The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restructuring

  • Senate makes u-turn on restructuring

    Senate makes u-turn on restructuring

    The Senate has incurred the wrath of Nigerians for rejecting the bill on devolution of powers. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines the implications of the Senate’s decision on good governance.

    The clamour for restructuring has suffered a major setback in the Senate, as the bill on devolution of powers was thrown out. If it had been passed, the bill would have moved some items from the bloated Exclusive List in the 1999 Constitution to the Concurrent List, which would have given more powers to the states.

    The Senate’s decision took many Nigerians by surprise, because they considered the bill as a short-cut to restructuring, which has remained on the front-burner of national discourse. Analysts believe the Senate took the decision in bad faith. They say the senators have lost touch with their constituents, because the rejection of the bill was out of tune with the mood and popular demand of the people they claim to represent.

    Devolution of powers is to address the allocation of functions between the state and the Federal Government as it was before the advent of military rule. For instance, primary healthcare, secondary education, land, housing, water supply and agriculture that used to be the functions of the regional or state governments have been included in the Exclusive List. These items were taken over by Federal Government as stated in the 1999 Constitution imposed on Nigerians by the military.

    Restructuring was expected to change the revenue allocation formula, because when more powers or functions are ceded to the state and local governments, they will be given a huge capital outlay to accomplish them. Observers say it is the absence of the Federal Government’s presence at the grassroots that is fuelling the agitation for restructuring.

    Highlighting the importance of devolution of powers, Professor Audu Gambo of the Department of Political Science, University of Jos, said decentralisation of power in a federal setting is critical to sustainable development and also boosting the culture of social accountability.

    He pointed out that Nigeria’s federation is characterised by gross imbalance between the federal and sub-national governments, in terms of constitutional sharing of power. He said: “The Federal Government has by this imperfect arrangement become so omnipotent as to overshadow the federating units. “For example, there are 68 items on the Exclusive Legislative List and only the Federal Government is competent to legislate on them. There are only 30 items on the concurrent legislative list, which both the federal and the states are competent to legislate on.

    “The point to note here is that the Federal Government exercises far wider scope of power than the states, and by implication, has succeeded in rendering the states subservient to it. The wide scope of power of the Federal Government translates to enormous resources at its disposal and leaving the states with the image of a kwashiorkor victim. This was the shape of federalism bequeathed to Nigerians by the disengaging military dictators.”

    Gambo said the federal system of government as it is practiced in Nigeria represents a damaging aberration from the well-established principle bequeathed to us by the colonial administration. He added: “Not only is the Federal Government incredibly powerful, it is also stupendously rich as to virtually dictate to sub-national level governments, thereby making it the oppressor and the federating units the oppressed. This explains why the fiscal component of Nigeria’s federalism has remained intensely contentious. This is the context for the growing agitation by the sub-national units for devolution or decentralisation of power and responsibility to them.”

    Condemning the Senate’s rejection of restructuring, renowned constitutional lawyer Professor Itse Sagay (SAN) said the decision demonstrated their contempt and disdain for federalism.

    He said: “Their rejection of devolution of some powers to the states involving transfer of some items to the concurrent list, their scrapping of states electoral commissions, entrenching local governments as a tier of government in a supposed federation, clearly demonstrates their hostility to federalism and to the empowerment of the 36 states in order to make them more independent and effective.

    “On the other hand, their inordinate self-love is demonstrated by their craving for immunity, participation in the Council of State and elimination of the President’s power to approve constitutional amendments.”

    Sagay said the 8th Senate is the worst in the history of Nigeria and described the constitution amendment as a hypocritical exercise, which would lead nowhere. He added: “This Senate is by far the worst in Nigerian history. Nothing good has ever emanated from the chamber. Their grab for executive powers, confrontation with the President and Vice President, their love of self-serving legislation and total insensitivity to the common interests of Nigeria is sensational and unprecedented.

    “The outcome of all this malevolence against Nigerians is that they will achieve nothing before they leave in 2019 and Nigerians will turn out in their millions to clap them out of relevance.”

    Civil rights activist Comrade Mashood Erubami is sad over the Senate’s rejection of the bill on power devolution. He said the decision of the National Assembly is sadly retrogressive.

    Erubami said the lawmakers’ decision was a betrayal of the mandate of their electors, who have shown preference for restructuring as an alternative route for replacing the current unitary system foisted on Nigerians in the name of 1999 Constitution that is being clandestinely operated.

    The rights activist said: “Power devolution is a key component of genuine restructuring and true federalism. Hence its rejection is very much anti-people and a very bad insistence on objecting to join the restructuring alliance.

    “It is a flagrant rejection of the real essence of their being voted into power into hallowed chambers of the legislature to represent the people and enact laws. Through that act of seeming legislative rebellion, they have once again shown that the house cannot be relied and depended upon as the key institution of government through which the desires and aspirations of the people can be realised.”

    Erubami noted that Nigerians mooted the objectives of restructuring to target change as a formal peaceful means of agitation against the past style of governance and its unacceptability to the constituent components. He said the rejection has justified once again the objection of that chamber of the National Assembly to changing and restructuring Nigeria peacefully and a confirmation that they favour the inevitable revolutionary reordering of the nation.

    A lawyer and human rights activist, Mr Monday Ubani, described the Senate’s rejection of the bill on devolution of power as retrogressive. He said the blockage of the bill by the Senate dominated by the APC is a serious setback for the ruling party that made restructuring one of its campaign promises.

    Ubani said Nigerians trusted the APC and voted it into power only to renege on its promise through the insensitivity of its members in the National Assembly. He added: “Will Nigerians ever trust the party again? It is sad in the sense that the APC that promised change through restructuring has disappointed the people.

    “We have not seen the end of this matter. It is either we restructure or forget about Nigeria. It is a temporary setback. What we are saying is to remove some items from Exclusive List and transfer them to Concurrent List to empower the state governments that are very close to the people and understand their needs.

    “If the National Assembly makes restructuring impossible, there will be an implosion in the country and the ruling class will pay for it.”

