The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restructuring

  • Restructuring – to which end?

    Restructuring – to which end?

    On July 11 came glorious legalism, from the Supreme Court,  on the local government “autonomy” front.  The Federal Government won.  The state governments lost. 

    The party is over: for states that fiddle local governments’ monies; and governors that whimsically sack elected council chair(wo)men, and impose “caretaker” councils.

    Problems comprehensively solved?  Hardly.  Just a case lost and won.  But that could well be solving one problem, but creating 10 others.

    So, you hardly can blame the Tinubu order for pushing hard the propaganda value of the win.  Flipped, the opposition would have gone no less ga-ga.  Why, Bayo Onanuga, presidential adviser on Information and Strategy, called out the ever-wailing Peter Obi, for losing his voice — using Atiku Abubakar, who hailed the judgment, as exemplar.

    In the euphoria of the moment, Bode George too, the Lagos PDP chieftain, has latched on the “autonomy” to rapidly push for total “restructuring”.  But this is where it gets interesting: restructuring — towards what end?

    By approving a direct shovelling of funds to the so-called “third tier”, the Supreme Court has well-nigh made the local government Abuja’s business.  That act “tears” the councils from the states where they are rooted — both by geography and by the federal ethos.  Grotesque? 

    By its “purposive and teleological” interpretation of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution, might the apex court then be — teleologically — tearing off the federal clause, from a supposed federal Constitution that in practice runs as a unitary one, no thanks to the humongous powers of the central government?

    So, towards which end is Bode George’s “restructuring”, using local government “autonomy” as push — federal or unitary?  That verdict sure pushes the balance near unitary than federal!  Is the old soldier in the Lagos politician craving just that?

    Read Also: Fubara sets up panel to probe killings, destruction of LG secretariats

    Enter, the other tested combatants over restructuring — the Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN) Commission and old warhorse, Ayo Adebanjo, though the old man pushed his ideas through Afenifere, which he no longer leads.

    Both have nailed — and brilliantly too — the Supreme Court judgment.  Though they condemn state governors pinching council funds and their wayward sacking of elected councillors, they insist a “third tier” has no place in a federal state, which conceptually recognizes two partners: the central government and the federating units, the local governments being the exclusive business of the sub-nationals.

    So, which way, “restructuring”? 

    The Supreme Court verdict may have scored the short-term — and hardly ignoble — goal of securing local government funding.  That, other things being equal, should ensure better municipal and grassroots services nationwide. 

    But is it an “own goal”: creating sundry confusion on the path to re-federalization, the ultimate goal of “restructuring”?  What’s next — a “restructuring” civil war?

    Interesting times!

    •This article was first published on July 15, 2024

  • Firm plans expansion with restructuring

    Firm plans expansion with restructuring

    Flour Mills of Nigeria PLC (FMN), a food and agro-allied company, has announced plans for a restructuring to hold on to its position as a regional powerhouse.

      The company has unveiled a share acquisition plan as part of its broader mission to transform into a major player in Africa, while contributing to Nigeria’s economic development.

     Having been a cornerstone of the economy for 64 years, FMN has evolved from a single flour milling operation into a conglomerate spanning food production, agriculture, logistics, and more.

     FMN’s leadership believes the structure is now limiting the company’s potential in face of Africa’s burgeoning opportunities. 

     The restructuring will unlock greater value and enhance FMN’s competitiveness on the continent.

     Board Chair,  John Coumantaros, said: “We are restructuring to unlock substantial value and enhance competitiveness in Africa”.

     The move will enable the firm to streamline its operations, focus on its core strength, and seize opportunities, starting with West Africa. FMN’s restructuring comes at a crucial time for Nigeria.

    The country is undergoing reforms at diversifying its economy away from oil dependency.

    This is creating opportunities for FMN to play a greater role in food security and economic growth.

    Read Also: Fed govt hands over 64 CNG-powered buses to Labour, students

      Coumantaros emphasised the company’s enduring commitment to Nigeria’s development.

    “We are committed to the growth of Nigeria, a mandate we have fostered for over six decades. In line with our Pan-African vision, this positions us to contribute more to Nigeria’s economic growth and on the continent,” he said.

     By leveraging its expertise in food production and supply chain management, FMN extends its footprints in Africa while addressing food security, a challenge Africa faces today.

     One concern that has surfaced in the wake of FMN’s announcement is whether this restructuring will affect ownership control.

    However, FMN has assured stakeholders that the restructuring is purely strategic and does not signal a shift away from its Nigerian roots. Instead, it focuses on increasing operational efficiency, unlocking value, and expanding the company’s influence in the broader African market.

     FMN is also offering minority shareholders a substantial premium on their shares as part of the share acquisition plan.

    This is a move to reinforce transparency, fair corporate governance, and maintain strong relationships with its shareholders.

     The restructuring is just the beginning of FMN’s larger ambition of becoming a Pan-African leader in the food industry. The company has already invested in local supply chains, created jobs, and partnered with local farmers to boost agricultural production in Nigeria.

    These efforts are laying the foundation for FMN’s expansion across Africa.

     As FMN steps into this new chapter, it seeks to reaffirm its role as a Nigerian-led company championing regional growth and global competitiveness.

     The restructuring represents a pivotal moment not only for the company but for Nigeria’s broader economic landscape, as FMN continues to play a leading role in food security and industrial development across Africa.

  • The clamour for restructuring

    The clamour for restructuring

    Nigeria has had several constitutional conferences to address governance challenges and pave the way for the country’s stability and prosperity. However, the recommendations of such conferences have been left to gather dust on the shelves. The recent visit of elder statesman Emeka Anyaoku-led delegation to the State House, Abuja, has generated a fresh debate on restructuring. Can President Bola Ahmed Tinubu summon the political will to accede to the yearnings of many Nigerians for restructuring? Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI examines the issue and the task before the president.

    One issue that has preoccupied the attention of Nigerians in the last two and half decades is the quest for a constitution that will suit the country’s plural nature. Despite the difficulties associated with constitutional amendments in a federal set-up like Nigeria, with a written constitution, stakeholders have continued to clamour for a new grundnorm to replace the existing 1999 Constitution (as amended). The consensus is that the current piecemeal approach to constitutional amendments has failed to produce any meaningful result since the return to civil rule in 1999.

    Two weeks ago, a group of eminent Nigerians, led by former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku met with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the State House, Abuja and called for a new constitution that could help to address some of the country’s current challenges.

    Call for new approach:

    Though both chambers of the 10th National Assembly would soon embark on public hearings across the country to collate the views of Nigerians on issues relating to the amendment of the 1999 Constitution, the Anyaoku-led delegation, which made the call under the umbrella of The Patriot, a non-partisan group, urged Tinubu to adopt a more holistic approach to produce the type of constitution that is desirable for a large and diverse country like Nigeria.

    The group suggests setting up a Constituent Assembly that should consist of three representatives per state and one for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which should be elected on a non-party basis. The Patriots further requested that the Constituent Assembly be assisted by seven constitutional lawyers, one each from the six geopolitical zones and the FCT.

    The group added that Nigerians should ratify the draft document through a referendum. Since the country’s law does not have a provision for a referendum, it has also suggested the enactment of a new law by the National Assembly to pave the way for the referendum.

    The Anyaoku-led group believes the new constitution can be realised within six to nine months if the National Assembly passes the bills and the Constituent Assembly is convened and delivers it. Before it left the State House, the delegation succeeded in extracting a promise from President Tinubu that he would look into the proposals. Other members of the delegation include former Ogun State governor; Chief Olusegun Osoba; a former senator and rights activist, Shehu Sani; a constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mike Ozekhome; a former Women Affairs Minister, Mrs. Pauline Tallen; a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Kanu Agabi, SAN; a former Adamawa State governor, Boni Haruna; Chief Ben Obi and a former Information Minister, Labaran Maku.

    A matter of priority:

    In his response, Tinubu said he would consider drafting a new constitution. A statement from presidential spokesperson Ajuri Ngelale quoted President Tinubu as saying: “I have listened to you carefully, and this is not a group that I can ignore. This is a group of patriots reflecting the heart and aspirations of society…

    ”I want to assure all of you that as I listened to your two major requests on the path to referendum that should lead to constitutional measures that will fit our diversity and governance so that we avoid conflicts and break-ups. I believe in the unity of this country and I want to assure you that whatever is necessary to put happiness and good governance in the hands of all Nigerians is what I would do.”

