The Nation Newspaper

Tag: powers

  • On the march toward devolution of powers

    On the march toward devolution of powers

    There comes a time in the life of a nation that certain momentous decisions have to be taken. But it takes decisive leadership to champion such decisions in the form of consequential policies. Notwithstanding a few missteps and a vociferous opposition, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been such a leader. Early in his tenure, he treaded paths that previous leaders stubbornly avoided: He removed fuel subsidy and unified the foreign exchange market.

    Unfortunately, however, saboteurs within and outside government have continued to draw back the hand of the clock on these policies, thus prolonging their negative consequences, notably, inflation soaring prices. Within government, there are leaked stories about deals and indications of poor performance, both partly aided by a weak Centre of Government and stunted periodic performance evaluation. Besides, conspicuous consumption among elected and appointed government officials at a time of economic downturn and high inflation continues to deepen trust deficit in government. Oil theft has led to reduced output, escalating the high petroleum prices following the removal of fuel subsidy.

    Worse still, the Federal Government’s efforts to cushion the hardships occasioned by the negative economic effects of fuel subsidy removal and attempts to harmonize the foreign exchange market are hardly reflected at the state level. Many state Governors repeatedly fail to distribute palliatives to needy citizens or engage in agricultural development for which they were given incentives. Inquiries from some state finance officials indicate that additional (extra-budget) funds in excess of N50 billion have gone into each state since Tinubu came to power. For example, a recent release by the Federal Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning confirmed that as much as N438.3 billion had been released to the states from a World Bank-supported intervention fund locally framed as the Nigeria Community Action for Resilience and Economic Stimulus (NG-CARES) programme.

    Unfortunately, however, protesters, largely sponsored by the opposition, have targeted President Tinubu and the Federal Government, instead of their state Governors and state governments, where the funds for ameliorating the suffering of the masses are located. Yet, few citizens know little or nothing about the funds already targeted at them for disbursement by their state governments. Citizens reside within particular local governments in their states. Yet, few (if any) knows how much money should go to their local government for development. It is the responsibility of state governments to inform their residents of available funds and to disburse such funds appropriately.

    It is the failure of state Governors to do so for over two decades that led the Tinubu government to take legal action against them. This led to the Supreme Court Judgement, which empowers the Federal Government to bypass state governments in the disbursement of LGA funds. While this may serve as a punitive measure against state Governors, who have sat on LGA funds and ignored constitutional provisions on the election of LGA Councils, it also raises the question as to whether the Supreme Court has recognised LGAs as federating units at par with states.

    It is against this background that the recent calls for the devolution of powers find their most strident resonance yet. Many believe that the unwieldy nature of the present arrangement gives room for corruption and lack of accountability. So far, the Federal Government has taken a gradualist approach in deference to certain vested interests from the same quarters that has resisted progress for their own people and for Nigeria as a whole since colonial days.

    The gradualist approach consists of piecemeal attempts to enhance the powers of state governments. Three such attempts have been made. One is the decentralisation of the rail system, which allows states or groups of states to build rail lines for local transportation or to enhance existing structures. The Lagos state government has taken advantage of this decentralisation to build its own rail lines. A second decentralisation effort focuses on the generation and distribution of electric power. States or a group of states can now embark on their own power supply project independent of the epileptic power supply.

    A third decentralisation project was discussed at a meeting between President Tinubu and state Governors in February 2024, where agreement was reached in principle on the need to create state police to enhance security at the state level. It was agreed at the meeting that the modalities would be worked out later. In furtherance of this agreement, as many as 16 states submitted reports to the National Executive Council, expressing their support for state police and calling for appropriate changes to the constitution to fast-track the process.

    Read Also: I don’t own a refinery in Malta, says Kyari

    It is unclear whether the remaining 20 states have submitted similar reports to NEC. However, as of May 16, 2024, Speakers of the various Houses of Assembly in the 36 states announced their support for the establishment of state police. This means that at least the required 24 out of 36 states are ready to support a bill to that effect from the National Assembly, where only two-thirds of its members are required to pass such a bill. It would now appear that the ball is in the court of the National Assembly to make appropriate modifications to the constitution and pass on the bill for the President’s signature.

