The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restructuring

  • Much ado about restructuring

    Much ado about restructuring

    Restructuring. This is the buzz word in the country today. But the proponents are divided on the shape it should take. On the other hand, the antagonists equate it with plans to decimate the country, report Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, Assistant Editor, Dare Odufowokan and Sunday Oguntola.

    CALL for the restructuring of Nigeria has become a familiar political song echoing in virtually all parts of the country-east, west and north. Though an old rugged tune, dating back to the days before the country’s return to civilian democracy in 1999, when the defunct National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), headed by late Chief Anthony Enahoro, led the chorus, it has today become a rather difficult lyric that even the singers themselves and their listeners seem confused on what should be the right tune and the actual meaning of the song.

    When NADECO, after Enahoro’s return to Nigeria from a four-year exile, demanded for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference, he said the political dispensation under late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha and the 1999 Constitution “were foisted on the nation by past military regimes, adding that these realities “made it imperative for the country to start dialogue on some fundamental issues dividing it.”

    Defining what the envisaged change should look like and the expected attitude of Nigerians towards the realisation of the dream of a better Nigeria, Enahoro said in the year 2000, “a country at the turbulent cross-roads of its existence, such as ours, has no viable option but to find radical, innovative solution to its problems.”

    At that time, both his supporters and the government which frustrated his efforts, seemed to have no doubt over the nature of the changes Enahoro and his supporters demanded for.

    Also, the South-South had, for long, led the call for resource control by the federating units. But as the call for restructuring becomes a national issue today, there seems to be serious confusion as advocates and critics of the concept proffer different definitions of restructuring, thus making it difficult to know what could currently be considered the general meaning of the call.

    The confusion

    “I know there is a lot of hue and cry about restructuring to the extent that we have lost sight of the real meaning of restructuring because it means different things to different people. There has been a lot of hype about restructuring. In my mind, we have a government in office, and this government has a constitution, and our constitution is written, and everything contained there is very clear except the need for interpretation,”

    This was how Governor Mohammed Abubakar of Bauchi State expressed the current confusion while speaking to journalists recently on the sideline of the annual conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), in Lagos.

    Abubakar did not just arrive at the above conclusion alone. Like many other stakeholders and observers of the Nigerian political scene, he must have had reasons to ponder on what Nigerians mean when they call for or hear the word, restructuring.

    “The only thing that is clear here is that people are talking on the need or otherwise of restructuring. Be that as it may, it is worrisome that majority of the discussants have failed to be specific on what they want done. Indeed, a clear understanding of the term has remained wholly in the imaginations of the gladiators,” Comrade Gerald Obogo of the Voters’ Right Agenda (VoRA), said.

    To further compound the raging confusion, the call for restructuring is not without opposition. Thus, while some who believe there is need for the country to be restructured seem unable to come to terms over what the process of restructuring the country should entail, voices are also rising daily against the entire agitation for restructuring with proponents of the call being labelled ‘opportunists’ and ‘noise makers’, among other derogatory terms.

    And in the midst of it all, the federal government and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) have been the butt of many reprimands and blames, especially from the camp of those in support of immediate restructuring of the polity, which they said currently suffers from the numerous lopsidedness in its political, economic and social make up. The status quo, they said, must change.

    “I have no sympathy for either Buhari or APC. This is because, as a government and party that came into prominence through well-known support for agitations like the current call for restructuring, they needed not wait until they were rudely reminded of the need to address the issue in this manner. I strongly believe that if the current administration had led the debate on restructuring, it wouldn’t have turned out as messy as it currently is,” Obogo argued.

    But his position is not shared by many people in government today, especially those who are APC chieftains. Governor Nasir El’rufai of Kaduna State, for example, was quoted as saying: “Some of those calling for restructuring did not believe in it when they were in power.”

    Also, while some critics of the call for a roundtable conference to re-negotiate Nigeria said any need at amending our laws should be the responsibilities of our elected lawmakers, others insist the needed restructuring must be more than a mere constitutional amendment.

    One word, different meaning

    Given the discordant tune over the actual meaning of the word, restructuring, it seems necessary to search for the simple meaning of the word, even in the dictionary.

    The Business Dictionary explained the term restructuring as “the bringing about of a drastic or fundamental internal change that alters the relationships between different components or elements of an organisation or system,” while the Cambridge English Dictionary says it is “to organise a company, business, or system in a new way to make it operate more effectively.”

    The manifesto of the APC, the ruling party, which had come under heavy criticisms for abandoning its promise to restructure the country, said, among other things, that it would “initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true federalism and the federal spirit.”

    The APC further offered to “restructure government for a leaner, more efficient and adequately compensated public service; require full disclosure in all media outlets of all government contracts of over N100m prior to award and during implementation at regular intervals.”

    Explaining what he thinks restructuring might really mean, Governor Mohammed Abubakar of Bauchi State said, “the system we are running can do with a few readjustments, but to my mind within the ambits of the constitution. I am not one of those who subscribe to the fact that this constitution was forced on us. I am not. I have read a bit of constitutional law, and I know that there is a principle that is called the principle of state necessity.”

    Some concerned observers had pointed out that the problem today is that these stated definitions differ significantly from what some other proponents of Nigeria’s restructuring today mean. To some, it would mean return to regional government where the regions will control their resources and the centre would be left with little power.

    For and against

    The confusion notwithstanding, prominent Nigerians have so far come out openly not only to advocate for or oppose the concept but also to explain what they mean by restructuring and its likely impact on Nigeria of our dream.

    The debate caught fresh fire recently after former Vice President and APC chieftain, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, from the North-East geo-political zone, publicly called for immediate restructuring of Nigeria.

    Observers had said it was instructive that the former vice president, who came from a region many have argued are opposed to the concept, spoke against the backdrop of renewed agitations by militants in the oil-rich Niger Delta and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). According to him, “Agitations by many right-thinking Nigerians call for a restructuring and renewal of our federation to make it less centralised, less suffocating and less dictatorial in the affairs of our country’s constituent units and localities. As some of you may know, I have for a long time advocated the need to restructure our federation. Our current structure and the practices it has encouraged have been a major impediment to the economic and political development of our country. In short, it has not served Nigeria well, and at the risk of reproach it has not served my part of the country, the North, well.

    “The call for restructuring is even more relevant today in the light of the governance and economic challenges facing us. And the rising tide of agitation of some militants requires a reset in our relationships as a united nation,” he saidat a book launch on We are all Biafrans, written by Chido Onumah in Abuja.

    The debate became even more robust when the Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, also called for the restructuring of the Nigerian federation. Countering declarations by the Federal Government that Nigerian unity was not negotiable, he said, “I am on the side of those who say that we must do everything to avoid disintegration. That language I understand. I don’t understand Obasanjo’s language. I don’t understand Buhari’s language and all their predecessors saying the sovereignty of this nation is non-negotiable. It’s bloody well negotiable and we had better negotiate it. We better negotiate it, not even at meetings, not at conferences, but every day in our conduct towards one another,” Soyinka said.

    In July this year, at a colloquium held at the Ijaw National Academy, Kaiama in Bayelsa State entitled: ‘A day with the Nobel laureate, Soyinka had also said in the presence of some Ijaw literary icons that it was wrong to say Nigeria cannot be restructured.

    Commenting on the restructuring debate, he had said: “My response is simple. We must stop confusing and mixing up the argument, we are mixing up the argument. It is very unfortunate for our leaders to say that the question of breaking up or not breaking up should not arisen in the first place. It all sounds hypocritical, dogmatic and dictatorial.”

    Regional differences

    Generally, most Northern leaders are still dragging their feet over the need for radical restructuring of the country, although a few, like former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, have become prominent voices for immediate restructuring.