    Tinubu added, however, that he is currently preoccupied with economic reform, which is his priority. “Once this is in place, as soon as possible, I will look at other options, including constitutional review as recommended by you and other options,” he said.

    Given the economic challenges facing the country, which is characterised by deepening instability, insecurity, political mistrust, and a significant rise in cost of living many Nigerians believe that a restructuring or streamlining of the governance system might help to improve efficiency. They believe that too much concentration of power at the federal level, among other things, is responsible for the current state of affairs in the country and that granting more autonomy to states and local governments would give them greater control over their resources and development.

    Voice of youths:

    The call for restructuring, which reflects a complex interplay of historical, political, and social dynamics within the country, began during the twilight of military rule in the mid-1990s. But, it has refused to go away, after 25 years of unbroken civilian administration. With the rise of youth activism, following the EndSARS protests in 2020, young Nigerians have added their voice to the clamour for political reforms, including restructuring. It was one of the urgent requests made by the protesters during the recent nationwide protests, tagged #EndBadGovernance.

    President Tinubu’s soft spot for restructuring is well known. Since the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD), under which he governed Lagos State for two terms between 1999 and 2007, was founded, “restructuring” or “true federalism” has been his key ideology and that of the party. Tinubu and his political associates stuck with this ideology when the AD transformed into the Action Congress (AC), later the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and eventually the All Progressives Congress (APC) when the party merged with two others and a faction of a regional party in late 2013.

    For posterity sake:

    Stakeholders have been imploring him about the imperatives of restructuring. One of Tinubu’s former comrades during the struggle for the restoration of democracy in the heydays of the military era, Olawale Oshun has urged the president to conduct himself in a way to ensure that history will be kind to him. Oshun, the Chief Whip of the House of Representatives during the aborted Third Republic believes restructuring should top Tinubu’s agenda as president. He told our reporter: “If Tinubu left office without directly applying the strength of his office to carry out constitutional reforms, his presidency would have been a meaningless effort. If he spent his tenure as an elected leader without using the strength of his office, collaborating with other lovers of Nigeria, in carrying out constitutional reforms that would include fiscal autonomy, which would make the federating units strong, then it would have been in vain.

    Read Also: Tinubu restructuring Nigeria bottom up, Nigerians won’t need to ‘Japa’ again, says Alausa

    “It must be a constitutional reform that has to do with fiscal autonomy, where each federating unit can earn its resources and pay tax to the Federal Government – as opposed to the current situation where the Federal Government takes everything and doles out money to the federating units. The federating units should be able to generate resources from whatever is on their land; whether it is oil, mineral or whatever. No part of this country lacks sufficient natural resources that can be used to generate revenue.”

    An uphill task:

    But, the 74-year-old Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) chairman does not expect such constitutional reforms to be a walk in the park. His words: “If (Gen. Ibrahim) Babangida could say that he was under pressure from some quarters, Tinubu would also be under pressure from some renegades. But, Tinubu owes it as a duty to Nigerians to carry out constitutional reforms. As someone who came out of the crucible and is lucky to be the president, he should be able to use all the fibres in his strength to stand up to the renegades and cooperate with those who love this country to bring about the necessary reforms.”

    Biodun Sowunmi, an analyst, said the country is not practising federalism as it should be, either in theory or in practice. Speaking about the difficulties many states would experience in implementing the new national minimum wage, he said: “What we are doing here is picking and choosing what we want. Here, we chose to appropriate all resources to the centre. Consequently, that leads to a situation where the Federal Government, which is the coordinator, collects 52 per cent of federal allocation. The states that own the resources are only sharing 26 per cent and for any state that is not getting oil derivation revenue of 13 per cent, what it means is that that state is getting 0.78 per cent, which is less than one per cent of allocation from the Federation Account. Consequently, the states are left badly weakened. In this state of affairs, you cannot have a national minimum wage that is more or less foisted on the states because it is negotiated nationally. Where do you expect the states to get the resources to pay? That is not federalism; it is wrong.”

    Resource control:

    Sowunmi said it has become imperative for Nigeria to restructure so that each state can keep their resources and only pay a certain percentage to the centre, as it used to be in the 1960s. He said: “Until we restructure, we will continue to have the sort of problems we are having today. It is an anomaly in a federation to make the centre or the federal government the owner of all the country’s resources; only for the federating units to go cap in hand every month to be allocated some money. It is not done anywhere else; those who own the resources should control it.

    “How do you expect a poor state like Ekiti, Zamfara or Adamawa to pay the same minimum wage as more wealthy states? If there was ‘true federalism’ in practice, each state would be allowed to negotiate the minimum wage in its domain, based on its ability to pay. Don’t forget that the cost of living in different states differs. It is more expensive to live in cities like Lagos, Abuja and Port Harcourt, compared to places like Ado-Ekiti, Akure or some other capital cities. So, other local factors would impact on the negotiations but such factors are usually not taken into consideration when you are negotiating at the national level.”

    The analyst said states are expected to take the lead in the development of the country, not the Federal Government. He added: “But this cannot happen under the current state of affairs because, over the years, we have encouraged state indolence, a situation where governors fold their arms and wait for the monthly allocations to run the affairs of their states.”   

    Feeding bottle federalism:

    The Nigerian brand of federation has been dubbed “feeding bottle federalism; apologies to former Senate Deputy President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu who once described it that way with derision. This is because the initiative to generate wealth has been taken away from the federating units, through the monthly revenue sharing of proceeds of crude oil sales among the three tiers of government. In recent times, states have begun to demand a new revenue-sharing formula in line with current economic realities. The precarious socio-economic situation where many state governments may not be able to meet their obligations to workers, owing to the enactment of a new minimum wage, has rekindled the call for the review of the revenue-sharing formula among the three tiers of government. Nearly two-thirds of the 36 states are insolvent. They have a backlog of salaries to clear, while the provision of social services is no longer feasible. The slump in crude oil prices at the global market and the abysmally low level of crude oil production in the Niger Delta region have reduced the nation’s earnings from the commodity. This has adversely affected state governments who depend almost exclusively on allocations from the Federation Account.

    At present, the Federal Government gets 52.68 per cent from the Federation Account; the 36 states share 26.72 per cent, while the 774 local governments are left with the remaining 20.60 per cent.

    Dependency syndrome:

    Observers believe that the current set-up, particularly the revenue-sharing formula does not provide enough incentive for states to generate revenue. Under the subsisting arrangement, they added, states angle to get a bigger share of the revenue from the central pool, rather than generate revenue within their territories. Proponents of restructuring are quick to point out what the defunct regions achieved under the 1960 and the 1963 Constitutions, which gave them wide powers to operate. A notable feature of the 1963 Constitution was the extensive powers granted to the regions which enabled them to carry out their immense responsibilities as they best saw it. It was such provisions, they argue, that spurred growth and development in the old Western Region under the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo in the 1960s.

    It was the advent of military rule in 1966 that dealt a heavy blow to the country’s federal system of government. However, the discovery of crude oil in commercial quantity, which coincided with the period the military took over, is believed to be responsible for the change. The independence of the regions was compromised as a hierarchical command structure emerged. A very powerful central government came into being and the states which succeeded the regions became mere appendages to the central government.

    Only hope for survival:

    There is a growing belief among Nigerians that “true federalism” is the country’s only hope for survival. They argue that the devolution of powers to the states will speed up the growth and development of the country and that it will douse ethnic tension and crush the growing agitation for self-determination across the country. This is because each state will be at liberty to grow at its pace, and all federating units will breathe the air of freedom with more resources and greater control at their disposal to attract foreign investment and domestic growth of the economy, they added.

    Advocates of the idea are convinced that going back to “true federalism” would help to solve many of the challenges the country is currently going through, particularly in the area of security. With the current centralized security architecture, they argue, the country has struggled to effectively address its security challenges, including insurgency, banditry, and communal violence. Governors are supposed to be the chief security officers of their respective states, but they are not in full control of the security apparatus, as operatives of the latter have to take orders from their central command headquarters in Abuja. This has resulted in inadequate responses and coordination to security threats. It is believed that a restructuring that decentralizes the security apparatus would allow states to take more responsibility for their security, which could enhance local responses to security threats.