    The larger issue remains, however, as to how the relationship between the centre and the federating units would be structured. Will the federating units be the existing 36 states or some larger chunks of the federation? When and how will the exercise take place?

    Undoubtedly, the need for devolution of powers in Nigeria has been a recurrent topic of discussion since the return to democratic rule in 1999. For one thing, the 1999 constitution has far too many inconsistencies, including an excessively powerful centre, which makes states financially dependent. It also recognises a finite list of Local Government Areas, while also empowering state Houses of Assembly to create and supervise LGAs. It is even unclear what status is given to LGAs in the constitution.  Above all, it is believed that proper devolution of powers will minimise, if not eliminate, incessant separatist agitations. It all depends, however, on how the federation is structured.

    Older Nigerians, who experienced governance when there were only three (later four) regions, grew up to know two federating units, the federal government and the regions, each semi-autonomous from the others. Each region had its own constitution, flag, education system, and so on. The Western and Northern Regions had Native Authority Police but none in the Eastern Region. However, there was no Regional Police. The military centralised the entire Police Force when it first seized power in January 1966.

    It is too late in the day to go back to the regional structure. At the same time, however, the present 36-state structure is wasteful. A good starting point for federating units should be the six geopolitical zones, each of which consists of six states, except the Northwest, which has seven, and the Southeast, which has five. Each geopolitical zone should be free to decide on what to do with the states and the local governments within them. But this is a topic already too large for the present essay.

  • PMB, the principalities and powers

    Twice on Wednesday, President Muhammadu Buhari displayed an uncommon generosity of spirit. We had set forth at dawn, shortly before 5 a.m, to visit the presidential campaign office in Central Area of Abuja.

    The purpose was for the President to read his victory speech, having been pronounced winner of the February 23 election by Professor Mahmood Yakubu, Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    This portion resonated loudly in the speech, and was widely applauded by the All Progressives Congress (APC) stalwarts in attendance: “I will like to make a special appeal to my supporters not to gloat or humiliate the opposition. Victory is enough reward for your efforts.”

    Holy Moses!

    Was the President telling his supporters not to stick out their tongues in derision, to mock those who had fought a bitter, if not acrimonious electoral war? Is all not fair in love and war again? Surely, the millions of Buhari supporters were raring to do the Dino Melaye stuff, open their eyes to the widest, and say ntorrrrr, or oooobiiii, to those who just lost the election. But the President said; no, please don’t do it. They are your brothers and sisters.

    So dissatisfied with the instruction was one of the President’s greatest online supporters, that she was ready to start a rebellion on Facebook. Jewel Ifunnaya is a dyed-in-the-wool Buharist. She loves the President to the marrows, and proclaims it from the rooftops anytime. But on Wednesday morning, she was  almost embarking on civil disobedience. She kicked like a wild horse, querying why the President must tell her not to gloat, when she was ready to embark on a gloating party against the Atikulators (as the online supporters of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the greatest challenger in the presidential election, are called). I read the protest by Jewel, and appealed to her to respect the wishes of our principal. She then agreed.

    Again on Wednesday, President Buhari showed that he meant what he said. By 2 p.m, he was at the International Conference Centre, in Abuja, to receive his Certificate of Return, from INEC. Hear the President in his speech again: “Now that the elections are over, and a winner declared, we must all see it as a victory for Nigeria, our dear country. That was why I encouraged my teeming supporters, in a speech I read earlier today, not to gloat. Our God-given victory is enough cause for joy, without deriding those who were in the opposition. All Nigerians, going forward, must stand in brotherhood, for a bright and fulfilling future.”

    Jumping Jehoshaphat! What generosity of spirit from the President. This was time to preen like the peacock, swagger like a man of war just returning from battle, hunch up your shoulders in pride, and tell the members of opposition to hug the nearest electricity transformer, if they were not happy. But President Buhari chose to play the true father. What an enduring lesson. I know one of his predecessors in office, who would never have done that. When that man was president, and he won re-election despite the fact that university lecturers had been on strike for many months, he came out after the polls to say he had broken the back of ASUU (Academic Staff Union of Universities) irredeemably. That same predecessor was publicly opposed to President Buhari running for a second term in office, and had engaged in a campaign of calumny both locally and internationally for more than a year, and if he had been the one who won at the polls, gloating would have been endless. But our political hero said: don’t gloat.