    At the fore-front of the region’s campaign against restructuring are northern leaders who were members of the 2014 National Conference, who spoke under the auspice of the Northern Delegates’ Forum (NDF). According to the forum, “the North was not given fair representation in the conference with 189 delegates despite its landmass of 70 per cent and 55 per cent of the country’s population. Therefore, we were not happy with the report and have come out with this second report and communiqué.”

    Alhaji Bashiru Dalhatu, who was a Minister of Power and Steel in the Gen. Sani Abacha government and a leader of the forum, said “we call upon any group of sponsors or individuals agitating for any form of restructuring of the federation, first and foremost, to respect the existing constitutional order and to seek to do so within the bounds and parameters stipulated under our constitution and law. To suggest otherwise would lead to chaos and anarchy.”

    They further said that the 2014 Conference, which many are using as the basis for calling for restructuring, was not representative in many ways. “The 2014 National Conference had 492 members and the north which constitutes about 70 per cent of the country’s landmass and 55 per cent of its population was allocated 189 delegates while the South, with only 30 per cent of the landmass and 45 per cent of its population, was given an incredible 305 delegates. This went against sensible demographics, law and practice, which could have hardly been done in good faith. Certainly, it was designed to put in particular our delegates and the North in general at a disadvantage,” they argued.

    This is just as elders of the South-West are insisting on a restructuring process that will usher in return to the federal system established by the founding fathers of Nigeria in the 1950s, where each section of the country was able to develop at its own pace. This has been the unanimous agreement reached at several gatherings and summits held across the region, since the agitation for restructuring resurfaced.

    At a recent summit on the subject matter in Ibadan, eminent Yoruba monarchs, elders and stakeholders, including the Ooni of Ife, Oba Enitan Adeyeye Ogunwusi, Ojaja II, Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters, Sen Babafemi Ojudu; former Minister of Aviation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode; former Deputy Governor of Lagos State, Sen. Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele and former Deputy Governor of Ogun State, Senator Gbenga Kaka, backed the ongoing agitation for restructuring.

    Others at the summit were the founder of the Oodua Peoples Congress, (OPC), Dr. Frederick Fasehun; National Coordinator of OPC, Otunba Gani Adams; Chairman of Yoruba Council of Elders, Chief Idowu Sofola; Sen Iyiola Omisore; Sen Mojisola Akinfenwa; Dr. Doyin Okupe, Senior Special Assistant to former President Goodluck Jonathan; Chief Supo Shonibare; Mr. Wale Oshun and Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu, retired archbishop of Methodist Church Nigeria, among others.

    Speaking as Chairman of the Ibadan Summit, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), said restructuring would address issues like the over-concentration of power at the centre.

    “No matter the motive of the conveners of Berlin Conference, we have lived together for over 100 years having been married by fiat of the Europeans. It is better to dialogue and restructure the country. No woman wants dissolution of a marriage if the parties live in comfort and are prosperous. It is incumbent on the leaders to make the country so prosperous that nobody would agitate for secession,” he said.

    Present at the summit in show of solidarity were President of the Ohanaeze Ndigo, Chief John Nwodo and leader of the South-South Forum, Chief Albert Horsfall, amongst others, who reiterated their regions’ support for immediate restructuring of Nigeria.

    Nwodo, who led the South-East delegation to the summit, said “I am here with a large delegation to emphasise the Ndigbo solidarity with this occasion. What is happening today shows that democracy has begun to grow in Nigeria.

    Similarly, Afenifere leader, Chief Ayo Adebanjo called on those who were still sceptical about the need for restructuring to see beyond their doubts, noting that the process will further make the country stronger to reform the present skewed system. He said there is need to ensure equality for all Nigerians, irrespective of their backgrounds and or affiliations.

    Earlier, some other notable leaders from the South-East zone have openly called for restructuring of the country. They include Second Republic Vice President, Dr. Alex Ekwueme, former governors of Anambra State, Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife and Peter Obi. Speaking at an event Entitled “Still in search of true Federalism,” during the 17th Annual Convention of the Igbo Youth Movement, headed by Evangelist Elliot Ukoh, at the Nike Lake Hotel in Enugu, the Igbo leaders, who hosted some Yoruba elders like Afenifere leader, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, called on President Muhammadu Buhari to commence the immediate implementation of the National Conference report. They said the implementation “will address the myriads of problems confronting the nation.”

    Ekwueme, on his part, said the six zones structure he recommended was the result of a deep reflection on how to solve Nigeria’s problems and that the zones have taken care of minorities in the south and north. Ukoh added that what Nigeria negotiated for and agreed with the colonial masters before independence was regional government where each had a constitution, all of which were annexed to the Republican Constitution of 1963.

    For the South-South, restructuring can be summarized simply as resource control.

    APC in search of definition

    However, as the debate rages, the APC said it does not understand what some people mean by restructuring. As a result, the party has set up a committee, headed by the Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir el-Rufa’I, to come up with the party’s own definition of restructuring. “When we talk about a committee on restructuring, what we are talking about is a committee that will articulate what APC means by restructuring because we have realised that over a couple of days now or weeks, when people use the word restructuring, we don’t know if we are talking about the same thing and people have gone about saying APC promised restructuring,” the party spokesman, Bolaji Abdullah, said.

    But the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in what many observers described as a reversal of roles, has said it is high time a critical look is taken on how the structures and institutions in the country operate. This was canvassed at a recent press conference by the Chairman of the PDP National Caretaker Committee, Senator Ahmed Makarfi.

    “We, however, observe the restructuring could mean different things to different people. ‎It is therefore important that we consider the framework within which we can even discuss and be on the same page as to what kind of restructuring we mean or desire; and if nationally accepted, agree on framework for its implementation,” Makarfi stated.

    What other Nigerians want?

    To capture what Nigerians actually mean today when they call for restructuring of the country, The Nation sought the views of some opinion leaders and intellectuals. Former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) in an interview explained that “Nigeria needs restructuring but power devolution more urgently to address grievances.”

    He noted that the concept is popular in the South but will meet with stiff resistance among Northerners, a development that may make it almost impossible to achieve.

    To get restructuring, he said the South must lobby the North and assure it is not about “balkanization or division of the nation.”

    “Any political arrangement requires consensus to succeed. So, we must accept the North doesn’t want the word ‘restructuring,’ he said, adding,

    “It is a popular concept in the South but the North doesn’t like it. They don’t like it for many reasons.

    “Generally, the North likes big government, so if restructuring means reducing governance, they immediately get concerned.

    “You can’t do it by yourself. The South cannot by itself restructure Nigeria. In fact, the North has more representatives in the National Assembly. They will naturally kill it. That was why they killed the Devolution of Power Bill.

    So, any sensible and pragmatic person will look to see what’s the middle ground? The middle ground would be how to make the states more engaged in the process of development.

    “Restructuring would be the ultimate, ideal goal but the first way to go that all the state governors will agree to, is to give them more monies and powers.”

    He went on: “When we now get the confidence of the North and they realise that’ it is the way to go, we can move to more technical issues.

    “You know the Federal Government controls 98 items of power. Under the devolution process, they will give up maybe 30 items to the states and in turn reduce its allocation from 58 percent to maybe 30 percent, making the states to have more money and to be better engaged.

    “That will make states not to run to Abuja every month to get money. When you move like that, no governor will oppose it. That is what I would recommend. Restructuring will cause mayhem.

    ”Devolution of powers means you devolve powers to the existing organs while restructuring means you have to create new organs, then devolve powers to them. So, why don’t we start with devolving until everybody becomes comfortable with restructuring?”