    Cost of governance:

    Another persistent challenge that restructuring is widely expected to curb is that of the high cost of governance, which has robbed the country of enough resources to finance development projects. Successive administrations have always harped on the need to build infrastructure and embrace a long-term planning strategy to lay a solid foundation for sustainable growth and prosperity. However, capital expenditure ends up getting a low priority because of the high cost of governance, particularly the expenditure on salaries and emoluments of elected and appointed political office holders.

    For instance, Nigerians are still in shock over the recent revelation by Senator Sumaila Kawu, who represents Kano South Senatorial District, that lawmakers in the upper legislative chamber earn about N21 million as a total take-home package monthly. This is scandalous in a country where many governors are complaining that they would not be able to afford the new national minimum wage of N70,000 monthly. Advocates of restructuring believe that when the country is restructured and the monthly allocations from the sale of crude oil cease or dwindle, managers of the states or regions would be compelled to put on their thinking caps and exploit the natural resources in their domains. All parts of the country are endowed with abundant resources, which are not being fully exploited today because of the “free” monthly allocations from the Federation Account.

    Dream of founding fathers:

    Nigeria’s founding fathers took cognisance of the country’s diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious background when they opted to adopt the federal system of government at independence in 1960. Over five decades after the system was abandoned, many ethnic nationalities in the South and the Middle Belt have been strident in calling for a return to the sort of regional autonomy that worked in the past. Groups, including socio-cultural groups like the Afenifere (Yoruba), Ohaneze Ndigbo (Igbo), the Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), as well as the Middle Belt Forum, have consistently argued that the concentration of power in the centre is suffocating subnational entities in the polity.

    A growing number of northerners are also beginning to canvass support for restructuring. For instance, former Kano State Commissioner for Works and Infrastructure, Muazu Magaji has advocated the restructuring of the country. Magaji said the North has not benefited from producing successive heads of state and dominating the polity in the past. He said it was time northerners realised that for the region to progress, the country must return to the regional form of government that worked well in the era after independence. 

    Magaji said since the existing governance structure is not working, it should be reviewed. He added: “The question is, what is the process? It is either we achieve this peacefully, or it will come about by force. We are almost there already, as we are witnessing during this nationwide protest, where citizens are advocating for a change of government in an undemocratic manner. So, the government of the day should review its position and, together with the National Assembly, which is made up of different political parties, decide how to do it peacefully.”

    Changing narrative:

    Magaji painted a rosy picture of how restructuring would impact the socio-economic fortunes of the country. He said though the North has dominated the leadership of the country since independence, it has not benefitted the region. He added: “What is our economic and security situation today? Look at all indices of development; the North today is worse off in security, education, prosperity, and what have you. Other parts of the country that are supposedly disadvantaged politically because they are in opposition have managed to organize themselves to a survival mode and come up with a credible development and economic model.”

    The former Kano State commissioner said it is high time the country’s governance model is fairly and equitably restructured. He said: “This is what I call development federalism, which is a consensus by the six regions and Abuja to create a development template and devolve power gradually to the states and regions. If we devolve power to the states and then create an economic investment template in the form of development federalism, we can transform the South-south into an oil and gas hub in Africa and the Southeast into the industrial hub of the country.

    The region would produce automobiles for transportation, agriculture and other industrial machinery. It is doable; I’ve been to Nnewi and Aba; I have seen what the Southeast can do.”

    Bright prospects:

    Magaji said the Southwest is predominantly a manufacturing and marine economy, and can easily become the Singapore of Africa. He added: “Therefore if we encourage the Southwest to develop its capabilities in that regard, we will become a net exporter of manufactured goods and service providers in marine. As a result, the Southwest economy would contribute heavily to the centre.”

    The former commissioner equally believes that the three zones of the North have the potential to consolidate on its current status as the food basket of the nation and thrive economically. He compared the three zones to the three Asian countries of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, whose economies are booming individually. This way, he said, the North would become one of the richest zones in the country and would be able to contribute its quota to the centre. “Abuja, of course, can maintain its status as the centre of unity; it would continue to maintain our sovereignty in terms of defence, currency, foreign affairs and others,” he added.

    Different perspective:

    But, many conservative northerners, particularly within the ruling class are yet to join the restructuring bandwagon. For instance, elder statesman and Second Republic politician, Alhaji Tanko Yakasai (OFR) believes the challenges facing the country have to do with the attitude and character of those who operate the constitution rather than the so-called flaws in the document. Besides, he accused the eminent citizens who visited Tinubu of not consulting widely to articulate the views of other members of their group (like him) before taking a position on the current challenges facing the country.  

    Yakasai, 98, advised the president to tread carefully, so as not to plunge the country into chaos and instability, adding that he should consult widely and think thoroughly on the matter because it borders on the interests of all Nigerians.

    He said: “I align with the views expressed by (former) President Olusegun Obasanjo that the core problem facing Nigeria is not necessarily the constitution or the tenure of office. The crux of our challenges lies in the attitude and character of those who operate the Constitution. Without a change in the mindset and conduct of our leaders, even the most perfectly crafted constitution will fail to deliver the progress and stability we seek.

    “In light of these concerns, I propose a more effective approach for The Patriots going forward. We must prioritize internal cohesion and rigorous debate before engaging in external advocacy. Our efforts should focus on promoting ethical leadership, accountability, and civic responsibility among those entrusted with governance. Only by addressing these fundamental issues can we hope to create a Nigeria that truly reflects the aspirations of its people.”

    Ruling complicates matter:

    Stakeholders say recent developments like the Supreme Court ruling on local government autonomy have sounded a death knell on Nigeria’s pretence to federalism. Contrary to the submission of well-meaning Nigerians that the ruling is a welcome development, many others believe the judgment has advanced the country’s law on the sharing of power between the centre and the federating units in the wrong direction. According to experts, there are shades of differences in the concept of federalism in different jurisdictions across the world, but certain characteristics and principles are common to all federal systems, including non-centralization, which implies that the political system must reflect the country’s federal constitution by diffusing power among self-sustaining units.

    Many observers see the judgment as a blatant assault on the tenets of federalism. The judgment barred the governors from receiving, retaining, or spending local government allocations. The court held that states receiving council funds violate Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution. It asserted that the Constitution states that any money leaving the Federation Account must be distributed to the three tiers of government. Observers have hailed the judgment, which is aimed at reducing the impunity of state governors.

    But, their grouse is that it reinforces one of the fundamental flaws of the 1999 Constitution, which makes local government a separate tier of government; meaning that there are three tiers: federal, state and local government. In other federal jurisdictions, such as the United States, India, and Brazil, the constitution recognises only the centre and province/region/state governments. Under this arrangement, local governments are under the states or the federating units.

    This implies that states are at liberty to decide the number of local governments in their domain because they (the councils) are funded by the state government. But in Nigeria, local governments are regarded as a separate tier of government, rather than administrative arms of state governments and are used as the basis for sharing the national wealth. Against this background, the Supreme Court judgment has been dubbed a conspiracy against federalism.

    Assault on federalism:

    Former Delta State governor, Chief James Ibori, said the judgment has dealt a severe setback on the principles of federalism. Reacting on his X handle, Ibori said: “Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback on the principle of federalism as defined by Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The court’s ruling on the matter is an assault on true federalism. The Federal Government has no right to interfere with the administration of local governments under any guise whatsoever. There are only two tiers of government in a federal system of government.

    “I’m opposed to fiddling with the allocations to the Joint Local Government Accounts at the state level but that in itself does not call for this death knell to the clear provisions of Section 162 of the constitution. The implications of the ruling are far-reaching. In the coming days, we will begin to fully understand the implications of the Supreme Court decision. An assault on the constitution is not the answer to fiddling with the Joint Local Government Account.”

    Journalist and civil society activist, Adewale Adeoye described the judgment as a judicial assault on federalism and the height of pretence to transparency. He said: “What is the future of restructuring when local governments will remain, financially, an appendage of the Federal Government? The decision has taken away the snail from its shell; the states are now empty and vulnerable to the maelstrom of unitary manoeuvres and control which destroys the very fabric of a plural democracy…

    “The Nigerian tiny but vicious elite succeeded through Decree 34, using its military arm, to subvert the confederacy; now, in our very eyes has employed its judicial arm to further squeeze and muzzle federalism through the imposition of federal financial control of local councils, which in all plural societies, are the prerogative of states.”