    This reminds me of a story I’d told in a piece I did in 2017, when President Buhari just came from medical vacation. Permit me to repeat the story, as it is quite germane.

    In 1998, when the country was groaning under the jackboot of Gen. Sani Abacha, I was deputy editor of National Concord, a newspaper owned by Bashorun Moshood Abiola, who Abacha held in military gulag for five years. Abiola’s offence was that he sought the actualization of a mandate freely given to him by 14 million Nigerians to be president in an election held on June 12, 1993. Gen Ibrahim Babangida, then military dictator, had annulled the result without explanation.

    One bright June afternoon, news wafted out that Abacha was dead. It turned out to be true. Every newspaper house was buzzing with activities, seeking to be the one to report the news with best perspectives the following day. My editor, Dele Alake (later, Commissioner for Information and Strategy in Lagos for eight years) was away, and the lot fell on me to edit the newspaper. I relocated from my office upstairs, to the compugraphy room on the ground floor, where I could treat the stories faster. It was not yet the era of computer then.

    Dr Doyin Abiola was Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief of Concord Press. She was wife to the  detained president-elect. On her way home about 7 p.m, she stopped over in the compugraphy room to see me. And what did she say? “Editor, please in your treatment of the story, don’t gloat!”

    If anyone would gloat that Gen Abacha was dead, should it not be an Abiola? But my boss said: “Don’t gloat!. And I learnt an eternal lesson about generosity of spirit towards even those who have treated you spitefully and disdainfully. Never gloat if anything untoward happens to them, or you come into a better station in life than them.

    See how the principalities and powers of Nigeria had arrayed themselves against President Buhari. Some former military rulers and leaders turned themselves into an evil confederacy, acting as if they owned Nigeria. They had always determined who aspired to certain offices in the country, and who should not. They had held the country by the jugular for ages, almost asphyxiating her. But this time, they met their match. The President looked at them straight in the face when they told him not to seek a second term, and told them to pick one: get lost, or go to hell. They chose not to pick any, but rather turned themselves into an opposition force. Formidable they were, but not with a man that had the true army behind him. The ordinary people. So, last Saturday, President Buhari and his peculiar army gave the opposition a bloody nose.

    The retired generals were not alone. They recruited pliant members of the international community, who had their eyes on a slice of the Nigerian economy, which Atiku had vowed to run along Western principles. Thank God for China, which charted a separate course, saying Nigeria should be left alone to resolve her internal matters without interference.

    Also with Atiku were many questionable characters, who had questions to answer on what they did to the public treasury, when they had access to it. Nigeria would simply have been done for, if they had regained the levers of power again.

    The ordinary people fought valiantly behind Buhari. And the impending army of occupation was worsted. Given a drubbing. Yet, no gloating?  Very noble.

    On Wednesday last week, during the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting, the President had told members about millions of dollars seized by security agencies at the various entry points into the country: air, land, sea, all towards compromising and manipulating the election. They wanted to buy each and every electorate, and possibly the electoral officers. But the plans were thwarted. The President also told of a more sinister stratagem they had, which I’ll rather keep close to my chest for now. Desperate people. All due to lust for power. Bashorun Abiola used to say you don’t urinate inside a well you would later fetch drinking water from. These ones not only urinated, they also did the ‘big job’ inside the well. But God proved greater.

    Yet, don’t gloat? Strange and curious. Human dictum is ‘an eye for an eye.’ You don’t brook principalities and powers. Rather, you take the battle to them, and cast them out into the dry desert places. But  President Buhari now says an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind. They don’t seem to make them like this older and less ruthless  Buhari anymore. We continue to learn. Sai Baba!

     

    • Adesina is Special Adviser to President Buhari on Media and Publicity

  • Buhari: I don’t have powers to create cattle colonies

    President Muhammadu Buhari yesterday denied the Federal Government has concluded plans to create cattle colony across the nation.

    He said he has no powers to give lands for grazing reserves in states.