    To Prof Anya O. Anya, restructuring means reworking the structure of the nation for optimum delivery. He said: “Restructuring simply means there is an existing structure; if you make adjustment to it, it is restructuring. It doesn’t need any special definition. All those people saying they don’t know what restructuring is are just speaking from both sides of the mouth.

    “You hear terms like devolution, decentralisation, federalism and others mean restructuring. It means you are changing an existing structure to something slightly different from what you have. So, there is no point over flogging it.

    “I am of the view, as other people are that the current structure has not served the country well. And the least we can do is to take a good, hard look at it and make necessary adjustments. I don’t want to say it has to be this way or that way. It is a decision for the Nigerian people to take.”

    Katsina State Governor, Aminu Masari however believes in devolution of power instead of restructuring.

    Given the obvious confusion over definition of the word, the fact that the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and other parties have bought into the call for immediate restructuring and the recent explanation that the El’rufai-led APC Restructuring Committee is assigned to come up with the ruling party’s understanding of the concept of restructuring, Nigerians are eager to know if and what manner of restructuring the current government would eventually come up with. That, they said, will determine the tempo of the polity in the near future.

     

  • Prof Akinyemi on Buhari, restructuring

    Prof Akinyemi on Buhari, restructuring

    IN an interview he granted the Sunday Punch last Sunday, former External Affairs minister, Bolaji Akinyemi, suggests that the buck to reorder the country stops squarely with President Muhammadu Buhari. Despite the excesses of separatist and self-determination organisations like the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the former minister was not enamoured of the presidency’s handling of the grave national issues confronting the country. But he recognises that if anyone is to do anything to remedy the disarticulations within the country, that person has to be President Buhari whom the ordinary northerner trusts much more than any other person in that region, including ex-vice president Atiku Abubakar or even ex-head of state Ibrahim Babangida. He is, however, not sure the president will inspire the change sorely needed.

    It is doubtful whether any student of history and/or political science will come to a different conclusion, even if they disagree with some of the premises of the professor’s argument. Hear Prof Akinyemi: “In a way, the presidency of any country is a critical agent for change…I hold the belief that President Buhari has a critical role to play in moving the nation forward in averting the oncoming tragedy and in heading the country away from collision to a cooperative destination in arriving at the kind of federalism that will be acceptable to all of us. He has a responsibility to do that. Apart from being the president, he (Buhari) probably right now, is the only Nigerian that can ensure that we don’t end up in a ditch; in spite of what he says at times, he is the only Nigerian. Not that he stands the chance; he is the only person. Whether he will do it or not, is a different kettle of fish.”

    He continues: “…The present system that we have is skewed in favour of the North and the way forward will have to be the surrender of issues from the 1999 Constitution controlled by the Federal Government to the states.  Some issues on the exclusive list should be moved to the concurrent list and possibly, there should be a creation of the reserved list. So, it is the North that needs to make the concession. But if you’re going to be rational in your approach, the North has to be persuaded that it is not being asked to commit political or economic suicide and the only person right now that the North truly trusts and believes will not play politics with their interests is Muhammadu Buhari. He stands now in the kind of position that the (late) Sardauna stood in the sixties. An average person on the northern streets believes in Buhari in the way that they don’t believe in (former Vice President) Atiku (Abubakar) or my former boss, IBB, because those are the people who have spoken out forcefully calling for restructuring…”

    Rounding up his argument, Prof. Akinyemi concludes: “But Buhari stands in that position of trust in the estimation of the northern streets that ‘if he should say that we need to give up these issues, he’s not selling us.’ What we need to do is to find people in the North that Buhari trusts  people who can discuss with him, that he believes are not setting a trap for him. The Yoruba leaders’ meeting in Ibadan and this interview will not get through to Buhari. But there are people in the North who can speak with him. There must be mutual trust between Buhari and those speaking with him.”

    The former External Affairs minister offers many other arguments on restructuring, self-determination organisations, the Yoruba regional agenda, and the need for everyone to recognise that the present structure is simply not tenable and must be reworked for the country to take a great leap forward. He cites the examples of countries that have broken up and warns that nothing is inevitable. Though overall he is sceptical about the right things being done, he manages to sustain his optimism about today’s leaders appreciating their place in Nigeria’s historical conjuncture and doing everything to avoid the tragic consequences of war or disintegration.

    Indeed the lessons of history, which Nigerian leaders are tragically chary of studying, or are even completely inured to, do not lead anyone, least of all this writer, to say conclusively that the ongoing engagements in Nigeria would end optimistically. But as Prof Akinyemi suggested in the interview, President Buhari, despite his well-known aversion for broadmindedness, must be nudged into recognising the nature of the crises afflicting the country, crises that speak deeper and apocalyptic messages than many people, including the president and his aides, have apparently grasped. It is one of the enduring tragedies of Nigeria that its leaders know little of the histories of the people of Nigeria, not to talk of understanding the dynamics of their (histories) interconnectedness. Without an understanding of these complex histories and the dynamics of the people’s cultural and religious interconnectedness, not only will it be difficult for that leader to intuitively grasp what must be done at any juncture, he will even more likely also be unable to appreciate the critical responsibility history has thrust upon him as a person and leader.

    Prof Akinyemi diplomatically retained a delicately optimistic outlook of the Buhari presidency’s competence in mediating and moderating the changes needed to guarantee national peace and stability. This column is not so generous for a number of reasons. Take the IPOB crisis for example. The crisis was completely avoidable, and it ought to have been foreseen and denied the oxygen that fuelled it. For in dealing with the matter as the Buhari presidency has done, the chances and cost of creating dangerous aftershocks for the future are prohibitive and impossible to quantify. Despite the bastardisation of the Igbo cause by neophyte agitators and the absence of a consensus for secession, it is indisputable that the factors that gave fillip to the agitations are very well known. The factors predate the emergence of IPOB, leading to the formation of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) in 1999. Those factors were, however, aggravated by the Buhari presidency through a series of alienating policies that stoked feelings of disenchantment and animosity in the region. In addition, the presidency then proceeded rather disingenuously to frame the narrative in a manner that portrayed the problem as the agitations themselves, especially the excesses and idiosyncrasies of IPOB leaders, rather than the stifling factors that spurred the agitations.

    It is impossible to determine whether the pacification of the Southeast will bring about the peace and stability most Nigerians desire. It is clear that every time members of two ethnic groups engage in a brawl, there will always be the danger of spillover to other parts of the country, a reminder that leaders have left many things undone. The Igbo themselves have frequently and more than any other ethnic group been at the receiving end of reprisal attacks in other parts of the country, sometimes over matters they know nothing about. That the Buhari presidency painted the apocalyptic picture of civil war as a consequence of the self-determination agitations in the Southeast, complete with broadcasting vignettes of the 1967-70 civil war, was nothing but a deplorable, albeit successful attempt to shape the narrative to avoid coming to grips with the real and substantial issues of the national question. Only the careful observer will appreciate that the fanciful and hollow ritual embarked upon by IPOB, which the government has framed as terrorism and warmongering, has actually led to far fewer fatalities than the groups which presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu, last week described as mere ‘criminal gangs’, and than the Igbo have suffered in their many decades of victimhood after the civil war.

    It is obvious that the Buhari presidency needed to come up with a disingenuous narrative to justify its prior but constricted understanding of the dynamics of separatist or self-determination movements. Having portrayed the recent agitations in the Southeast as terrorism and its proponents as exponents of war to widespread approval, the government, military and other sectional leaders congratulated themselves as having by patience, hard work and deliberate interventions averted war. They are entitled to their self-congratulations. This column is, however, not taken in. Not only are the narratives horrifyingly and disconcertingly misplaced, including suggesting that the Igbo as a people, not IPOB, had virtually embraced secession, they also set the tone for the president’s implacability and misconceived and misdirected intervention on a scale that beggars belief and outweighs interventions in other far more threatening crises.