    Tinubu’s dilemma:

    Against this background, can Tinubu summon the political will to embark on restructuring? Nigeria has had several constitutional conferences, including the 1994 confab organised by the late Gen. Sani Abacha, that of 2005 by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, as well as that of 2014 under former President Goodluck Jonathan. These conferences were organised to address governance challenges and to provide a framework to make the country more stable and prosperous.

    However, the recommendations of such conferences have been left to gather dust on the shelves due to the lack of political will to implement such recommendations. How the president is going to navigate the country out of its current challenges and lay a solid foundation for the future without ruffling feathers would be a defining factor of his presidency.  

  • Issues in restructuring

    Issues in restructuring

    SIR: Restructuring the federal arrangement in Nigeria is an issue that enemies of this country would not want to hear. This is due to the fact that some people have been misinformed and others have misconstrued the essence of restructuring.  Restructuring, in simple parlance, is all about how to make the citizenry enjoy the essence of having government in a political community.

     It is only when we want to deceive ourselves that we would say there is nothing wrong with the present federal arrangement. Nigerians are stakeholders when it comes to the issue of survival of the country under a true federation but some have greater stakes. As a friend and colleague said recently, Nigeria has, unfortunately, been led by time wasters in the past. It is time to reverse some of the evils which their bad policies brought upon us as citizens of this great country through restructuring.

      In the past, the issuance of new vehicle plate numbers was under the state. Ditto, issuance and renewal of drivers licence.

     The military came and without public input and discussion with the states unilaterally took over the responsibilities and transferred them to the federal government. The Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) was asked to take over the responsibilities.

    We are Nigerians and are in a better position to provide a truthful, objective and sincere assessment of how the FRSC has discharged these responsibilities over the years.  From my investigation, many Nigerians who applied for the renewal of their driver’s licences in the last one and a half years have yet to get their licences renewed. Yet, the same FRSC team harasses people on the road every day. Haba!

     On the issue of faded plate numbers, the Lagos State Government came out recently with a fee of ₦18,750 for a replacement and threatened affected vehicle owners with serious reprisal measures, including a threat to impound such vehicles.

     I implore the Lagos State Government to take things easy and apply wisdom in the management of state affairs.

    Read Also: Why restructuring remains elusive

     My initial reaction when I saw the circular was to ask: “Is it right for the Lagos State Government to threaten innocent citizens who obeyed the law and applied for plate numbers? Also, the vehicle owners did not produce the plate numbers. They were produced by the government. Why should the government produce fake plate numbers? Therefore, it is not only embarrassing for one government agency to embarrass another but very shameful. Let the affected government agencies talk to each other and stop punishing innocent members of the public.

    The Lagos State Government and the FRSC should note that there is tension in the polity occasioned by government policies at the moment. It is fraught with danger to heat the already tense atmosphere through a punitive measure. A colleague of mine was stopped by the FRSC recently over the issue. He was asked to go for a replacement of his vehicle plate numbers. He asked them at whose expense? He was told ‘at your own expense’. Then, in annoyance, he asked them where they expected him to get the money given his eight-month salary held by the same federal government since 2022.

     The tension across the land was generated by the government’s policy and therefore should be brought down by government policy in which the issuance of driver’s licenses and vehicle plate numbers should be returned to the state where the responsibilities were carried out in the past without tears. This is because the FRSC has failed us.

    • Tayo Popoola (Associate Professor) University of Lagos.
  • Why restructuring remains elusive

    Why restructuring remains elusive

    •  By Maxwell Adeyemi Adeleye

    Nigeria faces persistent challenges stemming from its complex political and economic landscape. Among the numerous issues plaguing the nation, the call for restructuring has remained a point for debate and agitation amongst Nigerians for years. The governance structure in Nigeria has been under criticism for their ineffectiveness in addressing the country’s challenges over the years. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, Nigeria consistently ranks poorly, reflecting the deeply rooted nature of corruption that has plagued the country’s institutions since independence. The centralized model of governance, which was inherited from the colonials, continues to enable corruption by concentrating power and resources in the hands of a few, thereby facilitating rent-seeking behaviour and patronage networks. This centralized governance can be said to be hindering developmental efforts, as decisions made at the federal level often fail to account for the diverse needs and priorities of Nigeria’s heterogeneous population.

    For instance in 2019, the World Bank estimates that by 2040, Nigeria’s infrastructure deficit would amount to approximately $878 billion, with high to zero similarities between urban and rural areas. The lack of localized decision-making highlights these disparities, leading to neglect of critical infrastructural projects in marginalized communities. Moreover, without restructuring, Nigeria’s centralized governance system will continue to be poverty and hunger-stricken, particularly, in rural areas where access to basic services and economic opportunities are limited.

    A World Bank report states that Nigeria’s poverty rate stood at 40.1% in 2019, rising to 49% in 2023, with rural areas experiencing higher poverty rates compared to urban centres which has stifled grassroots development initiatives, promoting cycles of poverty and underdevelopment.

    I have been studying the decentralized systems of governance used in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, which empowers local authorities to address community-specific challenges and allocate resources based on local needs. For example, in the UK, local councils have significant autonomy in areas such as education, healthcare, security, transportation, allowing for more responsive and efficient governance. Similarly, in the US, states have considerable authority over matters such as taxation, law enforcement, security, and infrastructure development, resulting in tailored policy responses that reflect the diverse needs of local communities.

    Another obstacle that constantly arouses the need for restructuring is Nigeria’s centralized policing model, which is overseen by the central government. This has remained a subject of considerable critique due to its inefficiencies and susceptibility to political interference.

    The management of infrastructure, particularly roads, remains a hassle, reflecting the shortcomings of Nigeria’s centralized governance system. Unlike in countries such as the UK, where local councils are empowered to maintain roads within their jurisdictions, Nigeria’s road network is divided among federal, state, and local council roads. This fragmented approach to infrastructure management has resulted in bureaucratic inefficiencies, inadequate maintenance, poor maintenance, and uneven development across regions.

    Nigeria’s tax system and fiscal centralization represent significant barriers to equitable development and governance. According to data from the World Bank, Nigeria’s tax-to-GDP ratio stands at a mere 6%, significantly lower than the global average of 15%, indicating a shortfall in revenue mobilization efforts. This tax revenue is further worsened by the country’s reliance on oil revenues, which are susceptible to fluctuations in global oil prices. This centralization marginalizes local governments, depriving them of the resources needed to address critical infrastructure needs, healthcare services, and educational initiatives at the grassroots level. Moreover, Nigeria’s tax system has been criticized for its complexity and lack of transparency, worsening compliance challenges and hindering revenue generation efforts.

    According to the Nigeria Economic Summit Group (NESG), the multiplicity of taxes at the federal, state, and local levels, coupled with inconsistent enforcement mechanisms, creates an environment ripe for tax evasion and informal economic activities.

    Read Also: Tension as Senate meets over N3tr alleged padding of 2024 budget on Tuesday

    Restructuring Nigeria’s governance framework is of utmost importance in addressing the root causes of fiscal centralization and to empower local governments by granting it autonomy. Socio-political groups like Afenifere, Ohaneze, and the Middle Belt Forum have been seen clamouring for restructuring, emphasizing the need to devolve power to the grassroots level and foster inclusive governance. In fact, in 2014, in a National Conference convoked by the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan, a platform for dialogue and deliberation on restructuring was provided, resulting in comprehensive recommendations for reform. Even with the clamour, call, and apparent need for restructuring, the actualization of this dream remained far-fetched as it was met with political resistance, particularly from northern elites who perceive decentralization efforts as a threat to their entrenched interests. This can be seen in the defeat of Goodluck Jonathan in the 2015 presidential election, a well-crafted move orchestrated in part by northern voting blocs, which stressed the challenges of effectuating substantive governance reform in Nigeria.

    President Muhammadu Buhari’s dismissal of the 2014 National Conference report further reflects the reluctance of the northern political elite to embrace restructuring, but rather continued disagreements between the North and South make it hard to move forward and create fair rules for everyone.

    Central to the restructuring debate is the issue of resource control and the devolution of powers to the subnational level. Proponents argue that greater autonomy for states and local councils would enable more effective management of resources and promote equitable development. However, resistance from some interests, particularly in the North, has hindered progress on this front.