    Buhari, who spoke at the South-South interactive meeting of Buhari Support Group in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, said the office of the President under the 1978 Land Use Act has no control of lands in states, except in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.

    Represented by his Special Adviser in National Assembly Affairs, Senator Ita Enang, Buhari noted only state lawmakers can create reserve through legislation after assent by governors.

    Enang said: “There is no law in Nigeria now before the President to sign to create grazing reserve because he does not have land to give.

    “Therefore, the President does not, cannot and will not give land to any herdsmen for grazing reserve because he is not the governor of the state.”

    He explained: “When Nigeria was one entity, there were cattle routes, which ran from Lake Chad Republic to the Atlantic Ocean.

    “When she became three regions, there were cattle routes in each of the regions. When it became a state, each of the states made laws as to how to graze animals.

    “When it became a problem in 1978 under Olusegun Obasanjo as Head of State in March 28, the Land Use Act was made.

    “Under the Land Use Act, the President of Nigeria has control of land in Abuja only. Under the Act, each state governor by sections 1(2) of the Act said that lands in each of the state of the federation in the covered area shall be vested in the governor of that state.”

    He added:  “Furthermore sub-section 1 (2) (b), said lands in the rural areas shall be vested in the Local Government Chairman of that local government.

    “Then in section 6, the Act stated that it shall be within the competence of the Local Government Chairman to give land for agricultural purposes including grazing purposes and sub-section 51 defined  grazing  purposes to be the purposes of planting grasses for animals.

    “Going by this, the President of Nigeria is not in any way planning to give land to Fulani herdsmen anywhere in Nigeria, because by the provision of the Land Use Act, the President controls no land in the country, except in Abuja.”

    He assured the lingering East West road project would be completed before the end of the year to give way for kick off of the other phases of the project.

     

  • States lack powers to close licensed mining operations

    The Ministry of Mines and Steel Development said yesterday that  state governments lack constitutional powers to close down any mining company operating with valid mineral title.

    Mr. Francis Wuyep, Director, Mines Inspectorate, Federal Ministry of Mines and Steel Development, speaking in an interview said the Mineral Act 2007 is clear on the situation.

    Wuyep was reacting to the alleged closure of Greenfield Metals Ltd, a mining company operating in Ishiagu, Ivo Local Government Area of Ebonyi, and other mining companies by Ebonyi State Government.

    Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), according to him, places  mining on the exclusive legislative list, hence only the Federal Government has the right over mining activities in the country.

    He said that no state government has the mandate, power or authority to stop mining company with approved mining licence from the Ministry from operating in any part of the country.

    Wuyep said that mining companies were required by extant laws to pay revenues to the Federal Government, stressing that solid minerals producing states receive 13 per cent derivation from accruals from solid minerals.

    “Mining is in the exclusive legislative list of the constitution, hence only the Federal Government has the right, power and authority to regularly supervise and collect revenues from the sector,” he stressed.

    “Closure of licensed mining companies under any guise by state governments is illegal and unconstitutional.

    “Royalties from mining companies are paid into the Federation Account and states collect their 13 per cent derivation in line with the constitution.

    “It will amount to double taxation and breach of the constitution to compel mining companies to pay any form of tax by state governments, “ Wuyep said.

    He noted that Greenfield Metals Ltd is a registered and licensed mining company with valid mineral title.

    Wuyep stressed that nobody has the right to close down mining operations except the Mines Inspectorate Department of the Ministry.

    Speaking separately yesterday, the Managing Director of  Greenfield Metals Ltd, Chief Henry Ahanotu, decried the closure of the mining site.

    He alleged that the action was on the orders of the state government over alleged failure of the company to pay mineral revenue to the state government.

    He said that the Senior Special Assistant to Gov. Dave Umahi on Internal Security, Dr. Kenneth Ugbala, on Wednesday, Feb. 7, led a combined team of Police and other security agencies to the site to close down the company.

    Ahanotu appealed for urgent intervention of the Federal Government, adding that the closure was undue interference and harassment of licensed miners.

    “We have lost millions of naira in revenue due to the closure of our company.

