was full of eagerness. President Buhari was exercising his constitutional right of presenting the budget, which the legislators also have the constitutional right to vet. But, at what stage? Should the legislature not listen to the president and allow him to place the document before it before kicking off its debate on it? Should the president be prevented, as it were, from performing the ritual of budget speech?

    The parliament has often admonished the executive to consider early presentation of budget to prevent the delay in passing the document. President Muhammadu Buhari has managed to meet the “deadline.” What was the reason for the uproar over a budget that was being presented? Why the attempt at hindering budget presentation? Is the parliament now becoming a platform for frustrating budget estimates?

    Since 2015, the Presidency and the National Assembly appear to be working at cross-purpose. The cat-and-mouse relationship, to say the least, has been counter-productive. It has not been in the national interest. The country has been the loser. Yet, there is no end in sight to mistrust and suspicion. The parliamentary hostility has manifested in budgetary passage delay, rejection of president’s appointees, mutual antagonism and uncanny media war. The gulf deepened, following the defection of Senate President Bukola Saraki and House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The acrimony, analysts predict, may heighten as the country warms up for next year’s elections.

    Yesterday’s hullabaloo represented a new pillar on the foundation of executive/legislative discord. The division, as usual, was sharp on the floor. The joint session was rowdy. Anti-Buhari lawmakers were on the prowl. Those supporting the president were on the defensive. To observers, the show of shame underscored the fragility of the core democratic institution and the demonstration of immaturity by aggrieved legislators. When will politicians draw a line between personal agenda and national interest?

    President Buhari may have approached the parliament with a budget of promise, hope and consolidation. To divert attention from the content and its likely improvement over past budgets, he was booed and jeered at as he stepped into the chambers. Indeed, many senators and House of Representatives members have scores to settle with the Commander-in-Chief. He stood before them in honour and dignity of an anti-corruption crusader, a reformist and ‘no-to-business-as usual’ leader. He was kingly as he towered above his tormentors and noisemakers, not only in height, but also in responsibility. It was a wide departure from when President Buhari was military Head of State who brooked no nonsense.

    His message was ignored, not because it lacked potency. The budget speech fell on deaf ears of many legislators, who may be acting a script. The President’s remarks were interrupted. Some lawmakers were shouting on top of their voices, to the consternation of constituents who viewed the unruly behaviour on television. As President Buhari reeled out his achievements across the sectors, shouts of “no, no no” and “lie, lie lie” filled the air.

    For the President, it was a test of emotional stability. President Buhari kept his cool. But, as the irritation persisted, he urged calm. As a statesman, he patiently cautioned the unrepentant legislators. “May I appeal to the honourable members that the world is watching us…we are supposed to be above this.” When they would not listen, he added: “You are only messing up yourselves.” The incorrigible lawmakers intensified the disruptions.

    Tension enveloped the chamber. It was a day of drama.  Some APC lawmakers joined their PDP colleagues in the confusion. The PDP lawmakers saw an opportunity to play politics. They knew why they should make a political capital out of the scenario. The nation is in critical electioneering. At stake is the presidency, which will be hotly contested. To them, the virulent opposition to the president who was visiting the parliament fell into the framework of the resistance to his second term ambition.

    Read also: We’ve made progress on all fronts, Buhari tells Nigerians

    But, does the acrimony and hostility reflect the general perception of the president across the six geo-political zones? Will it alter geo-political calculus during the contest on February 23, next year? Does the budget presentation translate into a popularity test for the president before Nigerians?

    But, why should APC lawmakers join the bandwagon? Where is the place of party discipline? Observers have suggested that some members of the APC caucus are aggrieved because they lost out at the primary. Is the inability of a lawmaker to get a return ticket the end of life? Is a politician not expected to have a second address? Is politics, which is widely perceived as a vocation, now a lucrative career that cannot be forgone? Why are they joining the opposition to throw stones into their own house? Where will the desperation lead them?

    Historians will record the period between 2015 and 2019 as the height of legislative/executive rancour in Nigeria. It may be a consistent tragedy Nigerians will endure till May 29, next year.