    On the importance of decentralisation, Gambo said it is a necessary precondition for any meaningful and sustainable development to take place. He said devolution goes with increase in the volume of financial resources to sub-national governments.

    Gambo added: “In Nigeria, for example, many sub-national governments hardly provide the basic socio-economic infrastructural needs of the people. This is fundamentally so because of the low quantum of resources given to them. More often than not, such limited resources are barely enough for recurrent expenditure suffers harrowing neglect.

    “This explains why the social problem of unemployment in Nigeria is worsening. Capital expenditure does not only generate job opportunities, but also provide massive socio-economic infrastructure at the sub-national levels of government.”

    The professor argued that, by the gross imbalance in the distribution of power in favour of the central government, sub-national governments have been robbed of the federally desirable scope of power to impact meaningfully on their citizens.

    He said: “As a tier of government that is much closer to the people than the remote Federal Government, they are always the target of the citizens’ anger and disenchantment with poor performance.

    “This is the context in which some pressure groups have been agitating for devolution as a means of enhancing the capacity of sub-national governments for improved delivery of social services to their people.

    “This would inevitably call for the fundamental review of the extant constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to ensure equitable and balanced distribution of power between the Federal Government and federating units.

    “This is in accord with the basic principle of federalism which is the sharing of responsibilities on the basis of competence of each level of government to efficiently and satisfactorily discharge such responsibilities”.

    Erubami said the danger of the Senate’s rejection of devolution “is that the agitation and ceaseless clamouring would be elongated and if care is not taking, any slightest mishandling especially in the context of Southsouth agitation for complete resource control and Southeast demand for self determination, Nigeria may just submit to their pressure”.

    He said when the distribution of resources in the course of the management of the polity is being delayed or continued to be seen to be unjust, peace and tranquillity are usually the first victim.

    The civil rights activist said: “When justice is denied, the clamour for revolutionary change may follow, eliciting drastic call for fundamental re-arrangement that will force change and alter the subsisting relationships between the federating units. This will be a consequence of the unconcerned attitude of the Senate as have been exhibited for years by people in power to the call for decentralised police system, fiscal federalism, resource control, in other word true federalism.

    “What is underscoring the stringent call for restructuring is still the perceived absence of justice and equity in the management of the polity and inequitable distribution of resources that belong to all; until the Federal Government wakes up to the call, regional agitation for restructuring will not abate.

    “All that needed to be done is for the National Assembly to wake up from their dreamless slumber and demonstrate that they are true representatives of the people.  As a key institution of government, they should remember that the people gave them the mandate to represent and supervise the executive and enact laws for good governance.”

  • ‘Channel calls for restructuring to the National Assembly’

    •Ortom denies owning snake farm 

    Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom has advised advocates of restructuring to forward their proposals to the National Assembly instead of seeking for “cheap popularity” in the media.

    The governor, who spoke to reporters on resumption from his two-week leave, said effective discussion on restructuring cannot hold without the involvement of the National Assembly.

    According to him, the National Assembly comprises elected representatives who should decide the destiny of the nation.

    The governor said restructuring meant different things to different people, emphasising that those agitating for separate entities within Nigeria were using such for selfish purposes.

    According to him, a lot of people do not understand what restructuring meant.

    On 2019, Ortom maintained that the troubles of today were enough, saying when 2019 comes, God would tell him what to do.

    The governor also denied allegations of owning a snake farm. He said rather than inflict pains on people through his alleged snake farm; he had spent N31 million in treating victims of snake bites within three months.

    He, however, said nothing was wrong in engaging in any kind of farming, including snake farming, which the constitution permits.

    Ortom’s denial follows allegations that he owns snakes farm at his Oracle Farm on Naka Road, Makurdi, and that the consignment intercepted last week by the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) in Calabar, belonged to him.

    According to him, he received a divine mandate, 20 years ago, to assist victims of snake bite, who cannot afford their treatment. He had been doing that, resulting in him spending N31 million in three months.

    “As at June ending, when the management of St. Theresa Hospital, Makurdi, brought the accumulated bills of three months to me, I had incurred N31 million for treating victims of snake bite.

    “People should rather encourage someone who is committed to saving lives,” Ortom said.

  • Lawyers: hope not lost on restructuring

    Lawyers: hope not lost on restructuring

    The National Assembly has drawn the flak for rejecting power devolution in its on- going constitution amendment. But to lawyers, this should not be seen as a loss for advocates of restructuring. The lawmakers’ initiation of the amendment, they argue, is a step towards restructuring. Eric Ikhilae writes.

    The widespread condemnation of the National Assembly’s rejection of the proposal for power devolution to states is, no doubt, an indication that there exists a national consensus that the time to restructure the country is now.

    A majority of those who reacted to the National Assembly’s position on the issue, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, believed that the legislators either chose to act against the prevalent mood in the society or were simply at sea on a matter that is germane to the nation’s continued existence.

    The condemnation of the Legislature’s position on the need to allow more power to the states, many argued, can only serve as a momentary delay for the actualisation of an idea whose time has come.

    This, they contended, is informed by the general acceptance of the clamour for restructuring, an agitation that was once restricted to a section of the country, and which was mainly actuated by the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, believed to have been won by the late M.K.O. Abiola.

    Today, the call for restructuring is heard even from unusual quarters. Former military leader Ibrahim Babangida and Abubakar recently added their voices to the argument that there was an urgent need to alter the country’s current structure.

    Also, recent happenings have shown that groups, representing various interests in the Southeast, have modified their hitherto hard-line position on secession, to now agree that the best way to alter this unhealthy status quo is through restructuring.

    The Southwest has also not relented. It has continued to work on the concept of regional integration, on which pedestal its governors announced, after a meeting in Abeokuta, last week, plans to establish a regional security force.

    On its part, the North (which comprises the three geo-political zones, made up of 19 states) has set up a 12-man committee to help aggregate the region’s position on restructuring. Before now, the North had maintained a lukewarm disposition on the call for restructuring.