    “We are not illegal miners. We are licensed and fulfill our obligations to our host community, contribute to socio-economic development of the state through employment generation as well as pay necessary revenues to the Federal Government.’’

     

     

     

  • We lack powers to discipline IGP, says PSC

    We lack powers to discipline IGP, says PSC

    The Police Service Commission (PSC) says it lacks powers to discipline the Inspector General (IG) Ibrahim Idris.

    The commission explained that its constitutional mandate is to only appoint, promote and discipline police officers, which does not include the IG.

    The IG, being an appointee of the President, is not  answerable to  the commission.

    Those answerable to the commission are from the rank of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police  (DIGs) to the rank of constable.

    This clarification is due to recent publication in one of the dailies, where the commission was said to have outlived its usefulness.

    The powers of the commission as stated in paragraph 30, Part 1 of the third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, reads: “The commission shall have powers to: (a) appoint persons to offices (other than the office of the Inspector General of Police) in the Nigeria Police Force; and (b) dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding any office referred to in sub-paragraph (a)”.

    The commission, while saying it would function more effectively if there is constitutional provision that allows it protect its decisions, added: “It is also common knowledge that most times, the commission’s decisions are not implemented by the IG since constitutionally the commission cannot discipline the IGP.”

    Reacting to the publication  in a statement in Abuja yesterday, the Commission’s spokesman, Ikechukwu Ani, said: “The attention of the commission is drawn to a Saturday Vanguard front page publication of October 7, 2017, captioned, “Shocking! more rot in Police exposed”, where one Aisha Tosan went to a great extent to expose alleged ills in the Nigeria Police Force and expected that the commission should have called the IGP to order.

    “As an insider, Tosan, who should be genuinely concerned on the alleged rot in the system, should also have known where to squarely place the blame.

    “It is common knowledge that the constitution, which gave the commission the powers to appoint, promote and discipline, also did not extend the powers to discipline an IGP, who refuses to implement decisions on these powers.

    “The commission under the present leadership of Sir Mike Okiro, is not a mere rubber stamp agency. It carries out its duties diligently and in accordance with set out guidelines.

    “It also in the discharge of this duties, takes the IGP into consideration as the operational head of the Nigeria Police Force.

    “The 1999 Constitution, part 111, (supplemental) (b), 215 (2) states; The Nigeria Police Force shall be under the command of the Inspector General of Police.”

    On postings of command CPs, the commission  said it naturally allows the IG, who works with the officers and who knows their operational capabilities to recommend to it.

    On special promotions, the commission explained that it has given the IG guidelines that should govern his recommendations, adding that all recommendations to the commission on special promotion has been put on hold pending when he complies with the guidelines.

    On the claim that the commission has outlived its usefulness, the commission said: “That the current PSC has outlived its usefulness is a joke taken too far by Tosan. If what she meant was failure to rein in the IG, then she should take another look at the constitution and the enabling Act of the National Assembly setting up the commission.”

  • Senate lobbies governors on devolution of powers

    Senate lobbies governors on devolution of powers

    Most governors may have bought into the agitation for devolution of powers to the states, it was learnt yesterday.

    Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu had on Wednesday briefed the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) on the ongoing constitution amendment.

    A statement by the Special Adviser (media) to the Deputy Senate President, Uche Anichukwu, said that Ekweremadu, who met with the members of the Forum at the Presidential Villa  Wednesday  night, explained to them that of the 33 bills on the proposed amendments, 21 were passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives;  12 failed.

    It quoted Ekweremadu to have explained that efforts were on to build consensus around some of the failed bills, especially the bill on devolution of powers, with a view to revisiting it to unbundle the Federal Government and make it more efficient.

    Majority of the governors, a source said, promised to support the proposed amendment to devolve more powers to the states.

    The statement noted that on the concerns that it would be an aberration of federalism for State Houses of Assembly and local governments to draw revenues directly from the Federation Account, Ekweremadu said amendments for financial autonomy for local governments and state assemblies only sought to alter Section 162 of the Constitution to abrogate the State Joint Local Government Accounts and create the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State from which all allocations due to the local governments and the State Assemblies shall be directly paid from the Federation Account.