  • Neither presidential nor parliamentary

    While our past and present leaders and other beneficiaries of our current dysfunctional structure continue to play the ostrich, a bill to return Nigeria to the parliamentary system of government sponsored by 71 members of the lower house passed its first reading at plenary last Thursday . The lawmakers whose membership cut across party lines  are seeking an amendment to the 1999 Constitution to revert from the current presidential system to the parliamentary system, first introduced by 1954 Lyttleton constitution and was in operation until  the first republic was wrecked in 1966 by military self-proclaiming messiahs.

    They advanced reasons for their proposed bill. “Studies”, according to them, “have shown that countries run by presidential regimes consistently produce lower output growth, higher and more volatile inflation, and greater income inequality relative to those under parliamentary ones”.They also spoke ofquick passage of economic bills due to the fusion of power that it embodies and promotion of”inclusion and collectiveness, which is critical to equality of income distribution and opportunities.”

    With frustrations because of resistance to change, it is easy to find justification to dump the current dysfunctional system. For instance, unlike what we today have under the presidential system where lawmakers elected on the platform of the same party works against the interest of theirparty, the executive branch of governmentin the parliamentary system has the direct or indirect support of the parliament.

    It is bad enough that we run a unitary system where 36 states and 774 LGAs look up to the centre for survival and fraudulently insist it is federal. But the problem is not in the label but in the character of our leaders who shamelessly exploit the virtues of the labels for personal gains at the expense of the nation.

    But I think what we need first is restructuring. It is the structure that defines the system. This has been the experience of India parliamentary system where the prime minister determines when a state which threatens stability of India ceases being a state. It is France’ structure that determined her hybrid system. It is similarly the structure of the US after their civil war and that of Germany at the end of World War 2 that determined their federal systems. It is on record that the golden era of our country was when we practiced parliamentary system as dictated by our structure between 1954 and 1966 contrary to the claim by the military that it introduced presidentialism in response to restiveness and acrimonies that defined the first republic.

    Once again, a brief journey through memory will reveal how and why we derailed. In the run up to independence, the preoccupation of the dominant ethnic groups – Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba was the struggle for the control of their regions. And their weapons of war were their ethnic based political parties: Northern People’s Congress, (NPC), National Council of Nigeria and Cameroons (NCNC), and Action Group (AG).  But besides the dominant ethnic groups,there were also sub-national groups located within each of the dominant regions that equally craved for self-actualisation within the greater Nigerian nation. And to throw away the hegemony of their local oppressors, they sought the help from political enemies of their local oppressors. It was a win-win situation for the ethnic based parties that needed alliances to win election at the national level.

    Unlike Awolowo’s colleagues such as Bode Thomas, S L Akintola, RotimiWillaims and others in AG, who were satisfied with regionalism which as far as they were concerned was enough to prevent the country from being run by a one-eye king, Awolowo, whether  driven by his believe in federalism, the object of his lifelong research which resulted in his “path to Nigerian freedom” – a treatise on managing crisis of social dislocations in a multicultural Nigeria or  by his ambition to rule Nigeria one day, became the chief crusader for minority rights. In the process, he stepped onAhmadu Bello’s toes.

    One must also appreciate the fears of Ahmadu Bello who regarded Awo’s attempt to liberate those he described as his grandfather’s slaves as an attempt to undermine his authority in his region. This was an era when democracy, the new value system that places emphasis on individuals as against group, was yet to be fully embraced in the more educationally advanced Western Region where the deadly struggle between Alaafin of Oyo and Bode Thomas led to the deposition of the former and the sudden death of the latter. There was also Ife where an attempt by Fani-Kayode (born in London, groomed in Lagos) to treat Modakeke farmers and potential voters as equal with Ife landowners set him against the Ooni and  led to his loss of two consecutive elections before decamping to NCNC in 1959.