    Rising from a meeting of governors and traditional rulers in the region, last Friday, the northern leaders explained, in a communique, that the committee was expected to come up with “acceptable, tenable and sustainable position on restructuring for the Northern region in consonance with provisions of the 1999 Constitution.”

    They said the committee became necessary  because the agitation for restructuring has assumed different meanings to different people.

    The committee, with Sokoto State Governor Aminu Waziri Tambuwal as head, has Nasarawa, Gombe, Benue, Bauchi and Kaduna states’governors as members.

    Also listed as members are Emirs of Kano, Zazzau and Gumel; Etsu Nupe and Gbong Gwomg Jos. Deputy Governor of Plateau State, Prof Sonni Tyoden is to serve as the committee’s Secretary.

     

    Is consensus on restructing possible?

     

    These developments, many argued, support the assertion that a national consensus exists on the need for restructuring, a concept whose realisation is only hampered by the lack of agreement on its conceptualisation and definition (meaning).

    Observers noted that although the agitation for restructuring is driven by a dream – the creation of an egalitarian nation, driven by justice, equity and fair play (where mundane considerations do not influence critical state choices, particularly in appointments) – there is a problem because of lack of a consensus on how to get there.

    They attributed the inability of critical stakeholders and today’s learders to agree on how to realise this dream of a functional egalitarian nation to, mainly, selfishness and lack of trust.

    Critics accused those currently milking the cow of the state, benefiting immensely from the status quo and unsure of what a restructured nation holds for them, of being selfish and willing to do all they can to retain the state of affairs.

    They noted that the problems of suspicion and lack of trust exist among those who have championed restructuring from inception, and are now unsure of the true motive of the modern day converts, who though, had the opportunities of effecting the necessary changes in the past (by virtue of the positions they held), chose to help sustain this warped federal arrangement.

    Observers, however, argued that restructure is an idea, whose time has come. And that, the issue is only about when and how it will happen, not whether.

    They advised that a peaceful realisation of a restructured Nigeria could only be achieved when stakeholders agreed on how to assuage the fear of the beneficiaries of the current arrangement, and could promptly discern the motive of the modern day converts, else violent change may occur.

     

    Lawyers’ views

     

    Senior lawyers, including Mahmud Magaji (SAN), Dr. Abdulrahman Quadri and Festus Keyamo, believe that the need for restructuring cannot be ignored in view of the state of affairs in the country.

    They said the effort of the National Assembly to amend the Constitution and its rejection of the power devolution recommendation should be seen as a gradual step towards the actual restructuring that the people seek.

    Magaji cautioned against seeing the ongoing amendment of the Constitution solely from the National Assembly’s rejection of the power devolution proposal.

    He said “There are many amendments that were accepted, which many Nigerians have been yearning for. Examples are the separation of the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation from that of the Minister of Justice, autonomy for local governments, independence for the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), etc.

    “We have to start from somewhere. We cannot achieve all the changes we want in one day. We cannot condemn all that have been achieved. I know we will get there. It is good they have started,” Magaji said.

    Quadri argued that, from its disposition to critical national issues, the National Assembly has consistently exhibited a constant trend – its disregard for the people and their needs.

    He said a National Assembly that feels the pulse of the people, and is not detached from them and their aspirations, ought to know that the issue of restructuring, on which every Nigerian appears to have agreed, should be given due regard.

    Quadri added: I don’t think this National Assembly uunderstands what the clamour for restructuring is all about.

    “These legislators are only interested in protecting their own interest. For me, this country cannot afford not to restructure. We need restructuring because it is the only way out to take care of agitations for Biafra, the insurgency in the North East, among other problems.

    “If we don’t restructure, we are only postponing the evil days. These problems will not only multiply, they will go bigger. The idea of restructuring is to make the centre less attractive for politicians. But they appear to be blind to this point.

    “Under the current arrangement, the centre is very delicious. There is a lot of money at the centre. So, the politicians will do anything, including killing fellow human being, to get to the centre. Those calling for restructuring want to discourage this.

    “But to me, that the National Assembly even deem it fit to concede that the Constitution needs to be altered, is a step in the right direction. It is a step toward the remaking of the country that we will all be proud of.

    “I don’t think we should condemn all they have done. We should not throw away the baby with the bath water. Instead, we should look ahead and how to fine-tune the process until we get what we want,” Quadri said.

    Keyamo argued that the National Assembly’s amendment of the Constitution was not a replacement for restructuring. He contended that restructuring was more fundamental than amendment to the Constitution.

    He said: “Of course, restructuring will lead to a new Constitution. There is no doubt about that. But, it is not this kind of haphazard amendment they are doing. I am not condemning the amendment.

    “As a stop gap measure, it is commendable that the Legislature has risen to the occasion to amend the constitution. Restructuring will take more time, and more negotiation, more deliberation and more inclusive than the National Assembly,” Keyamo said.

  • Northern governors, emirs set up committee on restructuring

    Northern governors, emirs set up committee on restructuring

    The 19 Northern states on Friday took their first major step in preparation for possible restructuring of the country.

    The state governors and chairmen of councils of traditional rulers from the states set up a high-powered committee to collate the views and comments of the people of the North West, North Central and North East ahead of any conference on the restructuring.

    The committee is headed by Governor Aminu Tambuwal of Sokoto State who, until May 29, 2015, was Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Other members of the committee are the governors of Nasarawa, Gombe, Benue, Bauchi and Kaduna States as well as the Emirs of Kano, Zazzau and Gumel as well as the Etsu Nupe and Gbong Gwomg Jos.

    The Deputy Governor of Plateau State will serve as secretary of the committee.

    The establishment of the panel is one of the highlights of the communiqué issued by the governors and traditional rulers at a meeting in Kaduna.

    It was signed by the Chairman of the Northern Governors’ Forum and Borno State Governor, Kashim Shettima but read to journalists by Governor Aminu Bello Masari of Katsina State.

    The governors said the committee had become necessary because the agitation for restructuring has assumed different meanings to different people.