    Ekweremadu was also said to have explained that the proposed amendments would guarantee the democratic existence, funding, and tenure of local government councils.

    He said that financial autonomy for local governments would not return primary education to the era of unpaid salaries.

    Ekweremadu was said to have explained that although education remained the constitutional responsibility of the local governments, provisions had been made to deduct from the source the monthly financial obligations of the local governments to primary education for remission into the account of state agencies overseeing basic education.

    Ekweremadu maintained that altering Section 134 and 179 of the Constitution would avail the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) sufficient time to conduct bye-elections. Section 225, which will empower INEC to de-register political parties, was not total.

    He said: “INEC’s power to deregister parties will apply strictly to non-fulfillment of certain conditions such as breach of registration requirements and failure to secure/win either presidential, governorship, local government chairmanship or a seat in the National or State Assembly or a councillorship seat.”

  • Devolution of powers: Senate as mirror of today’s Nigeria

    It is interesting reading the commentaries in some newspaper columns and opinion pages over the failure of the proposal for the devolution of powers to scale through during the constitution amendment process in the federal legislature. The commentaries gave me an idea that if I were to be in the department of mass communication or political science of a university either as a student or lecturer, one research I would love to invest my time on now is how these newspaper columns and opinions reflect the geo-political divisions in today’s Nigeria.

    Using content analysis as a research tool, it would have been easy to see which commentator wrote what and in what newspaper. One would have also discovered the role location, ownership and the political interests of the newspaper owners played in shaping the position of editorial opinions, columnists and also, the choice of articles that get published in newspapers on the subject at hand. Also, the research would have explained why some newspapers prefer to interview certain individuals or representatives of some groups or organizations to get their viewpoint on the issue of devolution of powers to states.

    The objective of the research would be to show the division over the issue across geo-political zones in the country and how they are reflected  even in the newspapers. The research would also show the relationship between the position of the columnist or newspaper and the ownership cum location of the newspaper.

    Unfortunately, I am neither a student or a researcher. Even my job would not give the luxury of the objectivity or neutrality that such an endeavor requires for the result to enjoy fidelity, credibility and acceptability.

    However, without the proper research, I have tried to read critically the opinions, corporate and personal, as expressed in the published articles and editorials and to take cognizance of the facts of location, ownership and geo-political origin of the authors. My conclusion is that just as the campaign for restructuring remains a Southern affair, the knocks the National Assembly has received on the failure to pass the devolution of powers to states are from Southerners and southern-based media. While the vitriolic attacks on the federal legislators have been very loud and ceaseless, prominent columnists from the North and media organized based in the North have largely ignored the issue of devolution of powers  while commenting  on other aspects of the constitution amendment.

    Similarly, while prominent groups in the South and their  leaders have been loud in condemning the National Assembly for the votes that led to the defeat of the bill on devolution of powers, their counterparts in the Northern part of the country have expressed contrary opinion or kept mute.

    For those who observed the votes in both chambers of the National Assembly on July 26 and 27, it is obvious that the votes equally reflected the thoughts on this issue in the media. Members voted along geo-political preferences. The implication is that both the National Assembly and the media are reflections of the situation in Nigeria, particularly on the issue of restructuring.

    Ours is a country with sharp divisions. To some Nigerians, the agitation for restructuring is limited to the South. With this perception, a deep distrust, suspicion and misunderstanding has welled up around it. Restructuring is now seen in some quarters as equivalent to the agitation of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) for secession, the campaign for resource control by the militants in the South-south creeks and demand for fiscal federalism and Odua Republic in the South-west. Incidentally, the advocates of restructuring have not tried to even articulate their position on what the concept means.

    In a very surprising manner, the advocates of restructuring have been carrying on as if the entire nation need not understand what the concept means but just accept it without question, debate or explanation. It is even obvious some advocates of restructuring do not understand what it means. And that accounts for why there are as many definitions of the concept as there are definers. Different situations create different definitions and sometimes, the audience determines what the definer presents as the meaning of the concept. As at today, that concept remains nebulous, vague and opaque.