    But in 1962, Ahmadu Bello got his pound of flesh by supporting Akintola in his bitter struggle against his party. The coalition partners (NPC and NCNC) in breach of the constitution, interfered in the affairs of the west, declared state of emergency, sent Awo to detention, imposed Akintola who had been constitutionally removed by the governor of the west as premier, without election. Then the coalition partners  while ignoring agitation for state creations by restive minority groups in the north and east, went on to create Midwest in an effort to weaken the political base of Awolowo, the self-appointed  minority rights chief crusader.

    The 1963 republican constitution merely reinforced the lopsidedness of the federation. This effectively left the north with bigger land area and more population than the southern regions, to rule in perpetuity since democracy is a game of numbers.

    The 1964 disputed federal election led to constitutional crisis between the president and the prime minister during which both sought the help of the military. In the end, it was resolved in favour of the prime minister. The northern-controlled federal government, now used to having its ways, went on to supervise the rigging of 1965 Western Region election on behalf of embattled S.L Akintola. An attempt by the Sardauna to impose a premier rejected by the people on the west led to an orgy of violence.

    The Ironsi-led military junta that emerged after January 1966 coup, the MurtalaMuhammed and Theophilus Danjuma-led vengeance coup of July 1966, the plunging of the nation into a civil war by Ojukwu and Gowon,  Murtala/ Obasanjo, Buhari/Babangida/Abacha and Abdulaslami Abubakar juntasthat seized resources of regions to fund new states and LGAs created to consolidate the lopsidedness of the north, were proxy wars on behalf of the east and the north that have held the nation to ransom since 1966.

    The mandate of custodians of our constitution and their ‘newbreed’ politicians was as clear in 1966 as it is today. In 1966, it was to deal decisively with those who betrayed the letter and the spirit of the constitution and made change impossible. That simple task was elusive 52 years ago just as it is today with our current leaders’ continued resistance to restructuring without advancing a superior argument to prove it is not all about maintaining the status quo.

  • Osun’s gospel of parliamentary democracy

    Barring any unforeseen circumstances, local government elections will hold in Osun State on January 27, 2018. At least, 332 councillorship slots will be up for grabs in an election scheduled to be the first of its kind in the life of the Rauf Aregbesola-led administration. Not only that, it will be the first in the history of the Fourth Republic that parliamentary practice will be given a shot at the local government level.

    While some professional doubters may wish to liken Osun to an administrative jungle where laws are brazenly breached and, constitutionalism, flagrantly abused, Section 22 of the Local Government (Administration) Law Cap 72A, Vol. 4, Laws of Osun State 2002 as amended states as follows: “There shall be for each local government a chairman and a vice chairman who shall be elected by the councillors of the Local Government Council from among themselves. The chairman and vice chairman shall only be elected among the councillors of the political party that has majority seat in the Local Government Council.” So, why parliamentary system in Osun?

    By the way, what does Aregbesola stand to gain by daring to walk with clear  conviction where  even  angels dare  to  tread and what roles does has the “inchoate” problem associated with local government creation in Nigeria {ref: Supreme Court’s judgement in AG Lagos v AG Federation (2004) 20 NSCQLR 99A} got to play in all of these?

    Without doubt, the creation of Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs), Area Councils and Administrative Offices in Osun was a political masterstroke by this government and Aregbesola deserves commendation for giving Osun a sense of direction and purpose. Lest we forget, ‘Ogbeni’, as he is fondly called, was a prominent member of the Bola Tinubu-led team that midwifed the LCDA system  in  Lagos State. That he is again finding a new path to rehabilitate our democracy in line with the views and position of the people clearly attests to  his valued  intelligence,  unquestionable  optimism  and  endless hope for a better Nigeria.  One can only pray other leaders would tap into the sheer force of his personality and the power of his ideas.

    Again, why the introduction of parliamentary system in Osun and where do we go for succour, in case our cherished system becomes captivated by the culture of corruption and inefficient management system usually associated with our Nigerianness?

