The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restructuring

  • Agbakoba: Restructuring possible without constitution amendment

    National Intervention Movement Co-chairman Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) Tuesday said the country can be restructured administratively pending constitution amendment.

    According to him, while restructuring, which he described as power transfer “from exclusive Federal list to concurrent state list” will involve constitutional alteration, administrative devolution of powers could be deployed in the interim.

    He said it will involve administrative transfer of power from the centre to states pending constitutional power devolution.

    This, he said, will be a temporary measure before constitutional restructuring.

    “The Federal Government can administratively devolve powers to states by Executive Order,” Agbakoba said.

    The former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, who chairs the Peoples Trust Party (PTP), spoke at a briefing in Lagos.

    Agbakoba, who also chairs the third force political parties, said restructuring should be top on the list of political agenda.

    “The Constitution requires that two-thirds of the 36 states, the Federal Government and the National Assembly participate in restructuring. That may take a bit of time.

    “There are things that can be done immediately through administrative restructuring. The Federal Government can make statutory transfers to the states.

    “For example, the President can receive money for a Federal road in Anambra and transfer the money to the state government to execute

    “There are so many things the Federal Government is doing. You see Minister of Transport Rotimi Amaechi and his power, works and housing counterpart Babatunde Fashola (SAN) everywhere, up and down. But there are commissioners of works.

    “The Federal Government can prepare the budgets, because under the Constitution, the Federal Government does roads. But if they budget for a particular road and it is touching two states – Lagos and Oyo for instance, you can call the governors and give them the money.

    “That way, you begin to free yourself from the challenges of a big federation. If we do this, we’ll see substantial change,” Agbakoba said.

    The SAN called for a national order, which he described as a stable arrangement of systems, as opposed to social chaos as seen in existing structures.

    “It is crucial to stabilise our national disunity. This is why restructure is vital. Examples of national order include: the treaty of Westphalia, the treaty of Vienna, the League of Nations, and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) etc. In Nigeria, there is none. This is a big issue.

    “Without resolving issues around a stable national order, Nigeria will continue to be disunited. And we cannot move. This, therefore, is issue No.1 – the Big Issue,” he said.

    Tied to political devolution, Agbakoba said, is the notion of strengthening institutions.

    To him, the Federal Government is weak because it is made up of weak institutions.

    He suggested the adoption of Chapter 9 of the South African Constitution, so that institutions such as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Police, anti-graft agencies, Judiciary, Accountant General, among others, are assured to work free of interference.

    This, he believes, will limit impunity and improve independent action, as according to him, “strong institution is a critical big issue for good governance”.

    Agbakoba described the justice sector as dead, adding that legal failure has had massive impact on economic development.

    “The legal and justice sector has suffered institutional failure over the last three decades. Comprehensive and radical reform of the legal and justice sectors is overdue. The rule of law is vital to economic development. But lip service is paid to this vital process.

    “Investors, whether local and international, will not invest in a lawless country. We must give urgency to this sector and reverse legal failure. A speed of justice strategy will reduce delays.”

    On the way out, he called for new methods of dispute resolution, such as Alternative Dispute Resolution, small claims courts, traditional and customary arbitration, as well as a major centre for investment disputes resolution.

    He advocated the establishment of quasi-judicial sector-based administrative tribunals, following the UK example.

    “In England there exist many administrative courts to cover telecommunications, taxation, transportation, insurance, education, financial services, trade, investments, etc.

    “The impact on Nigeria will be enormous as consideration may be given to devolving judicial power from Federation to state level,” he said.

    Agbakoba said the government must pay attention to the three critical policies of economic governance: monetary, fiscal and trade.

    On monetary policy, he called for a reduction of lending rates to single digit to encourage business growth. To him, borrowing at 20 per cent is crazy.

    On fiscal policy, Agbakoba advocated the expansion of money supply to meet expenditure and other needs –without which government cannot fund its money requirements.

    He said import substitution should be used to encourage local industries, adding that the notion of fair trade is vital to protect industries and help them grow.

    “The priority of economic governance is to diversify the economy and make it less dependent on imports. Nigeria has long depended on crude oil as if it is the only hydrocarbon to the utter neglect of gas.