    President Bola Tinubu has been a champion of restructuring since the early 90’s but despite his stance on the need for restructuring, Nigerians await the huge steps to be taken by him, to drive forward his Renewed Hope agenda. Tinubu’s advocacy for restructuring reflects a broader recognition of the need for decentralized governance to address Nigeria’s diverse socio-political realities. However, the translation of this advocacy into effective policy reform remains elusive, with Tinubu’s political manoeuvring constrained by a lot of factors, including intra-party dynamics and vested interests. It is important for Tinubu to leverage his political influence, as the father of Nigeria, to garner support for restructuring measures. The ability to navigate intra-party dynamics and forge consensus among factions remains an indelible attribute crucial in advancing the restructuring agenda, which only President Tinubu possesses. Tinubu’s strategic alliances within the APC, coupled with his grassroots mobilization efforts, could serve as catalysts for substantive governance reform. As the sitting president, the realization of this vision hinges on Tinubu’s ability to translate rhetoric into action, navigate political complexities, and garner support for policy reforms that would be effective to drive change.

    As Nigeria grapples with issues of corruption, underdevelopment, and political instability, the need for restructuring becomes increasingly urgent. In essence, the discussion surrounding restructuring reflects Nigeria’s deep-seated political and socio-economic divides, highlighting the complexities important in effective governance reform. While the road ahead may be filled with challenges, the need for change remains clear. Only through collective action and unwavering commitment to inclusive governance can Nigeria realize its potential as a truly democratic and prosperous nation.

    •Adeleye, a communication-for-development expert, sent this piece from London, United Kingdom.

  • Restructuring: To be or not to be?

    Restructuring: To be or not to be?

    • By Braeyi Ekiye

    There have been calls for return to parliamentary system by some members of Nigeria’s House of Representatives. Indeed, a bill by 71 Nigerian lawyers seeking to amend the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and re-introduce a parliamentary system of government has passed first reading in the House of Representatives.

    Under a presidential system currently in practice, the president is directly voted into power by the electorate (the people) while in a parliamentary system, the legislature elects a prime minister from among members of parliament as head of government.

    Another significant point of note in the parliamentary system is that there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the legislature and the executive as the ministers are also appointed from the parliament.

    To those pushing for return to the British colonial parliamentarianism which was practiced from 1960 to early 1966 and aborted for its poor and unimpressive administration by actors of the system, and for which the Nigerian military struck to send the first republic packing, argue that the system would drastically eliminate wastages in governance and ensure greater probity and accountability in the administration of state affairs.

    Protagonists of the parliamentary system frown at the present two-chamber presidential legislature – that is, the Senate and the House of Representatives, preferring instead, a unicameral legislature, which to them, is “less expensive and less cumbersome”.

    On the other hand, those in favour of the current presidential system of government in practice, argue that it ensures checks and balances, as no organ or arm of government, represented by the executive, the legislature, or the judiciary can wield arbitrary powers. But this assertion is neither here nor there, going by its skewed practice 30 or so years ago in Nigeria’s political landscape. If anything, the performance of both upper and lower chambers of the National Assembly since our presidential democratic experience leaves must to be desired. And this is the reason why a third party is not enthused at the leverage of governance of state affairs and its sad consequential effects. This group are neither pleased with the austere British parliamentary system or what they describe as the bogus, larger-than-life expensive American presidential system of government.

    To this group, anything short of a redefinition of the Nigeria state; that is, the urgent need to highlight the taproots of the current problems being encountered in Nigeria cannot be over-emphasized. For this reason, they are calling for “a holistic approach to remaking a Nigerian Constitution, and not piece-meal cut-and-nail amendments about parliamentary or presidential system”.

    The question that begs for an answer is: what is it that offends legal luminaries like Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, a former president, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) and others, about the current 1999 Nigerian Constitution? Why is the 1999 Constitution even as amended, is dubbed fraudulent and unworkable? As far back as November, 2021, Olanipekun (SAN) described the country’s constitution as unrealistic, deceptive and lacking the power to guarantee the security of lives and property.

    He also stated that the country’s constitution could not be amended, saying that the National Assembly had complicated the issue, with its attempt to amend a law that has no origin nor author.

    The revered SAN made these and other epochal statements on the Nigerian Constitution at the 13th Convocation lecture of the Redeemer’s University, Ede, Osun State on the topic: “Beyond the Pandemic: Creating an Evolving New Normal”.

    The legal luminary posited that every functioning nation should have a masterplan ingrained in its constitution. He noted, however, that the present constitution “that was virtually landing the country in a conundrum in essence, and content, does not represent any honest, genuine and sincere law”.

    Taking a swipe at the constitution, Olanipekun added that the present constitutional architecture has conspired and aggregated all security outfits in the federal government, which he said, did not allow any tier of government to perform its basic responsibility of protection of life and property to the citizens.

    Olanipekun stated that he was not aware of any federal constitution in the world that forbids any state, community or a group of people in any particular location from having their own security outfit, particularly police formations, as the 1999 Nigerian Constitution forbids such a desirable and inalienable right through its section 214 (1).

    Like other well-meaning Nigerians within and in the diaspora, legal luminaries, frontline ethnic nationality groups, and organizations, Olanipekun advised that the present federal structure should be unbundled or dismantled to provide for Nigeria’s multi-faceted diversities and peculiarities in the new constitution.

    From the foregoing, it is beyond doubt that Nigerians are unequivocal about the need for the unbundling of the present 1999 constitution and a redraft and a restructured state in tandem with true fiscal federalism and devolution of powers well spelt out between the federal government and federating units. Through such a move, the defects in the component structure, which are many, in the country, should be adequately addressed to assuage Nigerians who are feeling the heat of bad governance and injustice in the Nigerian political space.

    I dare say that this is not an antidote or a quick fix to the myriad of daunting political, economic and structural problems facing the Nigerian state but it sure would create the enabling environment for equity and justice to prevail in our polity and kick-start inalienable ownership of oil and gas and other mineral resources by constituent states, and also for the enthronement of the derivation principle in revenue allocation for the benefit of all.

    Read Also: Be patient with us, Speaker Abbas appeals to Nigerians

    Beyond these are also the issues of respect for the rule of law and fundamental freedom and human rights, security of lives and property and not the least, the abrogation of obnoxious and archaic petroleum and land laws. Added to these is an electoral process superintended by a patriotic and selfless Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which can be trusted to deliver free and fair elections, and whose election results can be the true representation of votes freely cast and declared without fear or favour for the enthronement of enduring democracy.

    Short of being bored on raising these issues for the umpteenth time, one is still forced to call the attention of the present federal and state administrations to deeply reflect on the fears of Nigerians over the state of the country ever so widely expressed. Now is the hour to attend to the cries of enlightened and patriotic Nigerians over the bloated and sickly stomach of the Nigerian state, for which patriotic Nigerians have readily proffered medications to its ailments. We should, therefore, not treat with levity these unsolicited diagnosis and proffered medications for the much needed healing process to kick-start.

    Nigeria is on the brink, even though a little over five percent of her estimated 200 million population are enjoying stupendous wealth and displaying despicable lifestyles with careless abandon. The pity of it all is that, the rest 95 percent of Nigeria’s population are wallowing in abject poverty and penury with no “hope” in sight for their salvation.

    •Ekiye, a publisher, writes from Yenagoa.

  • Restructuring as poisoned chalice

    Restructuring as poisoned chalice

    Barely five months after President Bola Tinubu assumed office, pressure groups began mounting pressure on him to lead efforts to restructure Nigeria. The groups are mostly Southern and Middle Belt socio-political organisations. The call will become more strident as he nears the end of his first term. Whether he will heed the call totally, respond to it piecemeal, or adopt a tokenistic approach to the controversial subject remains to be seen. Former president Goodluck Jonathan gestured in that direction close to the end of his first term, but his national conference effort, initially lost in a maze of nomenclatures, miscarried. Ex-president Olsuegun Obasanjo also dithered until the closing months of his presidency before kick-starting wide-ranging constitutional amendment that self-destructed on the altar of his third term ambition. For obvious reasons, former president Muhammadu Buhari was completely apathetic. If President Tinubu will heed the call, he will first agonise over its timing before occupying himself with the more salient issues of how to define restructuring and the even more difficult question of what shape it should take.