    By design, parliamentary democracy is meant to encourage quicker legislative action, primarily because the executive branch is a product of the support of the legislative branch which in turn “includes members of the legislature.” In an environment like ours where ethnic, racial, even religious and ideological animosity has been elevated into statecraft, parliamentary practice serves as an effective instrument for direct political participation and even distribution of power. Also, the likelihood of a drastic drop in the rush for; and friction at the centre under parliamentary practice is high. And, apart from its ability to carry along with it a spectacular increase in political activities across the state, Aregbesola’s innovative revolution is most likely to generate robust discussions on the way forward for a democratic Nigeria.

    Quite clearly, it is because we have failed to test our laws that dysfunctional political system has become commonplace scandal in Nigeria. Contrary to projections, parliamentary system runs the risk of becoming a mere fig leaf by which Nigerians seek good governance and socio-economic liberation unless the fine issues of its cumulative impact are clearly defined. In any case, this is where the involvement of critical stakeholders like the youth, traditional institutions and civil society groups in exploring all the opportunities that an election of this nature and timing presents comes in. Church and state must also collaborate in the overall interest of the electorate, exploring the strengths and inspirations that the exercise will be throwing open. Essentially, political parties must read the signs right by going into the contest with their best, votes-worthy candidates.

    Walter Bagehot famously describes ability to do “what the people say you cannot do” as “the greatest pleasure in life.”  Like a field of driven snow, Osun governorship election is less than a year away! Agreed! No two elections are the same. However, the tragedy of victory is that success at the January 2018 poll may not necessarily translate into victory on September 22, 2018 unless some purposeful political reengineering is done where necessary. On the other hand, the fact that All Progressives Congress (APC) got it wrong on July 8, does not mean that all hope is lost for the party. All the more reason the Aregbesola-led administration must pray towards turning the counsel of the Ahithophels to nought! Truth  be told:  Nigerians are hungry and their quality of life has become so unimpressive that, should the opportunity present itself again, one is not in doubt of President Muhammadu Buhari’s recalibrating  the illusion of ‘belonging to  nobody’ and “everybody”. Sad therefore that Osun is being treated as a case in isolation!

    At a time like this, clarifying extant confusions troubling Nigeria’s Israel may tend to suffer from conceptual impressions. Petty quarrels among brothers also have the capacity to snowball into politically-motivated eruptions of cataclysmic proportions if not accorded the honour of fragility it deserves. To this end, necessary steps must be taken to urgently address all ideological disputations that may want to pitch APC members in the tents of Us versus Us. Most importantly, the salary dislocation which has so far proved to be no respecter of party, racial or gender affiliations must be  courageously confronted in a way that will  ultimately  leave  all parties convinced that the country’s present pass truly has an expiry date.

    Let me by way of conclusion state that, on a good day, an election of this shape and size should afford members of the ruling party a rare opportunity of closing ranks for the purpose of retaining the state for the party in 2018. The hope is that events as they happened in Edo State on September 28, 2016 and Ondo State on November 26, 2016 would provide lessons sufficient enough for the ruling party to deactivate opposition’s fantasy that it is the party of choice in Osun.

     

    • Komolafe  writes from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State.

  • Parliamentary cant from those afraid

    The launch of Dino Melaye’s bathetic book against corruption was reminiscent of the proverbial quip: the guilty are afraid.

    Even if the speakers, among them Senate President, Bukola Saraki and House of Representatives Speaker, Yakubu Dogara, were earnest, there was a heavy whiff of rotten symbolism that enveloped the event.

    From his wayward conduct, Melaye, the “Ajekun iya ni o je” exponent, not to talk of his phony foreign degrees scandals, is the very epitome of the corruption of the exalted position of senator of the Federal Republic.  In a serious polity, he would be the last to write about corruption, and expect to be taken seriously.  But alas, it’s all a burlesque — what the Yoruba would dismiss as a rotten plantain, nevertheless excited at its ripeness.

    Then, on parade was the former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan, whose crude and rude conduct was the very corruption of her husband’s unfortunate presidency, which itself was the very epitome of unbridled corruption.  Besides, there is the little problem of mind-boggling sums traced to her name, which the courts are still trying to sort out.  Again, in more serious countries, such characters would not deign to prattle about corruption, not even in private, let alone public.