    The committee is expected to come up with acceptable, tenable and sustainable position for the Northern region in consonance with provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

    The agitation for restructuring of the country has been on the rise lately with some Nigerians accusing the North of being afraid of such an exercise.

    The communique also condemned the recent bloody attacks in Taraba, Plateau, Kaduna and other places.

    They promised to take decisive measures to put an end to frequent herdsmen and farmers clashes in the region, but warned against hate speeches in the country.

     

  • 1999 Constitution amendment: Is Senate afraid of restructuring?

    1999 Constitution amendment: Is Senate afraid of restructuring?

    The crusade for restructuring has suffered a setback. At a time stakeholders, including statesmen, politicians, human rights crusaders and leaders of ethnic nationalities, are intensifying their agitations for decentralisation of power, the Senate is aloof. The casualty of the gross insensitivity is the proposed devolution of powers. Having rejected the item, it is evident that the National Assembly has embarked on cosmetic amendment of the 1999 Constitution. The outcome of the exercise will not offer any solution to the national question. To Nigerians, the so-called piecemeal amendment may be a waste of time and an exercise in futility.

    The National Assembly may be the major beneficiary of the intended amendment. For example, senators are pushing for a law that will make the president lose the power to assent to the amendment. If the amendment scales through, the legislature will have sweeping powers to alter the constitution. In its bid to escape the searchlight, the lawmakers are also thirsty for immunity. Besides, they want former Senate Presidents, House of Representatives Speakers and their deputies included in the Council of State. Although, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) is to be perceived as the symbol of unity, non-indigenes should forfeit the right to serve as its minister. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is struggling to cope with the conduct of general elections, is to be saddled with the additional workload. If the Senate has its way, the national umpire should be conducting elections in 776 local governments.

    Although, other items in the proposed amendment-the time frame for budget presentation, the separation of the offices of Federal Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, and the Accountant-General of the Federation from the Accountant-General of Federal Government-are laudable, the motivation for dumping the most important item is unknown. The rejection of power devolution has far-reaching implications for the polity. The structural imbalance is inadvertently sustained. The skewed power distribution between the distant power-loaded centre and pauperised states will continue unabated. The centre will remain attractive to competing political blocs in their stiff competition for power and abundant, yet elusive federal resources. The centre may remain unproductive; it will continue to hold the chunk of the money, but unable to perform corresponding responsibilities. The Land Use Act is left intact.

    Also, security may continue to be at a low ebb. Lack of devolution means that state or community police will remain a dream. Governors who are chief security officers of their states will continue to depend on the Inspector-General’s orders to maintain law, order and peace. The crisis of distribution may linger in the absence of a satisfying formula for national creation and distribution. This may be infuriating to champions of resource control and derivation principle. Thus, the on-going constitution amendment may not inspire a new national spirit among Nigerians who are disillusioned with the boring social order. Neither can the amendment proposals they voted avert disintegration.

     The disposition of the senators underscore their tacit endorsement of the unitarist legacies of the military regimes, which their civilian successors have failed to alter in the last 18 years. It may fuel a renewed clamour for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) where representatives of the various nations constituting Nigeria will discuss the basis for peaceful co-existence.

    However, the Senate’s position is not final, even for now. To amend the flawed constitution, two-third of the 36 Houses of Assembly must vote in its support. The envisaged “legislative referendum” may become the albatross of the entire exercise. It is doubtful, if the amendment will pass the test at the state Assemblies. What the tone of the debate on the floor of the hallowed chamber suggested was that the majority of senators voted without wide consultations with their constituencies. There is shortage of courage to embark of fundamental constitutional reforms. Obviously, there is a deep gulf between the elected representatives and the electorate. When the majority of constituents are clamouring for the redress of the injustice of lopsided federalism and their representatives are facing the opposite direction, their behaviours smack of failure of representation.

    In a fit of irony, the senators rooted for autonomy for Houses of Assembly and local governments. The move may spark a fresh row. While financial independence is desirable for the legislative arm at the state level, the proposed autonomy for the local council is a subject of controversy. Under the constitution, the power to create and dissolve the local government is vested in the House of Assembly. The additional requirement that the newly created council should listed in the constitution is an abnormality. It is an affront on the federal principle. It is akin to asking the Federal Government, which exercises sweeping powers over the “Exclusive Items” in the constitution, to at the same time appropriate a portion of the “Residual Powers” of the state. The supporters of the approach fail to acknowledge that local government is an extension of the states created for ease of administration at the grassroots. If the House of Assembly creates a local government, should it be excluded from the constitutional mechanism for financial control, management and discipline?

    The meaning of restructuring is not beyond the ken and comprehension of the Senate. The Senate may also not be under any influence to jettison or reject the clamour. The Upper Chamber has just refused to make history by not taking a bold and novel step towards the remaking of Nigeria. While a comprehensive constitutional review cannot be undertaken by the Senate within a short time, mere endorsement of devolution, even without reflecting it in the amendment, would have conveyed the impression that the lawmakers are on the same page with Nigerians.

    Does the struggle for restructuring lacks justification? A legal luminary, Kola Awodein (SAN), in a paper titled: “Restructuring and Constitutional Review,” said restructuring presupposes the existence of a structure, which is built on a faulty platform or foundation that then requires to be rebuilt or rearranged. Therefore, instead of building of the defective 1999 Constitution, a concerted effort should have been made by the parliament to critically look at the document and amend the provisions that tend to retard federalism.

    Awodein listed fundamental issues central to restructuring, and hence, the preservation of unity and corporate existence of Nigeria. The issues should be the focus of any constitution review. They include the secularity of the state, return to federalism as embodied in the 1960 Constitution, marginalization and rotation of the presidency, ethnicity and need for mutual co-existence, abolition of the Land Use Act and abolition of the Petroleum Act.

     Others are the adoption of the six zone structure, reforms of the electoral laws and the civil service, fiscal federalism, the structure of the federation, scope and limits of the powers of the central government, proportional representation in governance, the police, the strucOn state police, Awodein said: “A united central police organisation is still in place, making serious and effective policing difficult and almost impossible. The chain of control in the Nigeria Police of today is too long and remote from the centre of operation, weakening discipline and resulting in an ineffective law enforcement process.