    Ultimately, restructuring is a subject that cannot be avoided for long. President Tinubu has demonstrated rare courage in grappling with needed and urgent economic reforms. He met a broken and empty treasury, and has begun clawing the administration’s way back to solvency. That has not been easy, for even presidential candidates in the last election, not to talk of the ordinary Nigerian, suffer from a gross lack of understanding of how the economy works, how badly broken President Buhari left it, and how long remediation will take in the face of a restive and impoverished public inured to logic and reasoning. Embarking on restructuring will not only require much more courage, it will also demand high-level perceptiveness and vision on a scale the country has never witnessed, no, not even during the constitutional conferences that predated independence.

    President Tinubu will be extremely lucky to start the restructuring journey in the middle or towards the end of his first term as campaigners want. Both he and his aides suggest that Nigeria’s economic crisis is being resolved and is projected to be stabilised in a year or two. The country shares their optimism; but it is doubtful whether the crisis can be as responsive as they romanticise, especially given a rentier state preyed upon by powerful, remorseless and entrenched forces who for decades had so dug themselves in that it would take cutting off their hands to rid the system of their predation. Without stabilising the economy and repositioning it on the path of growth, it is difficult to see any bold and courageous leader tinkering with the constitution, let alone restructuring the system. Nigeria’s controversial presidential system vests enormous and tantalising amount of power in the hands of the president. A stabilised economy and imperial presidency reinforce each other and inevitably promote complacency. Once growth begins to occur, the country may need to measure the integrity of the commitment of the president to restructuring. Entrenched interests are loth to give up the perks and perquisites of power, as President Tinubu himself opined during the campaigns.

    Assuming the president commits himself to restructuring in line with his longstanding worldview and can get his timing right, he will face the next hurdle of definitional differences bisecting regional and ethnic lines. Restructuring means different things to different people. British colonialists faced a herculean effort cobbling together a tentative parliamentary system that demanded from Nigerian political leaders discipline and know-how available only in very modest quantities. Four republics down the line and two bastardised presidential constitutions later, those differences have neither been bridged nor erased. While it is axiomatic that political elites with the wrong or inappropriate attitudes would fare badly with even the best constitutions, it is increasingly evident that both the parliamentary and presidential systems imposed on or borrowed from elsewhere and sewn onto a variegated and perhaps ossified cultural and political systems that predated independence have proved treacherously difficult to operate.

    It was perhaps the difficulty Nigerians encountered in operating borrowed systems that led Chief Obasanjo to advocate Afro-democracy, a nebulous and indeterminate system which even he could not fathom. His insincerity and leadership incompetence doomed his suggestions. Worse, by calling for an indigenous democratic model, he failed to appreciate the deep and stratified differences in civilisational experiences of Nigeria’s major ethnic groups. It seemed it would even be far easier and less complicated to borrow and engraft a borrowed system than to devise an original one. Should President Tinubu master those differences, he will next have to contend with how to inspire in a generally immiscible people a new and workable system, whether a menagerie of borrowed constitutions or a wholly in digenous system. The problem is who or which team will conceptualise it, and to what extent it could harmonise political differences over which Nigerians have hardened themselves and gone to war during decades of ethnic, regional and religious strife?

    The parliamentary system was midwifed by the British whose worldview is alien to Nigeria. The Nigerian presidential system was the most cursory and inexpert borrowing ever undertaken by any nation. To produce a workable model, as this column reflected on in this place two weeks ago, would require astute and competent leaders who possess intuitive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Nigeria’s native systems. Those leaders must not only have the ability to gaze far and deep into the future, they must also have an infinite and robust grasp of the country’s origins, where history and chemistry of races and indigenous empires and kingdoms cohere. Neither Chief Obasanjo in his first and second coming, nor Dr Jonathan, nor yet ex-president Buhari possesses such a grasp. President Tinubu is a dealmaker par excellence, his aides boast; but he will have to prove that in inspiring and envisioning a new constitution, he can be as quintessential as France’s Charles de Gaulle, the United States of America’s Gen. Douglas MacArthur, or German leaders who assembled 61 men and four women who drafted the still regnant German Basic Law of 1949, a constitution that anticipated and transcended Germany’s reunification in 1990.

    Read Also: Agric revolution will help Nigeria surmount insecurity, poverty – Shettima

    At the moment, there are indications that a powerful section of the Nigerian political elite, hoping to strike a middle course between the indifference of the core North and the activism and feistiness of the South and Middle Belt, prefer to tinker with the constitution, perhaps to make it more federal as they imagine. It is not clear whether the patchwork will make sense, for Nigeria has since 1979 continued to tinker with its political system without achieving any of the balances they dreamt about. The fundamental and radical changes needed to shoot Nigeria into a higher and more stable trajectory have been avoided like a plague. Indeed, it is feared that the barriers of tribe, religion and other differences will make deep changes almost impossible, especially in the absence of a great motivator. Past leaders have been too fearful of calling the country to those changes, but became wiser either shortly before leaving office or shortly after.

    If the Tinubu administration has a vision for the future, far beyond the challenges of today and tomorrow, far beyond superhighways and bridges and schools, if it has a vision of the great and unassailable future the country needs, it must return to the basics by repairing the foundations. It must resist the temptation to engage superficial changes, the uncontroversial, safe and soft things of the moment, and must engineer a fateful leap to that esoteric and subliminal level where presidents are not just kings but also philosophers, combining the gift of the alchemist with the transcendence of the mystic. There are building blocks to national greatness, but those blocks can only emanate from hard and often unpopular decisions. If the president does not already have a vision for that future, he must find it, for he cannot give what he does not have; nor should he dare to leave the parliament, with their disparate interests, to conceive a vision for him and the country. Let him get scholars to distill the histories of great constitutions for him to reacquaint and inspire himself to dream great and big, to help him understand why empires rise and fall, and to determine that in his time, Nigeria must rise and expand to greatness.

    Restructuring should not be the poisoned chalice it has been made out to be. If President Tinubu gets the timing right, and also gets the theoretical direction and philosophy of the new constitution right, he should find the ingenuity to assemble the few men and women who will inspire a document for the ages. That document should be citable in the decades to come, and apart from forming the rubric of a new and powerful nation, will inspire generations to come. There are a thousand and one reasons for the president to be cautious, indecisive, and conservative even in his progressivism. If he is as hungry for greatness as he has given the impression, if he is determined to learn from history, he will resist the temptation to ‘manage’ Nigeria and pass it on to the next leader as a nuisance, having satisfied himself like his predecessor that he had at least risen to the presidency at a point in the nation’s history. He will be wise to resist being stampeded or to allow the initiative be taken away from him, but he will be much wiser not to leave the country the way he met it, even if a tad more prosperous.

  • Nigeria won’t get it right without restructuring, says Edwin Clark

    Nigeria won’t get it right without restructuring, says Edwin Clark

    Ijaw leader Chief Edwin Clark has argued the country cannot get it right without restructuring.

    Clark spoke in Lagos during the presentation of his autobiography, “Brutally Frank” on Tuesday.

    He said that the present constitution is a fraud and unless it’s replaced with the resolutions from the 2014 constitutional conference, Nigeria may not get it right.

    According to him, “We have no constitution, because the one we have now was forced on us by the military.”

    He challenged the Federal Government to dust the booklet and resolve all the log jams in the country which had been addressed in the conference.

    Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka described Clark as a legendary activist who says things raw no matter whose ox is gored.

    Read Also: Trial of Catholic Knight, who trafficked 2.169kg of heroin fixed for Jan 17

    Soyinka, who was represented by Chief Denzil Kentebe, noted that the book will always be a compendium for the younger generation, adding that “he cannot wait to read how he tackles some of the history of a society along whose fault lines we have occasionally interacted directly and indirectly.”

    In his goodwill message Prof. Anya O Anya noted that Clark is a legend that devoted all his life for the total emancipation of his people therefore his autobiography will illuminate like minds who see him as a role model.

    In his tribute, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi noted that the success attributed to the 2014 national conference was as a result of Clark’s uncommon leadership, which he said made sure that there was no walk out throughout the duration of the conference.

    In his contribution, Chief Phillip Asiodu noted that Clark is always frank and persistent in his quest for federalism in the country where fairness and equity will take precedence.

  • Restructuring: What role for National Assembly?

    Many stakeholders are intensifying their agitations for restructuring to foster true federalism. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines the powers of the National Assembly in creating a new political order.

    Restructuring was a major campaign issue during the last general elections. Some presidential candidates promised to restructure the country within six months, if elected. Observers say it was an empty promise, because no president can single-handedly restructure Nigeria. The only institution that can create a fundamental legal framework that could alter the governance structure of the country is the National Assembly, working with interested parties.