    O, the pair of Saraki and Dogara themselves!  Prof. Itse Sagay said it all: the National Assembly, under the leadership of these duo, is the very bastion of unfazed corruption, arrogantly symbolised.

    Indeed, as the right-thinking perceive the Buhari executive as absolutely intolerant of sleaze, the Saraki-led National Assembly gives a violently contradictory impression.  Symbolically, it is the legislative equivalent of the Biblical house of worship violently violated.   And yet, this Eight National Assembly glories in its notoriety, as if it deserves a gold medal for being radically so dysfunctional!

    The Saraki quip, that democratic constitutions, on instinct, defend citizens’ rights first, thus making criminal convictions hard and tedious, was spot on.

    But could it be a direct spin-off from his own personal experience, of a Senate president inter-changing his time between banging the gavel in the Senate’s chamber and sitting in the dock, at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), dragging the Senate into his own personal odyssey, itself a brazen corruption of the parliamentary privilege?

    Or Dogara!  Before prattling over a primer to fight corruption, has he forgotten so soon the alleged corruption albatross hanged on him by the estranged Abdulmumin Jubril, former House committee chair on Appropriation, who accused the speaker of many infractions, threatening he had proofs to back his claims?

    How was the matter resolved — or rather, unresolved?  Was it not by the strong-arm tactics of suspending the accuser, in the most cynical tradition of the dead-stay-dumb?  And isn’t that too a most brazen corruption of parliamentary privileges?

    Hardball just wondered what Labour Minister, Chris Ngige, was doing in that crowd.  If Melaye wrote his cant, and only got his crowd —and no one else — to luxuriate in the phony  spotlight of a launch, as a pig would wallow in muck, would that not communicate a strong message that the long-suffering Nigerian public harbour zero tolerance for his sundry rascalities unbefitting of a senator?  But alas!

    Away with parliamentary cant from a legion who, by their below-par conduct, are giving lawmaking a bad name, and reducing the hallowed chambers of lawmaking to earning due public contempt by its sheer hollowness.

    As Prof. Sagay rightly said: if you want those who, with relish, sabotage the war against corruption, look no further than Melaye and his crowd! Book on how to fight corruption, my foot!

  • Presidential or parliamentary system: Which is better for Nigeria?

    There is a subject which is very crucial to the well-being of Nigeria, but which we Nigerians never give the seriousness it deserves. I refer to the question whether our country should be governed under a presidential or parliamentary system. From time to time, someone raises this question and a few other citizens respond to him, but then the debate quickly dies down. Yet, as a citizen with experience of Nigerian politics and government since the 1950s, I cannot get rid of the feeling that we will, someday, have to resolve this question quite definitively.

    We Nigerians have experienced two different systems of government since our country began to have a constitution in the early 1950s. We started off in 1952 with the British Parliamentary System. In this system, the members of parliament were elected by us citizens at the General Elections. From 1952 to 1966, we had a total of five parliaments, that is, a federal parliament, and a regional parliament for each of our four regions – East, North, West and Midwest.On the floor of each parliament, the parliamentarians then elected the Prime Minister (in the case of the Federal Parliament), or Premier (in the case of each Regional House of Assembly). The Prime Minister or Premier then nominates his ministers for his colleagues in parliament to accept.

    In this system, a minister is responsible for the management of his ministry, the council of ministers is jointly responsible for the direction of affairs, and the chief executive (Prime Minister or Premier) is just first among equals. The council of ministers considers and approves the plans and programmes of ministers, and ensures the place and harmony of such plans and programmes in the over-all direction of the government.  Each minister presents and defends his plans and programmes (that have been approved by the council of ministers) on the floor of parliament, usually with additional backing by the Prime Minister or Premier.

    The Prime Minister or Premier, as well as the ministers, are responsible for making programmes and plans acceptable to the legislature, and are usually subjected to questioning by the legislators trying to satisfy themselves before giving approval. The Prime Minister, the premiers, and the ministers are also responsible for presenting the reports of the executive government to the legislature. To ensure success in parliament, the Prime Minister or Premier and his ministers must keep their party members in parliament well informed about, and satisfied with, their plans and programmes. On the whole, this is a system characterized by joint responsibilities, systemic accountability, copious informing and persuading. In such a system, the Prime Minister or Premier was very far from being a “Sole Ruler”, and could not easily give vent to his whims and caprices.