    “The economy heavily relies on oil revenue and is vulnerable to price shocks in oil and the associated risk to national stability. The most recent volatility in oil prices suggest that we must start to diversify our revenue income streams by developing non-oil tradable sectors.

    “A clear strategy, model and plan for economic diversification both horizontally and vertically is necessary. Horizontal diversification should explore new opportunities in the same oil and gas sector,” Agbakoba said.

     

  • Demonisation of restructuring

    BEFORE long, President Muhammadu Buhari and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo will move closer to each other in their understanding of and positions on the controversial issue of restructuring. In their public service careers, they did not start out from the same position on the spectrum, for the president was contemptuous of the topic, and the vice president was somewhat more accommodating. Both are now eagerly approaching the equivocatory median that pleases no one, and in no time, given their rate of progress, they will become indistinguishable. The president, long used to military ethics and the unitary system of government, puts proponents of restructuring on the back foot, and the vice president, also accustomed to legalisms by training, wrong-foots advocates of restructuring with his discourses and definitions. Judging from their harsh and censorious statements last week, when they once again waded into the debate on restructuring, both leaders have put the onus of defining the subject and convincing the populace on the advocates.

    Of the two leaders, President Buhari is the more unyielding. He does not give a damn about restructuring, and has been very consistent about not touching any part of it, any whiff of it, with the longest pole available. He has derided its advocates, accused them of acting in bad faith, and described their efforts as an attempt to do the impossible or, worse, even balkanise the country. He has stuck to his guns, and in all his travels abroad he has met advocates of restructuring with utter derision. He loathes restructuring, and has remained very eloquent about his stand on the controversial and objectionable position. Prof Osinbajo on the other hand has not been quite as persuasive. That is the problem with intellectuals, especially with their on the one hand and on the other hand methods. More, as a son of the Southwest, where restructuring is de rigueur and indeed has become the intellectual and political staple, the eminent professor has squirmed over his views and laboured unconvincingly to take a position that agrees more with his vice -presidential duties to the nation than with his private and intellectual understanding of the hot topic.

    Their opinions, as quoted by newspapers last week, bear these observations out. Speaking in Paris last week during his interactive session with Nigerians on the sideline of the Paris Peace Conference, President Buhari angrily damned the advocates of restructuring. He said: “There are too many people talking lazily about restructuring in Nigeria. Unfortunately, people are not asking them individually what they mean by restructuring. What form do they want restructuring to take? Do they want us to have something like the three regions we used to have? And now we have 36 states and the FCT. What form do they want? They are just talking loosely about restructuring. Let them define it and then we see how we can peacefully do it in the interest of Nigerians. They are just saying they want Nigeria restructured and they don’t have the clue of what the form the restructuring should be. So, anybody who talks to you about restructuring in Nigeria, ask him what he means and the form he wants it to take.”

    Prof Osinbajo, on the other hand, was more discursive, but with some of his premises warring against his conclusions. He should have kept it simple and sparse like the president. After second-guessing the public and determining that their definition of restructuring was skewed towards mainly geographical understanding instead of strengthening of the states, the professor added: “…Going back to the old regions and creating more states would not solve our problems. One of the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference is the creation of 18 more states. Can you imagine a situation where you have 18 more states?…This would entail devolution of more power to the states to enable them control more of their own administrative decisions, such as the creation of councils and community police, special courts or tribunals etc. The point I am making is that the state must have more powers and more rights…The states, as they are currently constituted, now with better educated people and with more people working, do not generate enough tax for the economy to survive. So, when we talk about restructuring, we must ask ourselves the question, what type of restructuring? Today, everybody depends on oil; every month state governments gather in Abuja to share revenue.”

    It is obvious that both the president and vice president will not take any step to effectuate restructuring. They are sure that they and their party will come to no harm in this or any other election despite shunning and insulting the issue and its advocates. What is even much clearer, judging from the temper and structure of their arguments, is that sadly both leaders have little understanding of the topic, and an even lesser competence in setting out their arguments in skilful, persuasive and visionary formats. Start with the professor. He snickered at the 2014 national conference that proposed 18 additional states. Why would he conflate the 2014 conference with restructuring? There have been many other conferences in the past; why would he fail to mention them? The truth is that all the national conferences remain exactly what they were, conferences, not restructuring, with some of their ideas quite far-fetched and others sensible. But overall, regardless of any overlap, they remain distinct from the issue of restructuring.