    More embarrassingly, the Buhari presidency gave the impression that only one type of intervention — a military crackdown — in the Southeast could curb the disturbances in that region. To proponents of force as a tool for pacification, this approach is logical and sensible. But in reality it is hardly defensible, as this column has consistently maintained. What the situation called for, assuming the president properly understood the factors engendering the crisis, was his direct and personal intervention in the region. He should have travelled to the region, speak with their leaders, both traditional and political, hear from them directly, come to some sort of agreement on what should be done, schedule other meetings with the so-called troublemakers, let them appreciate his genuineness and love for the people of the Southeast, and allay their fears. As a democrat, not the monarch many presumed him to be, he should have rounded off what would perhaps have been a two-day visit with a stirring, philosophical speech on unity, stability, development and constitution-making.

    Instead, after bewitching his own supporters and getting the approval of those who sanction the application of force in such matters, he spoke gruffly to the region, threatened them with fire and brimstone, and then brought down the sledgehammer. His initial success will convince him and his supporters that they have taken the right steps. It is doubtful. The problem has only been driven underground. If the factors that drove a small part of the Igbo population to reluctantly connive at the IPOB propaganda are not dealt with expeditiously, the volcano will explode sometime in the future. The IPOB leader, the imperious and impetuous Nnamdi Kanu, was never a true leader, not to say a sagacious one. Nigeria is lucky that such a megalomaniac led the IPOB cause. Had the country contended with a far more restrained, intelligent and emollient character who would not show his hands early nor deal his cards openly, the country would find it more difficult to contain him regardless of the commercial predilections of the Igbo.

    It does grave injury to the rest of the country and the presidency to describe the crude and self-centred IPOB campaigns as coterminous with the Igbo agenda. Such an unhelpful analysis and generalisation, including the fraudulently shaped narratives encapsulated in the hysteria of war, will do nothing but push the seething disaffection in the region underground. The country needs a leader who can see through the fog into the future, a leader who has been to the mountaintop and sees the promised land, someone with the right instincts and perspectives, someone who understands clearly the futility of seeking advantage for his ethnic group today only to lose those advantages when another ethnic group takes power tomorrow, someone who is fanatical about doing justice and promoting equity. Prof Akinyemi was right to suggest that neither Alhaji Atiku, despite his urbaneness and accommodation, nor Gen Babangida, regardless of his false geniality, could approximate those yearnings, nor be trusted enough by everyone, especially the North, to superintend the desired restructuring. But he was too kind to hope that President Buhari, the even more conservative apostle of ad hocism, can still be that change agent — a persona decades of anvil could not forge out of him, a persona he seems more than ever now loth to assume.

  • Where and why I disagree with apostles of restructuring

    On this recurring issue of restructuring, I still maintain my stand that before anything else, our minds and attitudes must first be restructured. If we do not attend to that first, all other efforts at restructuring will be an exercise in futility.

    The average Yoruba person is guilty of what they call “inunibini”, which an English dictionary, inappropriately to me though, define as “persecution”. “Pull them down” syndrome is another malaise of which the average Yoruba person is afflicted.

    The average Ibo is greedy and selfish and will be ready to do the damnest, for the sake of money. Yorubas call such attitude as “wobia” or “anikan-jopon”. I do not know what description to give to a person who, for love of money, can sacrifice his wife or child for rituals!

    Of course, the average Hausa/Fulani man is unmistakable for having domineering spirit. “Nwon feran lati ma je gaaba l’enia lori”, was the refrain from a concerned citizen while pointing at the character flaw in the typical Hausa/Fulani man.

    To be fair, some Yorubas, Igbos and Hausa/Fulani have character traits that conform with the best anywhere; but if the truth must be said, there’s no way we can forge ahead as a nation if we don’t subsume all the retrogressive flaws in the majority of our people.

    The world hates the truth and I’m holding myself ready to be assailed with all manner of attacks and loose talks for stating what is obvious about our people, but, no matter.

    It is only when we first address these failings and flaws that we can be talking of restructuring. As we are with our mindsets, even the Constitutions that make America and Britain great in all spheres of human endeavour will fail here were they to be operated by our people whose character traits I drew attention to here.

    When a Yorubaman sees his mate or subordinate showing great promise, he seeks to pull him down instead of pulling his energies in the direction of helping the other person achieve exploits. The Igbo person is willing to dispossess the other person and corner everybody’s commonwealth; and it is only then you won’t hear him talk of marginalisation or such like thing.

    For the Hausa/Fulani person, nothing satisfies him unless he dominates his environment and everything therein, even if he hasn’t got the mental and intellectual endowments for leadership.

    When it is self before others, we will always be at the rock-bottom of development and that’s what makes the huge, fundamental difference between we in Nigeria and the developed nations we are quick at referring to. Nigerians rank among the most ingenious and intellectually endowed in the world and we are achieving exploits universally but because of our system in this country, operated with the character-flaws in our three major tribes, those of our achieving compatriots abroad, will fail if they come back to function amongst us.

    If we restructure our minds and attitudes first as I’m insisting, if there’s anything else to adjust to let us have fair and equitable distribution of our resources, and feel a high sense of  belonging in the nation,  it won’t be difficult for a meeting of minds, to address any grey area and find solutions to them.

  • Fracas at APC restructuring parley in Akure

    The zonal public consultation on restructuring organised by the All Progressives Congress(APC) in Akure,the Ondo State capital came to a rowdy conclusion yesterday.

    Osun State Commissioner for Regional Integration Bola Ilori was attacked by hoodlums.

    Ilori,an indigene of Ondo town came to represent Osun State Governor Rauf

    Aregbesola at the public hearing.

    Participants were from Ekiti, Osun and Ondo states. The venue was the International Events Centre (The Dome),Igbatoro road, , Akure.

    Before he was attacked, Ilori addressed participants  shortly after the leader of Osun delegation and former Attorney General,Chief Gbadegesin Adedeji presented the memorandum of the state before the committee led by Mrs Rachael Akpabio.

    Ilori is regarded by the APC family in Ondo State as one of those who worked against the victory of Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu during the 2016 election.

    He served as the Director General(DG) of the campaign organisation of the Alliance for Democvracy (A D) candidate Chief Olusola Oke.

    Delegates from Ondo State at the public hearing booed Ilori during his presentation. He was attacked at the main entrance of the hall on his way out.

    The political thugs tore the shirt he wore. Their attempt to tear his trousers was resisted by his supporters and ‘Oranmiyan’ fans who chased the attackers away.

    Security personnel watched helplessly until some top APC leaders intervened.

    The attack on Ilori stalled the programme, which was attended by top members of the APC from Ekiti, Osun and Ondo states including National Vice Chairman (SouthWest), Chief Pius Akinyelure, Ondo State Deputy Governor Agboola Ajayi, Ondo State Party chairman Ade Adetimehin and his Ekiti State counterpart Jide Awe, among others.

    Ilori, who spoke to reporters after the attack, accused some Ondo APC leaders of complicity.

    He said: “Their aim was to kill me, but the mercy of God prevailed. They tore my clothes and made attempts to assault me but for the presence of my supporters who protected and rescued me.”

    But Ondo State Commissioner for Information and OrientationYemi Olowolabi alleged that Ilori came to the venue of the public hearing with weapons and charms.

    He said his intention was to cause crisis having mobilised people from Osun State.