    “Centralisation and unification have also resulted in significant delay in the administration of criminal justice. The police is overburdened as it is responsible for enforcing all federal, state and local government laws and regulations. This is in addition to its responsibility of investigating cases, prosecuting offenders and controlling traffic and other doing other welfare services.”

    Between 1951 and 1960, the three regions existed as semi-autonomous entities in an atmosphere of ‘true’ federalism. They were competitive centres of development, which looked inward and developed at their own pace and based on the judicious use of resources. That competitive spirit was killed by the introduction of the unitary spirit and collective dependence on oil for survival.

    Reflecting on the emasculation of the federal principle, an eminent jurist, the late Justice Kayoed Eso, reasoned that “over-centralisation of power invariably stifles local initiative, promotes inefficiency and a sense of over-dependence on the central government.” He queried: “What has happened to the resources which the government the three regions depended upon to fund their respective economic and infrastructural development programmes before the advent of oil?”

    In their quest for restructuring, the only route left is to intensify the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC). As Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) argued: “The power of the sovereign people of Nigeria to make a constitution cannot have been taken away by the provisions in the 1999 Constitution for constitutional amendment. The mandate conferred on the president and members of the National Assembly by their election is only a mandate to govern under and in accordance with the provisions of that constitution, and to make, as may be necessary, such changes in them not affecting the fundamental structures and principles of the system of government established by the constitution.

    “It is a limited mandate, and is not meant to substitute the government for the people as the repository of constituent power. The constitutional amendment provisions should not be read without regard to the limitation implied by the universally accepted convention underlying them.”

  • Northern governors, monarchs meet on restructuring

    Northern governors, monarchs meet on restructuring

    Northern Governors and traditional rulers in the region are meeting in Kaduna to take common position on the agitation for restructuring of the country.

    Borno State Governor, Kashim Shettima, who is the Chairman of Northern States Governors’ Forum, said the region is not afraid of restructuring and its position on the issue would be in the best interest of the region.

    Shettima, whose address was delivered by Governor Aminu Masari of Katsina State, assured that the consensus position of the region would attract popular acceptance.

    He also said the meeting would discuss farmers/herdsmen conflict and come up with ways to tackle the problem devoid of parochial sentiments.

    He said: “We, the political and traditional leaders of Northern Nigeria, are gathered here today against the backdrop of certain developments in Nigeria’s political landscape that we can only ignore to the detriment of the well- being of our people and the development of our region.

    “We have witnessed in the last few months, all manner of political agitations, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous.

    ”It is also expected at the end of this meeting of the Forum and our esteemed royal fathers we will adopt a consensus position.

    “It is of vital importance to arrive at such consensus position because it is crucial to dispel the erroneous impression created and disseminated by certain interests in this country that the North is opposed to restructuring.

    “It is important to do so, not only to accommodate the mainstream of Northern public opinion, our primary constituency, but also counter the specific versions of restructuring which generally seek to place the North in a position of strategic political and economic disadvantage, but portrayed as the only versions that can work for the nation.’’

    The chairman also spoke on agitation for the creation of Biafra, saying that it was unacceptable for groups such as the Indigenous People Of Biafra (IPOB) and the Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State Of Biafra (MASSOB) to resort to incitement under the guise of exercising right to free speech.

    “The exercise of such rights outside the confines of responsibility is not acceptable,” he said, adding that incitement to violence by such organizations “must be unconditionally condemned as they are inimical to national unity, stability, peaceful coexistence and national security.’’

    NAN

     

     

  • The restructuring Nigeria needs, by SANs, others 

    Senior lawyers and other professionals have proposed several ways out of the restructuring question in the country.

    They urged the government to consider different models of federalism practiced by several multi-ethnic and religious countries across the world.

    They spoke at the seventh Prof A. B. Kasunmu (SAN) Annual Lecture last Thursday organuised by the Law Students Society of the Faculty of Law University of Lagos.

    Kasunmu, 83, is a former Lagos State Attorney-General and Dean of the Faculty.

    A former Director-General at the Council of Legal Education, Chief (Dr.) Kole Abayomi (SAN), was the event’s chairman.

    The fifth female SAN in Nigeria, Funke Adekoya, delivered the lecture on “Restructuring Nigeria: pros, cons and matters arising.”

    Other participants included Dean of the Faculty, Prof Ayodele Atsenuwa, Prof John Pepper Clark, his wife Prof Ebun among other senior lawyers and members of the university community.

    They also included former Ogun State Attorney-General Mrs Bimbo Akeredolu  (SAN), Prof Taiwo Oshipitan (SAN), Prof Tayo Oyetibo  (SAN), Alade Agbabiaka (SAN), Moyo Onigbanjo (SAN) and Jelili Owonikoko (SAN).

    They urged the young to “keep the restructuring debate alive”.

    Abayomi urged Nigerians to look inwards. He said a change in attitude rather than the Constitution is needed.

    He said: “There is talk of quit notices, divine rights to rule, creation or amalgamation of more states, policing, regional policing and about whether we should copy the experiences of other countries, such as Canada.

    “We have gone through a lot of constitutions in this country and no one is satisfied. There’s always a problem to be solved.

    “It is not the content of the Constitution that matters. To my mind it is the attitude of the citizenry that is important.

    “Restructuring can be political or financial and the problem may not be solved. I believe a moral reconstruction is important. A moral reconstruction that will show love, humility and that will obliterate the divine right of any section to rule another and I’m sure Nigeria will be the best for it.”

    Adekoya noted the steps taken by Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia to unify their diverse populations. She urged the government to consider similar programmes.

    She said: “Malaysia has a 20-year- development plan, spanning from 2005 to 2025 plus five-year medium-term plans that focus on specific sectors. “Unlike Nigeria however, Malaysia put in place strategies for managing post-independence inter-ethnic conflicts such as Mass media and public education programmes that emphasised national unity.