    But in the 1970s, under the thick shadow of military rulers and heavy influence of military rule, Nigeria’s leaders gathered in Lagos and chose the American Presidential System for our country. We did not know the nuances and possible pitfalls of this system then; but now we know them – and they are many and serious. For one thing, the presidential system makes the political process, with countrywide presidential elections and statewide gubernatorial elections and senatorial elections, far too expensive. No Nigerian who (like me) has taken part in the system, who has been through its heavy expenses and usually heavy debts, can deny that these enormously expensive elections have been a major factor in the boosting of corruption in our country’s political life.

    For another, the system concentrates power and responsibilities too heavily in the hands of the President or Governor. It has had the effect of turning our presidents and governors into virtual autocrats, their colleagues in the executive arm of government into mere waiters-on, and our legislators into glorified outsiders. Some Nigerian intellectuals have just completed a joint book in which they have pooled together their various and widespread studies of the steadily growing impotence of legislatures, the growing dictatorial tendencies of presidents and governors, and the enormous influence of the whims and caprices of presidents and governors in our governmental system. Because presidents and governors tend to view their administrations as their exclusive personal mandates, our country has been sustaining heavy financial losses through poorly digested, unreasonably chosen, and inadequately discussed programmes and projects, through presidents’ and governors’ tendency to insist on having their own ways in the making of government policies, and through thoughtless abandonment of programmes and projects initiated by predecessors.

    Furthermore, the system has made the position of president or governor so insanely desirable to our politicians, that the quest for it has become a major source of conflicts and confusion in our political system. And finally, on the whole, the system has contributed greatly to the destruction of the professional quality of our civil service and bureaucrats – and this has been a major factor in the general decline of the quality of governance in our country.

    This concentration of power in the hands of chief executives has proved culturally difficult for some Nigerian peoples to live happily with. Left to choose their own system of government, there are Nigerian nationalities that would hardly ever choose the presidential system – peoples (like my own Yoruba nation) who are used, in their history and political traditions, to shared responsibilities, mutual respect, and accountability, among the rulers of society.

    The generally arrogant and thoughtless directions given since the 1960s to the ordering of the governance of our country have dragged our country down in many directions. It is my considered opinion that the choice of the presidential system has been one of the worst steps we have ever taken, and I humbly propose that Nigeria should return to the parliamentary system.

    However, if any state in our federation chooses to run its affairs by a presidential system, it should be free to do so. The fundamental philosophy behind the whole idea of a federation is acceptance of, and respect for, difference. For some historic reason, a number of nations, living in their different homelands, find themselves joined together as one country, sharing one sovereignty.  To be able to relate to one another harmoniously, they evolve a federal system of government – in which each nation governs itself in its own way, in the general context of their whole country. There are variations in system among the states of the United States of America, the states of the Indian Union, and the cantons of the Swiss Federation. Even in such a minor particular as traffic regulations, there are differences from state to state in the United States of America.

    In the matter of mode of government, there might be differences in the ways in which our states would design their constitutions. For instance, even if there continue to be a president in Abuja and governors in some states, I seriously doubt that we Yoruba will ever have governors if we are allowed to choose our own system of government. For years now, we have seen what governors look like – and the general Yoruba opinion is that being ruled by governors is quite ugly. It is not so much our men that are ruling in this ugly way, it is the system that is ugly and warped in nature. We Yoruba as a people throughout our history have been very good at structuring and managing the principle of balance of powers in government in order to prevent the abuse of power. We would rather be ruled by a council of ministers, in which a Premier is only first among equals, in which each minister or commissioner bears definite responsibilities, and in which all are members of our elected legislatures and are responsible, on a daily basis, to our legislatures. That’s the kind of people we are. That is the kind of system charted for us by our political history and culture. And that is the kind of system I would strongly recommend for our country.