    Olowolabi said it was an APC event, but some people wore Oranmiyan clothes

    to the event and also carried Oranmiyan flags with sticks in their hands. They came with weapons and charms. It was clear that they came to foment trouble at the event.”

    Olowolabi said; “Ilori seized the microphone from the organisers. He was not the representative of Osun State at the forum but he seized the microphone after the leader of Osun team had spoken.”

    He described the incident as regrettable, urging  Ilori to shun violence and thuggery.

    He described Governor Akeredolu as “a peaceful personality who abhors violence in all his dealings.”

  • Battle for restructuring

    Battle for restructuring

    The Committee on True Federalism set up by the All Progressives Congress (APC) has started receiving memoranda from stakeholders across the six zones. There is no consensus on all the items on the front burner. But, the zonal and sub-zonal meetings are serving as veritable platforms for the ventilation of grievances arising from the lopsided federal structure, Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU reports.

    he pro-restructuring crusade may have started achieving results. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) may have endorsed the agitation by setting up a committee to collate views of stakeholders across the six geo-political zones. Political leaders appear to be unanimous that the resolution of the contentious national question is germane to peaceful co-existence among the diverse ethnic groups cohabiting in the highly heterogeneous nation-state.

    At Ibadan, the capital of Oyo State, Yoruba leaders maintained during their recent conference on true federalism that disintegration could only be averted by the redesign of the defective federal structure. They merely echoed the puzzle raised by the slain deputy leader of Afenifere, the pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Chief Bola Ige, almost two decades ago. “Do you Nigerians want to live together in the same country?, Ige asked at a political meeting in Lagos. “ The audience answered ‘yes.’ Then, Ige asked: ‘How; on what terms?’ The Ohaneze Ndigbo, Southsouth Assembly, and Middle Belt leaders are now singing the same chorus. Prominent Northern leaders, including former military President Ibrahim Babangida and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, have also echoed the popular view that restructuring is the answer.

    The APC Committee on True Federalism, led by Kaduna State Governor Nosim El-Rufai, has a mandate to review all the ideas on the resolution of the national question. The elements include true federalism, restructuring, devolution of powers, regionalism, resource control. The committee is mandated to articulate and align the public opinion with the party’s campaign manifesto and campaign promises. The stakeholders and interest groups that have submitted memoranda to the committee include individual Nigerians, political parties, professional associations, faith-based groups and civil society organisations.

    The committee has raised posers on these elements to guide the submission of memoranda. These have been outlined by the secretary of the committee, Senator Olubunmi Adetunmbi from Ekiti. During the deliberations in the Southwest and Southeast and Southsouth, participants have reiterated their support for national unity. However, they pointed out that there should be equity, justice and fair play in a united Nigeria. There is no consensus on the major elements of restructuring and there are indications stakeholders will abide by the majority opinion on the fundamental issues being canvassed.

    The issues put on the front burner by the committee are not different from the ones canvassed by the eminent lawyer, Kola Awodein (SAN) almost 12 years ago at a lecture in Lagos. He noted that central to the preservation of unity and corporate existence of Nigeria are certain unresolved issues. In another paper titled: “Restructuring and Constitutional Review”, delivered at the ‘Yoruba Retreat’ held at Ibadan, Oyo State capital, by the legal luminary, he identified 18 issues and concerns critical to the consolidation of federalism in the country.

    These are: religious crisis and the secularity of the state, restructuring of Nigerian Federation, return to true federalism as embodied in 1960 Independence Constitution, marginalisation and rotation of the

    Presidency, traditional rulers and stability of the nation, ethnicity and need for mutual existence, resource control and revenue allocation, and inconsistencies in the 1999 Constitution.

    Others are abolition of the Land Use Act, repeal and abolition of Petroleum Act, inclusion of the powers of the National Judicial Council, inclusion of national debt in the constitution, adoption of six zone structure, reforms of electoral laws, reform of the civil service, fiscal federalism, definition of true democracy and its implications and the challenge of globalisation and technology.

    Many political scientists agree that the military intervention wrecked havoc on the country. At independence, the founding fathers resolved to operate a federal principle to guarantee unity in diversity. In his book, “Path to Nigeria’s Freedom”, Obafemi Awolowo, identified federalism as the form of government that would be suitable for the geographical expression. Thus, at independence in 1960, Nigeria was a truly federal state hoping to build on its delicate ethnic balance. The military intervention aborted the dream through the imposition of unitary system, which subsequent constitutions failed to properly address. As posited by frontline politician, Chief Bisi Akande, unity in diversity is given an expression when there is a division or sharing of powers in a federation between the central and regional or state governments without creating a lopsided arrangement that permits the usurpation of state powers by the federal authorities. “A totally centralised authority over all functions is not a federal system; it is a unitary arrangement.” he stressed.

    Military intervention led to what the foremost legal scholar, Prof. Itsey sagay (SAN), described as ‘federal absolutism.’ He lamented that the lopsided federal/state power sharing affected seven items. They are the operation of the police, census, mineral resources, labour, trade and industrial relations, registration of business names, electric power and local government funding.

    The flawed federal posturing has persisted, 18 years after the restoration of civil rule. At a lecture in Ibadan in 2008, a political scientist, Prof. Dipo Kolawole, observed that it has been compounded by all manners of injustice by the Federal Government. The former Vice Chancellor of Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti said: “Nigeria is a federation of an excessively strong central government, supposedly partnered by ridiculously weak 36 states with a Federal capital Territory supported by obviously ineffective 774 local governments. All other 801 governments combined are  weaker than the Central Government.”

    Frowing at the distribution of appointments, hee added: “A situation where there is glaring lopsidedness in sensitive federal appointments is antithetical to true federalism. In Nigeria today, with specific reference to the centre, who dominates the Presidency, the Senate, the judiciary and the military? Is there any pretext to federal character principle?

     

    Creation/merger of states:

    Should Nigeria create more states or not; should states be merged? If so, what should be the framework and guidelines?

    State creation has often reduced to the struggle of the elite who want more access to state power and resources. But, there is an evidence that some towns, communities and villages may involve in the agitation for state creation because they want separate local governments. The reason is that council creation is preceded by state creation.

    Although there is a popular argument that state creation should not be considered because many states are not economically viable, the argument has not suppressed the clamour for more states. The agitation is being fuelled by the feeling of marginalization. For example, the Ekiti people in Kwara State who occupy two local governments have not relented in their desire to opt out of the state and re-unite with their kith and kin in Ekiti State, or a separate state is created for them and other Yoruba people in Kogi. Also, the people of Ibadan and Ijebu have been calling for separate states. Ijebu’s and Remo’s claim is that it is the only province that has not been upgraded into a state in the country. However, state creation process is tedious under the 1999 Constitution. Unlike under the military, the procedures are very difficult.

    Derivation principle and Resource control:

    What percentage of federal collectable resources should be given back to their sources, for example, crude oil, solid minerals and Valued Added Tax (VAT)? Should states, regions or zones be allowed to exclusively or personally own, exploit and tap the financial benefits of natural resources in thei domain and just pay taxes to the Federal Government?

    Currently, Item 39 of the Exclusive Legislative List gives the Federal Government the sole and exclusive power to legislate on mines, minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, and natural gas. The picture contrasts sharply with the provisions of the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, which described the three, later, four regions, as “self =-governing regions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” Sagay recalled that Section 140, which made provision for the sharing of the proceeds of minerals, including mineral oil, stated that “there shall be paid by the Federal Government to a region a sum equal to 50 percent of the proceeds of any royalty received by the Federation in respect of any minerals extracted in that region and any mining rents derived by the Federal Government from within the region.” Also, 30 percent went into the distributable pool ( for all the regions, including the producing region), 20 percent went to the Federal Government; 30 percent of import duties went to the distributable pool; and  import duty on petrol and diesel consigned to any region was refundable to that region.