    Experts say where a parliament exists, in whatever form, it has the mandate of a Constituent Assembly and can cause new acts of parliament to come into being. To them, it is wrong to blame President Muhammadu Buhari for not restructuring Nigeria as promised by his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), when it was canvassing for votes. As a civilian president, he does not have power to decree Nigeria into a new existence.

    Former Deputy Senate Minority Leader, Senator Olorunnimbe Mamora, agreed that the power to restructure the country belongs to the National Assembly. He said the primary responsibility of the National Assembly is to fashion out bills that will translate into law for good governance of the country.

    Mamora recalled the reports of constitutional conferences set up by the regimes of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan. They are still in the archives, because there were no enabling acts to back them up. He said: “You cannot enforce them, because they do not have law backing them up. There was lack of political will on the part of those who initiated the conferences.

    “Ideally, what should be done after the submission of the report by the conference is that some of the recommendations should be backed up in form of executive bill and be forwarded to the National Assembly for debate and approval by two-thirds majority before sending it back to the to the President for his assent. The National Assembly can act on the reports of conferences seeking restructuring, only if it is backed up by law.

    “Besides, there should be constitutional amendment to make provision for referendum. There is no such provision in the current constitution. After the President must have assented to the report of the Constituent Assembly as approved by the National Assembly, the people must also express their approval or disapproval through referendum.

    “All this explains the role of the National Assembly in the process of restructuring. The parliament is the first hope of the people. People in the parliament are the representatives of the people. Anything that comes before the National Assembly should be passionately addressed by the parliamentarians who have the knowledge to articulate position on national issues.”

    Human rights lawyer, Ayo Sogunro, gave an insight into the role expected of the National Assembly in restructuring the country. He said there is need for a constitutional amendment that will allow the electoral commission to conduct referendums when called upon by the President to do so, or when called opon by a majority of the National Assembly or a percentage of the state House of Assembly; and to allow the National Assembly to start a constitutional conference process, following the results of a referendum to that effect.

    Sogunro said such amendments are usually introduced to the National Assembly as an executive bill from the Presidency, to encourage public support and prevent accusations of attempt to destabilise the polity.

    He said: “When called upon to do so, the electoral commission would organise a referendum on whether or not the National Assembly should trigger the constitutional conference process. This is the point where advocates of restructuring have to start campaigning nationwide for the benefits of a constitutional review.

    “If the Yes votes win, then the National Assembly should draw up a Transition Framework bill. If the No votes win, then we have to respect the majority decision and, may be, campaign harder next time.

    “The Transition Framework bill should outline a transition programme, constitutional conference selection process, transition timeframe, constitutional conference procedure and other terms of reference. The Transition Framework may be submitted to the people through another referendum or to state assemblies for adoption.

    “If the Transition Framework Bill is passed into law, then a transition government is triggered under the transition programme and a constitutional conference takes place. The conference should not sit in Abuja, it should as much as possible, be a travelling conference. Taking submissions and holding public hearings across the country, from rural and urban areas, directly and through agents. We have voter registration and census systems that can be utilised for the work of the conference.

    “The conference collates the results of its consultations and deliberations and submits both a report on its findings and an annotated Draft Constitution to the National Assembly for consideration. The National Assembly ceremonially adopts the report and transmits the Draft Constitution to the Chief Justice of Nigeria for judicial certification. This certification is to ensure that the Draft Constitution complies with principles of international law, human rights, rule of law, and constitutional democracy. The judiciary should not revise the Draft Constitution, but only make notes on what aspect of it are problematic.

    “The National Assembly works on the judiciary’s review, if necessary, and sends it back for a second certification. If the judiciary is satisfied, it issues a certification judgment on the Draft Constitution. The certified Draft Constitution is presented to the voting population for a final referendum. This involves Yes or No votes. The effect of each outcome should be pre-determined in the Transition Framework Act.”

    Thus, it is the function of the elected representatives in the National Assembly to restructure the country. Those who are agitating for political reforms should put pressure on the party in power and their representatives in the National Assembly. That is where the legislative power of the country resides. Restructuring must not be limited to power sharing, resource control and fiscal federalism alone, but should also embrace broad changes in the charter of citizenship rights, on the structure of the Nigerian military, the police system, the judicial system and the system of civil service.

    Former Senate President, Ken Nnamani, said the power to restructure lies in the National Assembly. He said the legislature has the power to amend the constitution in line with the demands of the people. He said: “I believe in restructuring and the National Assembly should be ready to correct the anomalies in the power sharing between the centre and the federating units. For example, a situation where the Federal Government issues driver’s license is unacceptable. It ought to be the duty of the state government.

    “I have noticed that some people are afraid of restructuring, but that is inevitable, if we must make appreciable progress as a nation. We have to make certain adjustments because the Federal Government is over burdened by things that state ought to be the responsibilities of the states. I was part of the 2014 National Conference and very important points were raised at the conference, which had the best and brightest brains in Nigeria in attendance.

    “Their suggestions and contributions were quite amazing. I urged the government to revisit the recommendations, because they would benefit them a lot. Many good points that will hasten the development and strengthen the unity of Nigeria are contained in the report. People should not be afraid of restructuring, because it would definitely come one day. I support restructuring, but the issue of break-up is what I don’t support.

    “My position is not because I was a member of the committee, but because I saw people with in-depth knowledge of certain field making great contributions. This issue of restructuring was addressed extensively at the confab and they achieved what no other experts can achieve, particularly as regards the issue of national development. I really commended whoever put up the confab, because he selected the best brains and great recommendations were reached.”

    Lawyer and civil right activist, Monday Ubani, blamed Jonathan for failing to back up the 2014 National Conference with an enabling act. This, he said, has rendered it useless. He said despite the good recommendations contained in the reports, it has been gathering dust in the archives, because of lack of political will. May be the former president didn’t believe in convoking the conference, but was forced to do it for political reasons.

    Ubani said for restructuring to take place, there would be need to tinker with the constitution. The amendments must get the approval of two-thirds majority of the National Assembly and two-thirds of 36 state assemblies must support.

    He said the National Assembly should address the issue of true federalism, devolution of powers to the federating units, fiscal federalism, resource control and other issues that gives the Nigerian constitution the attributes of a unitary, rather than a federal constitution. In essence, the National Assembly should review the Exclusive and Residual lists, with a view to addressing concentration of too much power at the centre.

    Second Republic lawmaker and member of the House of Representatives, Alhaji Ahmad Rufai, said the National Assembly holds the ace on restructuring. He said the presidency can initiate a bill and forward it to the legislature for debate and approval.

    He said: “I would say without hesitation that restructuring lies with the National Assembly. The President is not a military president; he cannot change the constitution by decree. The sovereignty lies with the National Assembly, because its members were elected by the people and they represent their interests.

    “For those agitating for sovereign national conference, they have to go through the National Assembly. This is possible only if the National Assembly surrenders part of its powers by an Act, which is not a likely scenario. On agitation for referendum, there must be an Act of the National Assembly to create that referendum. It’s not the President that would by fiat or by executive order for referendum.”

    Elder statesmen and Ijaw leader, Edwin Clark, believes restructuring is the solution to Nigeria’s prevailing security challenges. He said the security challenges the country is facing will be overcome if it adopts restructuring.

    Clark, a former Federal Commissioner of Information, faulted the centralised security architecture in the country which he said could not avert, or respond swiftly to security issues in all parts of the country.

    The elder statesman challenged the National Assembly to address the issue of restructuring, because they are representatives of the people. He said restructuring will promote effective governance and development and it will ensure that power devolves from the centre to the other federating units for effective governor.

  • Restructuring the Nigerian constitution

    A lawyer and multilateral diplomat, Dr Babafemi Badejo, in this article, argues that the 1999 Constitution is more of a continuity of the constitutional arrangements of the colonial period and calls for its restructuring.

    There is agitation for restructuring in Nigeria. It seems to me that the clamour is for a constitutionally driven devolution of responsibilities with commensurate allocation of resources to the devoluees, that is, what Chiefs Falae/Anyaoku call fiscal federalism. In search for votes, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar supports them.

    For me, these elder statesmen play the ostrich game about monumental corruption at all the current levels. Their respective and collective cries stand to make no difference to development and the fate of the poor in Nigeria until corruption is addressed seriously. However, even more fundamental is the need to restructure the economic philosophy on which the constitution itself rests. It is on this fundamental issue that I devote this contribution.