    “It is therefore clear that the solution to solving our structural political and economic problems is dependent on putting in place a strategy and structures that ensure that ethnic tensions and rivalries are doused.

    “This can only happen if the subnational units have sufficient autonomy and financial independence to enable them implement plans and programmes specific to their constituents’ development needs.”

    On the question  whether the six geo-politicai zones should be reconstituted, Adekoya agreed.

    She said: “I find attractive the thinking that Nigeria should devolve more power and responsibilities from the centre to the subnational units.

    “These units can be organized on a zonal basis, to reflect the existing six geopolitical zones, with each zone having its own government, and responsible for its own development, very much after the pattern of the regional system of the First Republic.

    “In that sense, there will be six zones, each developing at its own pace, and making contributions to a central government whose functions will be limited to defence, foreign affairs, national security, management of National Youth Service, national currency, and whatever other functions are assigned to it under the new Constitution.

    “Internal fiscal autonomy within the geopolitical zone will ensure that each area will reap the economic such that “domination” and minority issues will be minimised, if not totally done away with.”

  • Fraud and hypocrisy called restructuring

    SIR: Every sincere and well-meaning Nigerian knows that the nation is in dire need of “restructuring” to reduce the powers, responsibilities and resources that are concentrated in the central government, and reallocate same to other levels of government, especially local governments that have become almost irrelevant because they can no longer provide even the basic needs of the local and majority people at the grassroots. Restructuring is equally capable of ensuring the viability and independence of component units of the federation and as well, promote healthy competition in resource development for the overall good of the people.

    The call for restructuring from various individuals, groups and sections of the country has become very intense. This call is propelled by what many members of the governing class championing the cause term as “injustice, marginalization and domination” of one group or section of the country by the other.

    Many people have become more concerned about restructuring than the viability of the economy of the country and ultimately, the well-being of all Nigerians. This restructuring is spoken about as if it will automatically address the challenges confronting the nation.

    I wonder what exactly is happening now that has not been part of our life that is increasing the urge for restructuring. From time immemorial, nearly all sections and groups in Nigeria have seen themselves to be marginalized or cheated in the allocation of resources in the country. For instance, the Governor of Niger State (as he then was), Babangida Aliyu while inaugurating the Advisory Council of Sir Ahmadu Bello Memorial Foundation in Abuja in February 2012 opined that the underdevelopment and poverty in Northern Nigeria is due to the poor allocations the 19 states in the region receive from the federation account.  He equally saw the 13% derivation allotted to oil-producing states to be cheating the northerners.

    On the contrary, the renowned Prof. Itse Sagay, now the chairman of the anti-corruption advisory committee under the Buhari- led government remarked in 2012 that Northern Nigeria does not contribute anything to the national purse but succeeded in manipulating political power to corner oil blocks to the disadvantage of the south and called on southerners to come together to fight intellectually for the anomaly in the uneven allocation of oil blocks in the country.

    From the foregoing, it is clear that no section of Nigeria is satisfied with what it gets as its share of the nation’s cake. Northern leaders are accused of manipulating the political process to allocate more resources to the North. Yet, the region is worst hit by poverty and lack, illiteracy, and underdevelopment in almost all ramifications in comparison to southern region of the country. The south on its part that has been accused of taking much of the nation’s resources through the 13% derivation allocation to oil producing states as well as the off-shore/on-shore dichotomy is very much dissatisfied with what it gets and is clamouring for resource control. What then are we restructuring? Who is satisfied? Who is not marginalized?

    Many of those who have suddenly woken up to realize that the nation need to be restructured are politicians who have probably been displaced from the scheme of affairs or looking for a springboard to gain support to prosecute their political aspirations in 2019.

    They have deliberately refused to tell Nigerians how restructuring will end poverty, unemployment and inequality in the nation. They have refused to tell Nigerians if it will end the excessive greed and plunging of the nation’s resources by the governing elite; if it will bring food to the table of the common man. If it will end the exclusive reservation of jobs for the children of the privileged few in the society.

    Until all these questions are answered, the call for the restructuring of the nation is nothing but fraud and hypocrisy. This is a mere ploy by the governing elites to divert the attention of Nigerians from the nation’s common wealth they have misappropriated and continue to misappropriate at the expense of power generation and supply, railway development, agricultural development, supply of portable water, and ultimately, a sustained improvement in the living conditions of Nigerians.

    The call for restructuring is nothing but an in-house fight among the governing elites to create more opportunities for themselves and perpetuate themselves in power. It is not a call for the good of the common man, but a call for the common man to wrestle power and hand it over to them.

    Let the governing elites clamouring for restructuring be more transparent in managing the resources allocated to their regions and states.

     

    • Azige, Louis Machue,

    Lafia, Nassarawa State.

  • Restructuring, not a magic bullet

    Restructuring, not a magic bullet

    Let me begin with a rhetorical question: why do I, Atiku Abubakar, favour a restructured Nigeria?

    The answer is simple: because I am proudly Nigerian and favour a united Nigeria that offers every man, woman and child a brighter future where each and everyone has a chance to build and share in this great nation’s potential.

    The restructuring I want to see happen is changing the structure of our country to take power from the elite and give it back to whom it belongs: the people. It will help to bring the benefits of the change that our people were promised in the last general elections.

    For a number of years now we have been making the case for the restructuring of our federal system.  This is in response to the cries of marginalisation by various segments of country as well as the understanding that our federation, as presently constituted, impedes optimal development and the realisation of our peoples’ aspirations.  As you all know, virtually every segment of this country has at one point or the other complained of marginalisation by one or more segments, and agitated for change.

    Before I proceed, let me caution us all that restructuring, by whatever name, is not a magic bullet that would resolve all of Nigeria’s challenges or those of any section, region or zone of the country.  Listening to some people, even those who seek to dismember the country, you would think that once their dream is achieved their part of the country or the country as a whole will become paradise.

    Yet, as we all know, life is not that simple. We need restructuring in order to address the challenges that hold us back and which restructuring alone can help us address, and which will remain unaddressed unless we restructure. Period.  This also answers the cynics who question whether restructuring is even important since it won’t solve all our problems. No system would.