    What are the proposed changes in the current revenue allocation formula? What should be the new sharing formula among federal, state and local government that will reflect their share of constitutional responsibilities? Should the Land Use Act be part of the constitution or not and what should be the right of states in the ownership and control of mineral and natural resources on an underground?

    Usually, there is agitation in the oil-producing region. At issue is the lack of a just procedure for sharing the national cake derivable from the coastal region. The founding fathers of Nigerian Nation subscribed to a revenue allocation formula based on principles of derivation (50 percent), need and national interest. It was turned upside down by succeeding regimes, which reduced it, right from the period of the civil war.

     

    Devolution of powers:

    What items on the Exclusive Legislative List should be transferred to the Concurrent List to enable states have direct responsibility on state police, community police and prisons?

    Over time, calls for devolution of more powers from the centre to the federating units have preoccupied the advocates of true federalism. One of the questions begging for answer is whether the distant federal government, the sole distributor of national revenue, should continue to exercise direct powers over the local governments. Many Nigerians are of the opinion that the power-loaded federal government should shed its weight. Many have also asked: what is the role of the Federal Government in agriculture? Who owns the land?

    Also, opinion is divided on state police. This is due to the likely abuse of the institution. However, majority of Nigerians agree that maintenance of public order and public safety in a federal country is a huge task that has made the decentralisation of security more compelling. In Nigeria, governors who are chief security officers lack control over the Commissioners of Police in their states. They rely on the distant Inspector-General to maintain law and order.  In countries like Australia, Canada, United States of America, and India, policing is decentralised, with functions allocated to the tiers of government. Adducing reason for state police, former APC Interim National Chairman Akande said: ”We ought to have even moved from state police to community police by recruiting policemen from the ethnic groups to be served so that they live in the community, speak the language of the people and understand their culture and environment for effective policing.”

     

    Federating units:

    Should the Nigerian federation be based on regions or zones as units or maintain the current 36 state structure?

    Despite the collapse of the regions into states, there is the retention of loyalty to the regional arrangements that formed the federal union at independence. The clamour for regional economic integration by contiguous states sharing common identities, cultural values and aspirations is a fall out of the internalisation of regionalism without compromising the federal health of the heterogeneous entity. Thus, Awodein canvassed two options, which are focal points of federalist persuasion in contemporary Nigeria. He called for the organisation of the six zones as federating units while retaining the present states as units of government within the zone.

    He also said: “The states should remain as federating units and that the six geo-political zones should be enshrined in the constitution and states within each of these six zones being constitutionally empowered to create a zonal organisation for the management of common services, interest and promotion of economic and political cooperation”.

    But, there are indications that while states prefer regional economic integration, they tend to loath a return to the old political and administrative region. Shouts of gedegbe l’Eko wa has deep meaning. Lagosians do not want to return to Ibadan. At the Southwest stakeholders meeting where the APC Committee collated views, majority rejected the push for regionalism, contrary to the suggestion by the Yoruba Assembly which had held a conference on restructuring at Ibadan. They called for the preservation of the 36 state structures.

     

    Form of government:

    Should Nigeria continue with the presidential system o return to the parliamentary system as practiced in the First Republic or develop a hybrid of the systems?

    The presidential system is expensive and it permits wastage of public resources. In the view of Governor Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State, it may lead to doom. Under the system, electioneering is also expensive, unlike in a parliamentary system, where costs of administration and seeking office are comparatively lower. Many advocates of good governance have contended that a system of administration that does not provide for adequate measures to curtail executive excesses is prone to abuse and corruption. That is the dark side of presidential democracy in Nigeria. Also, Aregbesola pointed out that party supremacy and party discipline can only be maintained under parliamentary system.

     

    Independent candidacy:

    Should there be a constitutional provision for eligible citizens to contest elections without being members of registered political parties?

    Every politics, as it is said, is local. A community that has confidence in the ability of an individual may become a beneficiary of independent candidacy, if the individual is edged out of the party’s nomination process.

     

    Local government autonomy:

    Should local government areas be independent of states and have direct revenue sourcing from the Federal Government as the third tier of the federation or should they be administrative units of states?

    In Nigeria, states are at liberty to create and dissolve local governments, but the National Assembly reserves the right to list the newly created councils in the constitution. Many were taken aback when President Olusegun Obasanjo stopped allocations due to local councils in Lagos State for three years. The move crippled effective grassroots administration; local councils being the closest tier of government to the people. The push for autonomy of local government has polarised the polity. But, there are puzzles: are councils not administrative units of the state at the grassroots? Is council a third tier in Nigeria? What remains of the state when the local governments are taken away?

     

    Power sharing and rotation:

    Should Nigeria have a policy of rotation of key elected positions on regional o zonal basis for national offices and by senatorial districts for state offices?

    If this is adopted, what will be the place of merit, competence and credibility? Should all these virtues be sacrificed on the altar of zoning?

     

    Type of legislature:

    Does Nigeria need a bi-cameral or uni-cameral, part-time or full-time parliament?

    In the First Republics, legislators served as part-time members of the parliament. They held on to their professions while serving as in the legislature. They were also not collecting bogus salaries.

  • On APC panel on restructuring

    When, lately, Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka, slammed former President Olusegun Obasanjo for trivialising the agitations of Nigeria’s constituents for restructuring of the country, it only shows the extent of the reach of the clamour for the nation’s reorganisation, and the volume the call has gathered. In Soyinka’s words for instance, he said Nigeria was long overdue for reconfiguring, and noted that only dishonest citizens of the country would shy away from the need to decentralise the country.

    Although there are those who attribute the reaction from the Nobel Laureate to the age-long rift between him and the former President, yet, to a preponderance of Nigerian citizenry, the stance Obasanjo gave on the Channels Television that rather than the country’s restructuring, Nigerians need to restructure their mentality, mind, and understanding of the country instead, and the blunt declaration that he cannot be part of it didn’t go down well with most Nigerians.

    It was no surprise that Soyinka was raged by the standpoint of former President Obasanjo as he said he finds his stance very dishonest and cheap trivialising an issue of such great consequence. For Wole Soyinka, it is about ‘the protocols of association of the constitutive parts of a nation’. In his words, Nigeria is over-centralised.

    Soyinka is not alone on this. Many Nigerians across the ethnic divides are. The agitation continues to sprout shades of issues and discusses that raise fundamental questions. There is the question of what exactly is the meaning and essence of restructuring?

    For the purpose of this treatise,  we provide Wikipedia’s interpretation: ‘Restructuring is the corporate management term for the act of reorganizing the legal, ownership, operational, or other structures of a company for the purpose of making it more profitable, or better organized for its present needs’.

    Other reasons for restructuring include a change of ownership or ownership structure, demerger, or a response to a crisis or major change in the business such as bankruptcy, repositioning, or buyout.

    There is a striking take-home from the foregoing definition of restructuring. Of particular interest is the fact that restructuring is essentially necessitated by the purpose of making a structure more profitable or better organized for its present needs. Who then dare says the present political configuration of Nigeria isn’t an albatross on her neck. Not even the ruling All Progressives Congress dare denies it.  As a matter of fact, the party has reorganisation of the country as part of its manifestos, only unfortunate that it had to wait for this long until the call for it reaches an ugly crescendo.