    Meanwhile, the Senators and House members who are being vilified for voting against devolution of power represent different constituencies. Up till now, the constituents of those who voted against it have not protested that their representatives did not vote according to the interests, preferences and opinions of their electors. What this means is that the legislators voted in accordance to the wishes of the people. The devolution of power bill is seen in some areas of this same country as a trick by legislators from certain parts of the country to do the bidding of their leaders who are outside the legislature. It is also seen as the equivalent of restructuring being orchestrated by those parts of the country to seize power and subjugate the other parts to their whims and caprices. That is why the devolution of power got 44 votes for and 46 against when it needs 72 votes to scale through.

    However, the commentaries and editorial opinions I have read just dish out blanket condemnation of the legislators. The division in the votes show that the pro-restructuring just took the rest of the country who do not understand what the concept means for granted. There was no attempt to enlighten others and explain the idea vigorously. There was no public education and persuasion on what restructuring means and the benefits it would bring to Nigeria.

    The advocates of restructuring are not engaging with other Nigerians with a view to explaining the concept, persuading others and building confidence and consensus on the idea. They forget or chose to ignore the fact that Nigeria is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. The aims and aspirations of the federating units may differ sometimes. Thus, for an idea to work across board, there is need for constant dialogue and persuasion, explanation and education.

    No federating unit, in this case, no region or part of the country should seek to impose ideas on the others, except of course, it is sure of mustering the needed majority support. Yes, it is true that development and prosperity  have no tribal mark or speak no language. Every human being desires them. In the same way, poverty is enemy to all. However, in an era of deep national distrust, suspicion and disunity, even the best idea could be misunderstood and misinterpreted.

    That is why I believe the people to blame for the votes in the National Assembly are the advocates of restructuring who are still not clear about what the concept is all about and what it is aimed at achieving. The lack of information on the issue is a minus for the sponsors and advocates. They are also not doing the best job by deploying propaganda against the National Assembly. It should be clear that a part of the country cannot bully, coerce and intimidate the rest of the country to accept an arrangement which has serious implication on the future of the country.

    Do not misunderstand my position. I want devolution of powers and I thought it should have been a recipe for solving the problem of an over-bloated Federal Government with too much centralized power, even though there is the fear of the state Governors who are already functioning like Emperors. It will be good to give some powers to the states and get them to be more responsible and efficient. This may even reduce the rat race for the Presidency by different geo-political zones.

    However, those of us who subscribe to this idea should know Nigeria does not belong to us alone. It is a jointly owned entity. We should learn to carry the others along and build consensus.

  • Senate dumps devolution of powers to states

    Four key constitution amendment proposals were yesterday rejected by the Senate.

    They are: •devolution of powers to states; •deletion of the Land Use Act from the Constitution; •state creation and boundary; and •35 per cent affirmative action for women.

    Also rejected was the recommendation to alter Section 25 of the constitution to guarantee a married woman’s right to choose either her indigeneship by birth of by marriage for the purpose of appointment or election.

    Ninety-seven senators were in the chamber.

    In all there, Constitution review committee formulated 33 bills, 29 passed while four other failed.

    Two-third of the 109 senators were required to pass any of the 33 bills, except the bill on procedure for overriding presidential veto in Constitution Alteration, which requires 4/5 of the 109 senator present and voting.

    On devolution of powers to states, the review panel said: “This seeks to alter the Second Schedule, Part I & II to move certain items to the Concurrent Legislative List to give more legislative powers to states. It also delineates the extent to which the federal legislature and state assemblies can legislate on the items that have been moved to the Concurrent Legislative List.”

    Ninety-five senators voted; 56 voted yes, 48 voted nay and one abstained. The proposal failed to meet the two-third required for it to pass.

    On removal of the Land Use Act from the constitution, 90 senators voted; 46 voted yes, 44 voted against the bill, rendering the proposal unacceptable.

  • Gbajabiamila: Igbo have political, economic powers

    Gbajabiamila: Igbo have political, economic powers

    House of Representatives Leader Femi Gbajabiamila has acknowledged the political and economic strength the Igbo have in Lagos State.

    He said the Igbo in Lagos gave the Peoples Democratic (PDP) the six Federal constituency seats it won in Lagos State.

    Gbajabiamila noted that if the All Progressives Congress (APC) had won the six seats, he might have become the Speaker.