    A constitution is ab initio considered a fundamental law on which the organisation of a state revolves. Two approaches flow from this: a formal legalistic analysis of a constitution by way of a section by section or clause by clause scrutiny with respect to its legal interpretation.

    This sort of analytical approach operates under the assumption that the constitution being analysed is an abstract document that came out of the fundamental genius of a group that knew the interests of all the people in civil society.

    It is equally assumed that such highly intelligent philosophers were able to selflessly and un-interestedly collate and congeal all diverse interests in society together into one workable document that sets out all relationships in the processes of governance in society.

    A counter orientation towards an analysis of a constitution emphasises an understanding of the dominant interests in society as a way of figuring out why a particular constitution reads the way it does.

    It makes interests in society clear and sees a constitution as a natural product of the competition among contending forces in society. In the struggles for food, shelter and clothing, the positions of groups of men who as a result of identity of interests constitute classes influence their politics. The dominant interests in such struggles build the rest of society in their image.

    I would like to suggest that the second orientation operates on a clear knowledge of the fact that human beings write constitutions and in undertaking such efforts, they are guided by personal interests and experiences. My task is to lay bare the ideological position that informs the supposedly ideologically neutral 1999 constitution.

     

    Analysis on two previous constitutions

     

    For my analysis, the work of Charles Beard on an economic interpretation of the American constitution is useful. Beard laid to rest suggestions that the American constitution represented the interests of all the people of the United States. He also pointed out that the constitution was not the outcome of so called abstract compromise or state interests versus Federal interests.

    Beard undertook a detailed biographical study of a number of the principal individuals involved in the making of the US constitution. This effort was supplemented by such primary data as the private papers of the principal actors as well as their tax records.

    Beard did not leave out an analysis of the socio-economic environment within which the promulgation of the Constitution took place as well as analysis of particular Articles in the Constitution that were meant to protect property interests in realty and personality.

    Profs Segun Osoba, Akin Oyebode, and late Justice Akinola Aguda applied a similar approach to the 1979 Constitution. Osoba concluded that “a constitution is no more than a legal statement encapsulating and rendering in a formal manner the existing balance of social forces and the distribution of substantive power among the various classes and interest groups in society”. The late Justice Nikki Tobi, in midwifing the 1999 Constitution, concluded that it is based on the 1979 Constitution.

     

    Socio-economic environment of the current Nigerian constitution  

     

    The colonial incorporation of Nigeria into the capitalist system of production remains an enduring factor in all pre and post-independence Constitutions. The many constitutions chaperoned by Nigeria’s colonial power provided the fountain for subsequent constitutional efforts in Nigeria. The struggles among the governing elites and the class on behalf of whom they rule has been the procedure for sharing the little surplus value created within the country and since the 1970s, the sharing of the rent collected from the exploitation of petroleum.

    These struggles for the sharing of the ‘national cake’ have involved ethnic chieftains drawing the masses of the people into the arena of conflict under the banner of the defence of primordial rights.

    The constitutions have been for the protection of the dependent/peripheral capitalists of Nigeria as well as the civil and military bureaucratic elite that supervises state capitalist interests as they struggled for what was left by international capital.

    The military regimes that commissioned drafters and debaters of Nigeria’s Constitutions were all schooled under the British orientation of protection of private property and the capitalist mode of accumulation. They could not craft any Constitution outside of the influence or interference of the administrations that instituted them.

     

    Dependent capitalism and the Nigerian Constitution  

     

    In line with the claim that a constitution is devoid of material interests, much of the Nigerian Constitution does not contain express provisions that endorse the dependent capitalist order in which the constitution operates.

    In fact, the provisions that express clear economic objectives are part of Chapter II of the Constitution. Section 16(1), (2) and (3) of this chapter provides:  16(1) The state shall, within the context of the ideals and objectives for which provisions are made in this constitution – harness the resources of the nation and promote national prosperity and an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy; Control the national economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice, equality of status and opportunity; Without prejudice to its right to operate or participate in areas of the economy other than the major sectors of the economy, manage and operate the major sectors of the economy; Without prejudice to the rights of any person to participate in areas of the economy within the major sectors of the economy, protect the right of every citizen to engage in any economic activities outside the major sectors of the economy.

    (2) The State shall direct its policy towards ensuring (a) the promotion of a planned and balanced economic development;

    (b) that the material resources of the community are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve the common good;

    (c) that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of few individuals or of a group; and

    (d) that suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age care and pensions, and unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of the disabled are provided for all citizens.

    (3) A body shall be set up by an Act of the National Assembly which shall have power;

    (a) to review, from time to time, the ownership and control of business enterprises operating in Nigeria and make recommendations to the President on same; and

    (b) to administer any law for the regulation of the ownership and control of such enterprises.

    This section could be interpreted as providing adequately for the interests of all Nigerians. After all, sub-section (1) (b) clearly emphases the welfare, freedom and happiness of all citizens on the basis of social justice, equality of status and opportunity.

    Sub-section (2) (b), (c) and (d) appear to expatiate on this concern. It is clearly stated that the state is to manage the economy in such a way that the concentration of wealth in a few hands is not permitted.

    As such the wealth of the nation is to be equitably shared in such a way that the basic needs of life are provided for all citizens and support for the old as well as the infirm is equally guaranteed. Suffice it to note at this stage, however, that these sorts of arguments are futile.

    Section 6(6)(c) of the Nigerian Constitution like (the identical provisions in the 1979 and 1989 Constitutions), makes it clear that the objectives in Section 16 of the Nigerian Constitution have no legal import.

    Governments that avoid the implementation of these clauses cannot be challenged over such avoidance by any concerned citizen before any court in the land. In effect, the government of the day has a free hand in violating any of the stated objectives. The citizens at large have no recourse to any court.

    Just as the hopes on a better distribution of wealth were not realised in the second and third republics, it cannot be realised under the fourth republic. As Aguda pointed out, progressive taxation is not enough to deal with such a major social problem that has been in place for long.

    The unfair distribution of income today is traceable to unequal access to positions that allow primitive accumulation in a peripheral economy and/or inequalities in the distribution of productive assets and/or values. Authority positions have also allowed what Fela Anikulapo Kuti had described clearly as Authority Stealing.

    To redress such a problem, if that were a genuine desire, will require fundamental changes in the economic system with respect to the ownership of the means of production and deployment of the total strength of the resultant state to stamp out “Authoritative Stealing”. Otherwise, paper planning efforts towards social justice are exercises in futility.

    Fundamentally, however, the Nigerian Constitution expressly protects the status quo on the ownership of the means of production. This position is deducible from Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution which provides: (1) No movable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that, among other things – requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore [sic]; and gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of  Nigeria.

    This section constitutes an adequate protection for the properties in realty and personality presently held by a few Nigerians. This provision equally gives the Nigerian Constitution away as basically a capitalist one to protect the interests of the propertied class.

    The above provision is more than protection of land which follows the dictate of the private enterprise system. The General Babangida took the logic behind land allocation further and carved out the oceans into parcels of oil blocs with which he enriched those he pleased.

     

    Concluding remarks

     

    The tendency to see constitutions as the fundamental law of a country flowing from the genius of dispassionate philosopher-sages who could perceive the interests of all and put them together in an eternal document is faulty.

    Constitutions, no doubts, are fundamental laws, but they are laws flowing from the interaction of social forces in the struggle over the allocation of the basic material needs in society.

    The dominant class in Nigeria is made up of a number of fractions that accumulate wealth through different sources and in addition there are foreign and national segments within this class.

    The Nigerian Constitution is to be understood as a document put together to protect the private enterprise system i.e. Capitalism.

    It must be noted, however, that the capitalist arrangement in Nigeria is a peripheral or dependent type. As a result, the Nigerian Constitution is more of a continuity of the constitutional arrangements of the colonial period through to the 1979 Constitution.

    The economic environment and specific provisions of the Nigerian Constitution point in one clear direction: the perpetuation of the dependent capitalist structure originally foisted on Nigerians by colonialism. Any restructuring that would be worth the while would not focus on spatial devolution that fails to touch the decadent corrupt system that is currently in place.

    A proper restructuring would radically address the inequities in how Nigeria is currently corruptly run. And I much doubt if this can happen in as much as the people at large hero-worship and vote known thieves as leaders.