    Now the APC has been constrained by the forceful and sweeping agitations arising from the need to restructure to constitute a panel and saddled with the charge to look into the agitation by making arrangements for public hearing on the theme, what it should have done much earlier. The party named the panel ‘Committee on True Federalism’, and it has been announced that the committee will hold public hearing in the six geopolitical zones of the country, starting from Benin, the Edo State capital. On this, we think it’s better late than never.

    It is good and propitious, except for pretenders who are out to cheapen the need for the all-important reorganisation. There are burning issues about creation/merger of states, derivation principle, devolution of powers, federating units, fiscal federalism and revenue allocation and form of government.

    There are also other issues as independent candidacy, land tenure system, local government autonomy, power sharing and rotation, resource control and type of legislature, all of which threatens the feet of the country if something urgent is not done. The reports of the various political conferences show that these issues are dire, consequential and urgent.

    The Governor Nasir El-Rufai committee which has been commissioned to deliver on the need for restructuring must be definite about it. There is the unspoken, yet palpable fear in the faces of Nigerians that the plan to tour the constituent geographical zones and allied decisions may end up the way of its kind – to have a report that will be swept under the carpet after a whole lot of time and taxpayers money must have been lavishly expended on the effort.

    Embarking on states tour to collate people’s opinions is key, yes, but Nigerians are virtually cynical about it because it’s a familiar bait. We fear that it appears what the ruling party itches to do is not only to kill the 2014 confab resolutions, but to also look for a way to waste Nigerians’ time and resources, only to do away with the restructuring in the end.

    I salute and agree with the Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar III and Emir of Kano, Muhammad Sanusi II CON, who have canvassed that some parts of the 2014 Confab report should be looked into as a way to settle the restructuring agitation.

    Every Nigerian must rise to this occasion by keeping watch on the panel and its activities to ensure that the nation is not rubbed the usual way. The committee on the other hand must be seen to be doing the purpose for which it is commissioned.  It must do only which the people of Nigeria yearns for and which is in the nation’s best interest, not the bidding of an ephemeral political grouping.

     

    • Dr. Ajulo is an Abuja-based legal practitioner.
  • The imperative of restructuring

    The imperative of restructuring

    In recent weeks, “restructuring” has dominated public discourse across Nigeria.  Interest groups that have not staged local or regional assemblies on the subject are preparing to do so, impelled by circumstances they can no longer ignore or control.

    If the declaration that “the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable” once passed  as measure of sincere commitment to the Nigerian project, today it must be seen as a most unhelpful response to the demand for a peaceful resolution of the National Question.

    At the heart of that declaration is the assumption that “the unity of Nigeria” already exists and that those seeking to discuss it are at bottom seeking to countermand, if not destroy it.  Yet, I do not recall a time since Independence when Nigeria was more divided than it is today, when the national consensus was more tenuous, when mutual loathing across the ethnic and religious divides was more pervasive.

    Reading comments on Nigerian news on the Internet sites frequented by Nigerians, you would think the constituent groups are engaged in a war of attrition.  Nothing is sacred anymore.  Vileness has become the standard of elocution.

    A great many of these comments issue from the products of so-called Unity Schools, established to promote a sense of oneness after the civil war, and from veterans of the National Youth Service Corps who were supposed to be transformed into catalysts for national unity by a year-long stint outside their states of origin.

    And yet, there is hardly any let-up in the chant from some quarters that “the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable.”

    In what respect, pray, is “the unity of Nigeria” not negotiable?  If the unity already exists, if it is an actuality, surely it can be still negotiated to reinforce it, to establish for her citizens “a more perfect union,” to borrow Abraham Lincoln’s phrasing at one of the darkest periods in American history?

    If “the unity of Nigeria” is an ideology, surely it can be refined by debate and discussion, in short, by negotiation?

    If it is an aspiration, that too can be negotiated?  Should debate be foreclosed on whether it is a worthy aspiration, or on its proper place in a hierarchy of national aspirations?

    In whatever case, “the unity of Nigeria” must mean much more than unity for the sake of unity.  So, what should be its purpose?  What should it consist in?  These, surely, are legitimate issues for discussion and debate, especially when the very concept of unity has for all practical purposes been turned into uniformity.

    Ours has been a federation in name only.  At Nigeria’s independence in 1960, Northern Nigeria was    twice as large as Eastern Nigeria and Western Nigeria combined.  It is not generally realised, for instance, that Mambila Plateau, in what was Northern Nigeria, lies on the same latitude as Abeokuta, in Western Nigeria.  The North was well placed to impose its policy preferences on Nigeria and dominate it in many other respects.

    This was a negation of one of the cardinal principles of federalism, that no unit should be so large as to dominate the rest.

    Even so, Nigeria at that time had more features in common with a federation than the present arrangement. Each region had its own constitution, approved by its own legislature.  And it was the operative law, so long as it did not conflict with the Constitution of Nigeria.  Each region determined its own local government structure and the number of such local authorities, fixed the minimum wage, as well as the remuneration of civil and political officials.

    Not anymore.  Almost everything begins and ends in Abuja.

    In the United States from which we borrowed our present Constitution, each state has its own constitution, which is the supreme law in designated areas of state authority.  The state constitution prescribes how the governor is elected, the number of terms he or she may serve, and the duration of each term.  It also specifies the locus of state power.

    In some states, the governor is elected for single four-year term, and can seek office again after only a new governor will have completed his or her own four-year term.  In Texas, power is concentrated in the legislature.  The governor is little more than a ceremonial figure.  In New Hampshire, a state senator gets $100 for each of a two-year term, and the figure has not changed for more than a century.  Also in New Hampshire, and Vermont, governors are elected for a two-year term, and for three years in Wyoming.

    A member of a local council in Alabama does as earn the same remuneration as a member of a local council in New York State, just not a local council member in Oneonta, in up-state New York does not earn the same pay as a council member in Manhattan

    Various territories in Nigeria parcelled into states from whim and caprice for the most part have not made for a more perfect union. Most of them are unviable anyway.   The creation of six so-called geo-political zones seeks to evade the problem by recreating it on a smaller scale.

    When you shunt Niger, Kogi, Kwara, Benue and Nassarawa and Plateau into a Northwest Zone, what you are most likely to get is a smaller version of Nigeria.  Each of the other zones will produce its own version of Nigeria.  How these can constitute the building blocks for a more perfect union beats the imagination.

    Whether expressed as a quest for” resource control” or “ true federalism” or  “fiscal federalism,” or a “sovereign national conference” or a “national conference,” the demand for restructuring has attained   a momentum that cannot be arrested and a salience that can no longer be ignored.  Those who claim that they do not understand what it is all about, or that it is a matter for the National Assembly to resolve, are being disingenuous.  And they risk consigning themselves to irrelevance in the task of re-shaping Nigeria, probably the most urgent task of our time.

    In an advertorial in Vanguard (May 25, 1995), Chief Anthony Enahoro of cherished memory,  one of the founders of modern Nigeria and leader of the Movement for National Reformation, reviewed the political situation and its implication for the country’s future.  The distinguished statesman and patriot concluded that Nigeria had only three options in the long run.

    One:  Continue headlong on its present course and pray that God would rescue it from the consequences of its folly.

    Two:  Take concrete steps to restructure the Federation, granting a substantial measure of internal self-government to the nationalities and groups of nationalities, and return to what he Enahoro called “collective self-government.”

    Three: The nationalities and groups of nationalities disband the Federation and go their separate ways.

    It seems unlikely that nationalities that can hardly agree on anything will agree to disband the Federation.