    To me, restructuring means making changes to our current federal structure so it comes closer to what our founding leaders established, in response to the very issues and challenges that led them to opt for a less centralised system.

    Perhaps it is because I spent a decade in the private sector before coming back to the public sector as Vice President that I have the benefit of a paradigm that sees opportunity where others see crisis, but that is my world view.

    The issue of restructuring is beyond resource control. There are other and even more important issues in this whole debate which I will address in this speech, but as resource control seems to be the one issue that many blocs are fixated on, let me take some time to address it first.

    My vision of restructuring, will not make some States richer and others poorer. Restructuring is a win-win for all Nigerian states. So let me make it clear beyond any possible doubt: the Restructuring I am proposing will not reduce the share of our nation’s oil revenues that any state currently enjoys.  However if we are to grow our revenues we need to change the way we think of our resources and nurture them for the benefit of all.

    So, let us start by not thinking as if our resources consist only of oil. Oil is not infinite. In fact, within the industry, the oil majors and multi-nationals are looking for ways to further invest in alternative energy because in the next 10-20 years the proportion of the energy market share that fossil fuels hold will shrink and almost vanish even as those of alternative energy are set to rise dramatically.

    Automobile manufacturers such as Volvo and Peugeot have announced plans to phase out petrol and diesel cars. This is not a conspiracy. It is a fact. The man just elected as France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, has told the world that petrol and diesel cars will be illegal to make or sell in France by 2040. Norway has said it will do the same but earlier: by 2025.

    On a recent visit to the United Kingdom I noticed that senior members of the Conservative Party were driving the Toyota Mirai, a car that runs on hydrogen and emits water instead of harmful carbon monoxide.  Professor Tony Seba, a world renowned global economist, has published his findings that all new cars will be electric by 2025.

    So the world is not waiting for us to see reason and reengineer our economy. If we do, they will work with us. If we do not, the world will leave us behind.

    For the last decade, Nigeria has made an average of $30 billion per annum from oil. This may look like a lot of money, but when you factor in our population of close to 200 million people growing at one of the highest rates in the world at 2.6% per annum, that money starts to look relatively small. We must begin to look for other and more sustainable sources of income that are also realistic.

    Africa, especially sub Saharan Africa, imports 82% of her food from outside the continent. Every year, Africa spends $35.4 billion on food imports from Europe, Asia and America.

    I have been to virtually all the world’s continents and to many of her nations, and scientists everywhere agree with what the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) says, that Africa and particularly Nigeria has some of the most fertile soils on planet earth. Why can’t most of that $35.4 billion, which is bigger than our annual revenues from oil, come to Nigeria instead? It is not coming now  because our focus is on how to share the $30 billion we get from oil every year and when your focus is on sharing, you cannot be creative.

    The whole purpose of restructuring is to eliminate those policies that feed the mindset that drives the sharing behavior so that we can have a paradigm shift towards a mindset that drives creative and productive behavior.

    We do not have to look too far. We are already seeing it in Nigeria.

    I just told you that I was recently in the U.K. One of the things I learned on that visit is that Britain is very pleased with the increase in vegetable imports from Nigeria, especially pumpkin leaves. You in the Southeast call it . One state, Anambra, has decided to take her share of the $35.4 billion Africa spends importing food and is now exporting   to other nations including the U.K.

    Some oil producing states are owing workers’ salary, Anambra is not owing. A number of oil producing states took the Federal Government bailout, Anambra did not take it. Anambra State is proof that restructuring is good for our states and will not bankrupt them.

    If Anambra, a state that suffers from soil erosion and has a very high population density, can export £5 million worth of pumpkin leaves to foreign nations, 1 million tubers of yam to Europe and millions of dollars-worth of scent leaves, locally known as nch?anw?, then much larger states like Kano, Borno, Kaduna, Kwara, Ogun and Rivers should be able to do even more.

    Our national wealth is being drained by a select few instead of building a country for all of us. It has to end. We need to return resources and power back to the local level, and from the elite to the people.

    Only by restructuring can we guarantee unity, equity and security for our nation… When people hear the term restructuring, all sorts of emotions are evoked. Why is this so? Some feel a sense of impending triumph; others feel a sense of impending loss and defeat.  But it doesn’t have to be so. If our people see that restructuring will benefit all of us, some of the contentions will abate.  We can move quickly to demonstrate some of those benefits with those aspects of restructuring that do not require constitutional amendment.

    Take education and roads for instance. The federal government can immediately start the process of transferring federal roads to the state governments along with the resources it expends on them. In the future if the federal government identifies the need for a new road that would serve the national interest, it can support the affected states to construct such roads. Thereafter the maintenance would be left to the states, which can collect tolls from road users for that purpose. The federal government does not need a constitutional amendment to start that process.

    We do not need a constitutional amendment to transfer federal universities and colleges as well as hospitals to the states where they are located. The University of Nigeria, Nsukka, the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and the University of Ife (now OAU) were built by regional governments when we had a thriving federal system.

    The excessive concentration of power and centralisation of resources in the federal government led the government to extend itself into virtually every aspect of our lives including as an investor in an array of businesses. And almost as a rule they were badly run.

    The Nigerian federation is a work in progress. We just have to continue that work, a truly serious work, to build bridges across our various divides. That’s what we need in order to create the kind of country where our young people can thrive and realise their full potentials, young people such as Ms Immaculata Onuigbo, the best graduating student and Valedictorian for the Class of 2017 at the American University Nigeria, Yola. We owe it to them and the generations to come.

     

    • Excerpts of a speech by Abubakar, former Vice President, at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka on Wednesday.

  • Restructuring in simple details

    Why do we need to restructure our federation? Nigeria is not one nation but a country of many different nations, each of which, whether large or small, possesses its own ancestral homeland, its own culture and language and its own ethical norms, its own desires and expectations, cherishes its own existence and pride, and wants to be respected. Nigeria’s most fundamental need therefore is to organize itself, and to manage its affairs, in such ways as to ensure that these many nations, large and small, shall feel belonging, safe and respected in Nigeria.