    The lawmaker spoke at the New Year luncheon he hosted for Igbo community in his Surulere Federal Constituency I.

    He said: “Igbo had demonstrated that they do not only have economic power but also political power. Their political power put APC in problems in 2015. What Igbo did has created a problem for me in Surulere because Constituency II was won by the PDP. It’s like they don’t have a representative. I have to share whatever I have with them to carry them along.”

    Igbo leaders, who spoke at the event, regretted that their compatriots  in Lagos did not vote for the ruling party in the state. They promised to vote for the APC in 2019.

    One of them, Dr Ebele Ubani, admitted that the Igbo erred in 2015 by voting against APC.

    He said: “We should  be part of the mainstream politics in Lagos State. Come 2019, there will be a change. I can assure you that the Igbo in Lagos will vote for APC and in subsequent elections.”

    Ubani urged the state’s ruling party not to rely on Igbo elites but to reach out to those who would vote.

    According to him, there are six recognised Igbo groups in Lagos and the party should deal with all of them because they are influential in decision making.

    The Igbo spokesman said there were thousands of professional Igbo groups.

    “We mobilised them in 2015 across Lagos State for election purpose,” he said.

    Ubani sought Gbajabiamila’s assistance for the establishment of Surulere Chamber of Commerce.

    Lagos State APC Publicity Secretary Joe Igbokwe said there was no reason for the Igbo to antagonise the Yoruba political interest.

    He said: “Lagos has been kind to Igbo. I know what the Igbo have in Lagos they don’t have one-tenth of it back home.”

    Igbokwe said he was happy that the Igbo and their Yoruba counterparts were on the same page.

    “We will never degenerate to the 2015 level,” he said.

    Lagos Igbo APC Leader Chris Ekwilo urged APC in Surulere to concede a councillor seat to Ndigbo.

    He said the request was based on Igbo population in the constituency.

    Ekwilo said: “The Igbo worked for the party in the last election in Surulere. As we are preparing for local government poll, carry us along. Members who worked for the party should be compensated. Igbo have many groups that must be carried along to win elections.”

    Dignitaries present at the event included Chairman of Igbo APC in Surulere, Ugoeze Emeida Okoli; House of Assembly member, Desmond Eliot; Alhaja Latifat Gbajabiamila (Femi’s mother); Sole Administrator of Surulere Local Government, Sheriff Balogun and Noriakpa Ferguson, a lawyer.

  • The FRC: Its powers, limitations

    The Financial Reporting Council (FRC), formerly the Nigerian Accounting Standards Board (NASB), was established in 1982 as a private sector initiative closely associated with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN).

    However, NASB became a government agency in 1992, reporting to the Federal Minister of Commerce. The Nigerian Accounting Standards Board Act of 2003 thus provided the legal framework under which NASB set accounting standards. Membership includes representatives of government and other interest groups. Both ICAN and the Association of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN) nominate two members to the board.

    The primary functions as defined in the act of July 10, 2003 were to develop, publish and update Statements of Accounting Standards to be followed by companies when they prepare their financial statement, and to promote and enforce compliance with the standards.

    IASB had published many of the earlier standards prepared by the International Accounting Standards Committee and its successor the International Accounting Standards Board, but was more involved in enforcement than in updating to the more modern International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

    On May 18, 2011 the Senate passed the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria Bill, which repealed the Nigerian Accounting Standards Board Act and replaced it with a new set of rules. The decision was in line with a report submitted by Senator Ahmed Makarfi Chairman of the Senate committee on Finance.

    The Financial Reporting Council Bill was thus signed into law on July 20, 2011.

    Some corporate members of the FRCN include: Central Bank of Nigeria, Corporate Affairs Commission, Federal Inland Revenue Service, Federal Ministry of Trades and Investment, Federal Ministry of Finance, Auditor-General for the Federation, Accountant-General of the Federation, Securities and Exchange Commission, Nigerian Accounting Association and National Insurance Commission.

    Others are the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture, Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers, Association of National Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Corporate Affairs Commission, National Pension Commission, Chartered Institute of Stockbrokers, Nigerian Stock Exchange.