    What seems most likely is that, in the absence of substantive restructuring, as the Centre faces growing challenges from Boko Haram insurgents, Delta militants, Indigenous People of Biafra and incipient separatist groups, armed bands of lawless cattle herders, unpaid workers and pensioners, young men and women who see only a bleak future ahead–as these challenges mount, the authority and legitimacy of the Centre will weaken to the point that those nationalities strong enough or determined enough to break away will do so

    In short, in the absence of restructuring, Nigerian state will wither away, like the former Soviet Union and the territory formerly known as Yugoslavia.  That is the lesson of history.

  • Hate speech or restructuring?

    SIR: The ruling elite are the problem of this country; with the acquiescence of the mainstream media, fearful of the rising tide of demand for devolution of powers and restructuring of the country, they have done the law-abiding citizens of this country a great disservice by conflating legitimate political agitation with “hate speech”. The Ministry of Information and Culture has since been airing advertisements of the horrors of “hate speech” and how that inexorably leads to “genocide”. The premise upon which this benevolent “public information” effort is based is seriously flawed, and is potentially dangerous. It is like a landlord who choose to evict (rather than talk to) a recalcitrant tenant loaded with a gallon of petrol and a match in his hand. What happens next to that house does not even bear thinking about for all concerned.

    Contestation of ideas and controversy over who gets what, where and when do not amount to “hate speech”; it is the bread and butter of modern democratic politics. By putting a blanket ban on “hate speech”, the Nigerian establishment may be gathering for dinner on a power keg. Apart from that, there is no gainsaying that any attempt to silence dissent would simply drive it underground. For those who wish to use this to muzzle the quest for devolution of power, agitation for secession, resource control and those agitating for restructuring in this country, what I believe is that, “there is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come”.

    This country is  severely stressed because the structures to make it function are faulty. There is too much government. Government is a national bakery where those who work in it must share the bread they refuse to help bake. In government, there are massive programmes of deliberate theft of public funds. The people themselves are severely stressed. The more welfare they expect, the less they get. The more they are told about peace and security, the more they are harassed both by the private armies of the powerful few and hoodlums who are the products of inequities, deprivation and urban denials. Our law-enforcement agencies are few, ill-equipped and inadequately motivated. The society itself has not been trained to ask questions from those who make it by the simple procedure of joining the political class, understandably, because government is a stranger to the people, and is a place where taking what is not yours is an achievement to be celebrated, and for which national can be conferred.

    If there is restructuring and the political arm of government is restructured, we would have a federal government with more time to plan for a powerful country, a central government that would be more efficient and less corrupt, a regional government that would be a buffer between the state and centre, and that would be more handy to settle problems of the region and plan the development and growth of the region.

     

    • Ademola Orunbon,

    Oke-Posu, Epe, Lagos State.

  • North to hold public hearing on restructuring

    The Northern States Governors and traditional rulers yesterday agreed to hold town hall meetings in all the 19 states in the region on restructuring of the country.

    The decision followed a meeting chaired by Sokoto State Govermor Aminu Tambuwal in Kaduna.

    Tambuwal told reporters after the meeting that the inputs collated from across the region would be used as a working document by the technical committee on restructuring set up by the two.

    “We will also extensively engage all shades of opinion leaders in the North on what should be an aggregate position of Northern region of Nigeria.”

    He said that the technical committee was set up to come up with acceptable, and sustainable position of the Northern region in consonance with provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

    “The committee will review all previous reports, previous conference and then after three weeks come back to us.

    “We are meeting on October 24 to review all of that and seek the report of the technical committee by end of October we will get to the larger body of NGF and Northern traditional rulers with the report of the committee.”

    Tambuwal solicited the support of northerners for the committee to do a good job.

    He urged people in the north to remain calm and avoid any crisis, as it would not do anyone any good.

    The committee was inaugurated at the last joint meeting of the Northern States Governors Forum and Northern Traditional Rulers Council held at Sir Kashin Ibrahim House, Kaduna in July.

    Tambuwal urged agitators across the country to be calm, saying even if the country went into war, people would still discuss their issues hence the need to stop beating war drum.

    He said:”we agreed that a technical committee be set up to work on the previous documents, conferences and position papers and then come back to us within three weeks.

    “Thereafter, every state will conduct public hearing and we will be meeting on 24th October 2017 by the grace of God to review all that. So by the end of October, God willing, we shall be able to get back larger body of the northern governors forum and northern traditional leaders and council.”

  • Good governance, not restructuring will save Nigeria

    SIR: Politics in Nigeria has never been about its basics; rather it is about fighting and arguing for the elites who control everything including the minds of the people. The way Nigeria is ruled, if the country is restructured and it remains one or not, who benefits most? It is the ruling elite class. If Nigeria remains united as it is today, who benefits most? It is still the ruling elites. I therefore wonder why non-elites are insulting, fighting and killing themselves over restructuring or not restructuring.

    Those who argue for restructuring cite examples of some factors which have caused imbalances and tensions in the polity.  They ask: Why should the South-east geo-political zone (out of the six zones) have five states while the rest zones have six states each? Why is it that the former Northern Region would always have more population census figures than the Western, Eastern and Mid-Western regions combined? Why is it that in appointment into top government positions, the northerners would always have more appointees than the rest of the country?

    Why is it that Kano State benefits more than Lagos State in sharing of the value added tax (VAT) revenue from the federation account, when the latter is the chief source of VAT revenue to the federal government? Why are most strategic military installations located in the northern part of Nigeria? Why is it that the North recorded more heads-of-state and commanders-in-chief than all other parts of Nigeria put together? Why are the Fulani herdsmen killing Nigerians across the country and the federal government appears not to be serious in stopping them? Why is the federal government so powerful at the expense of the true development of the rest tiers of governance? They strongly argue that these issues make it always easy for the North to have more advantages and better access to the resources of the country than any other part. Therefore, Nigeria must the restructured to address these queries.

    The restructuring argument also is about “who gets what” from the ruling crude oil resource. Crude oil is produced in the Niger Delta in the South-south zone. The argument is that the Niger Delta despite contributing about 80% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange revenue, has remained very poor and underdeveloped because the federal government and oil companies are not paying adequate attention to the needs of the peoples of the Niger Delta. Hence, the Niger Delta people are demanding for resource control through restructuring so that states or regions or zones should take over resources beneath their soil and contribute an agreed percentage to the federal government to take care of its federal services. It is in support of this argument that the Lagos State government argues that it is unfair to have allocated to it less revenue from VAT revenue chiefly derived from the state.

    On the other hand, those who do not support restructuring argue that restructuring may lead to the splintering of Nigeria.

    Both sides of the argument are not sincere. The basic problem with Nigeria is bad political leadership and the two sides are never mentioning how to deal with it. Bad governance is championed by the political, social (traditional rulers and their cronies) and economic elites who always benefit more than the rest of the people whether structured, restructured or united or re-united Nigeria.

    It is bad political leadership which has denied the creation of common goods and effective redistribution of same in the present united Nigeria that has given rise to the agitation for restructuring and/or dismemberment. If Nigeria can achieve good governance which will meet the basic needs of the people, the clamor for restructuring or dismemberment will disappear. Good governance will ensure that the little funds that accrue to the states are well utilized for meeting the basic needs and true development of the people. Good governance goes beyond restructuring and unity arguments. It is about meeting the needs of the people through its attributes of accountability, transparency, effective and efficient resource utilization, rule of law, inclusive governance, discipline and leadership by decent behaviors in leading the people.

    If how to live together is the problem, lets us sincerely discuss it. Nigerians should better put in place determined and committed model of discussing how to live together as a united nation than being carried away with the meaningless idea of restructuring or unity of Nigeria. Nigerians must insist on good governance. If we are not sure of good governance, there is no need for unity or restructuring.

     

    • Okachikwu Dibia,

    Abuja.