    If we continue to organize and run Nigeria (as we do now) in such a way that some of our nations feel disrespected, marginalized, ignored or neglected, robbed, discriminated against, suppressed, threatened, or fearful for their future, it will be impossible to keep Nigeria together. No amount of military force, propaganda, threats, deception, promises, prayers, bribing of prominent citizens, patriotic admonitions or appeals for unity, will suffice to keep Nigeria together harmoniously.  The only way forward is to organize Nigeria as a true federation in which each federating unit shall control and manage most of its unique needs and concerns, control and develop its God-given resources for the benefit of its own people, control its own security, employ its culture and ethical norms to uphold orderliness and sanity among its own leaders and people, and be able to make its own kind of contributions to the progress and prosperity of Nigeria. The federal government must be a coordinator only, responsible for managing relations among the states of the federation, for defence, foreign relations, financial policy, international commerce, immigration, etc.

    So, creating a federation like that is restructuring? Yes. The federation we had before independence and up to 1966 was like that. As part of Nigeria’s preparation in 1946-9 for independence, the British founders and colonial rulers of Nigeria determined that a federation was the best for Nigeria. But they did not care enough for our well-being, and so they simply split Nigeria into three large regions for the federation. Our founding fathers (led by Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello and Azikiwe) had to work with the three regions; but in the course of the 1950s, in conference after conference, they set out the details of the organization for the three-region federation. Under this arrangement, each region wrote its own constitution, and had the power to control and develop its resources. This proved very good for our country. Our three regions rivalled one another for development, our country experienced a lot of progress and wealth creation, and Nigerians generally lived in hope.

    We should have had some more regions, to spread out the progress a little more. To that end, some local groups of our smaller nations (the group of small nations in each of the three regions) demanded their own regions. The British did not grant their demands; but it was generally understood that such regions would be created after independence, without changing the power sharing between regions and the centre. We entered into independence in 1960 under that constitution. In 1963, Nigeria created a fourth region, the Midwest Region, for the minorities of the Western Region.

    But, unfortunately, immediately after independence, we began to lose this spirit of true federation. The reason for that was that the people in control of our federal government wanted to control the regions. They started by disrupting and taking control of the Western Region in 1962. Their further efforts along this line soon led to resistance, chaos, and ultimately to a military coup and a civil war. All of these only established the military as the rulers of Nigeria. Under successive military dictatorships between 1966 and 1999, power and resource control and development were relentlessly pulled together into the hands of the central government – until what we now have is essentially a unitary system of government. Under this unitary system, our federating units are impotent entities depending on the federal government for almost everything; the federal government is messily overburdened, chaotically scrambling around for more power and control, often mischievously dabbling in religious propagation and thereby generating fears and hostility, and hideously inefficient and corrupt. As a result, poverty holds sway over our country and people, and inter-ethnic and religious conflicts are ravaging our country.  For stability, peace and progress to return to our country, we must return to the 1960 spirit of true federation, and we must now make our nations the basis of federating units in our federation. That is what we mean by restructuring.

    Does this mean we should make every one of our 300 nations a federating unit or state? No. We cannot afford to have too many states. India, which is very similar to our Nigeria, and which has over a billion population and about 2000 nations, structured its federation into only 28 states. In what I write below, I am borrowing some wisdom from the Indian experience.

    To restructure, what steps should we take? There are two steps – one, to restore the balance of powers (between the centre and the federating units) that Nigeria had at independence, and make the federating units again the dynamic and vital agencies of development; and two, to determine and delimit our federating units.

    The first step is the easier one, because we know how power and resources were shared between our federal and regional governments by 1960. All we need to do is to restore that balance of sharing of power and resource-control. That arrangement served our country wonderfully; it was when we started to corrupt it after independence that we began to pollute our country and its political and economic life. And then the military dictatorships came from 1966 to turn the trend into a whole disaster.

    So, how should we determine our federating units? We have different options. One option is to simply adopt our present 36 states, with some adjustments – like adding one more state in Igboland, and making some changes in the Middle Belt in order to give relief to nations that are being brutalized there by aggressive neighbours.

    A better option is to adopt our six zones (North-west, North-east, North-central, South-west, South-east and South-south), and make each a region or federating unit. Each region shall be a regional federation in itself, with the present states in it (or states created by it) as its federating units.  Again, in the North-central Region (the Middle Belt), we will need to adjust state boundaries and/or regional boundaries, for the relief of some endangered nations there. In fact, this may mean that we shall split the North-central into two regions – to make a total of seven regions in our federation.

    We usually read that our restructured federation must be protected with certain important principles. What are those principles? First, no one federating unit shall be able to dominate, or to force its will on, our whole federation. In 1960-66, the Northern Region alone was larger than the Eastern and Western Regions together, and it often sought to dominate the whole federation.  With the creation of more and more states from 1967, that danger passed – even though the leaders of the Arewa part of the then Northern Region still desire to dominate the federation today – and that is why they are still insisting that all power and resource control must belong to the federal government. In our restructured federation, there must be no residue of that danger left.

    A second principle is that we must diligently ensure respect for every one of our nations, large or small. For instance, we must ensure that, as much as possible, no nation shall be split across regional or state boundaries – that is, that each nation shall be intact together in one region, and in one state in its region.

    Thirdly, each federating unit shall have slightly more than the kind of autonomy that the regions had until 1966. Each shall write its own constitution – including formulating its own states and local governments; control and develop its own resources; manage its own development and progress for its people; manage its own security; and pay to the federal government the taxes and subventions constitutionally due from the regions to our federation. Local governments shall be empowered and structured in their regions’ constitutions to perform their tasks as frontline agencies of development. No region may be interfered with – in the way that the federal government was able to interfere with the Western Region in 1962. Under no circumstance may the federal government shut down and take over a region’s elected government, or seize any asset of a region. And the federal government shall not promote any religion whatsoever. We can make a success of this country.