    Prof Osinbajo also spoke unflatteringly of regionalism, as if it had become both a bugaboo and a taboo. He is of course at liberty to oppose the return to regionalism, though that doesn’t make him right and its proponents wrong, but who told him that advocates who argue for regionalism insist that that is the only structure they could embrace? Like the president, it is shocking that Prof Osinbajo makes the fundamental error of assuming that restructuring advocates have taken an inflexible position on the nature of restructuring . This error is compounded by their suggestion that those proponents must first come up with a universally acceptable definition of the concept before any discussions would be entertained. This is inconsiderate. Then, thirdly, among the many errors the vice president committed in his opposition to restructuring, he bemoans the insolvency undermining governance in the states and the general view that with the exception of two or three states, the others are unviable. But is that precisely not what the advocates of restructuring are complaining about, that the country must be structured geographically, economically and politically in such a way that makes the states or regions efficient and viable? Why turn round to use unviable states harassed and repressed by a unitary constitution and unimaginative governments over the decades as litmus test for restructuring?

    President Buhari has never managed to present dispassionate and engagingly analytical views on the subject. As far as he is concerned, there is nothing wrong with the present structure, not now and not in the future. However, a leader must be in denial to suggest that the current structure is sustainable and productive, and, worse, he must lack vision to argue that that structure will suffice for the future. Some parts of the country may fear that restructuring could disadvantage them, but what really ails these patriots is paranoia and a troubling lack of understanding of the fundamentals of state structures and equilibrium. The president derides the pro-restructuring group as lazy talkers bandying imprecise definitions about, loose talkers who can’t seem to find the right structure between regionalism and the current 36 states. How does an analyst begin to take on the president, seeing how alarmingly misadvised on the subject he is and will remain whether the country likes it or not. Had he developed an intellectual and deeply analytical foundation for his position, he could be taken on. But his views are merely sentiments, without foundation of any kind, and without form and direction.

    The question to ask the president is what would he have done had he found himself in the position of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of modern Turkey, in the 1920s? Would he summon the depth and courage to abolish the Ottoman Sultanate, undergird the republic with secularist principles, including abolishing Islamic institutions and emancipating women, and replace Arabic script with Latin script, among other revolutionary changes? It takes vision, and it takes a huge amount of courage. Instead of thinking about Nigeria’s future, instead of being honest in their observations of the factors predisposing Nigeria to decades of instability and ethnic and religious rivalries, instead of thinking expansively about creating a national identity which would form the fulcrum of the existence of the people, Nigerian leaders are asking a harassed and oppressed people to define what they mean by restructuring. Could both the president and his deputy, who always claim to know how the people feel in their moments of sorrow, not own the idea of restructuring and find a definition sensible and functional enough for the people to embrace?

    Nigerian leaders may not want to hear it, but the fact is that their economic panaceas — they have no social and political panaceas — are both simple and simplistic. Worse, they have no understanding of the position of Nigeria in the world, at the centre of the black people of the world, and as potential liberators and innovators of the continent. That is why they have elevated simple solutions to arcana, and spoken contemptuously of the yearnings of the people who call on their leaders to, for once, rise to a higher level of statesmanship. There will be no definitions of restructuring from the people, and there will be no expatiation on what system of government the people want. If Nigerian leaders cannot see into the future nor perceive the revolutionary changes needed to stabilise the country and unleash the people’s energies and creative potentials, then let them continue to ossify in their conservative and reactionary politics. The problem with the call for restructuring is that having read copiously about great empires and great statesmen, and having been inspired by these statesmen from the Babylonian Empire right down to the last century, Nigerians are numbed by their leaders’ inability to read very widely or be inspired by any person or idea. With no one to bridge the chasm, it is not surprising that the country is wobbling and Nigerian leaders do not even perceive it.

  • Nigeria will get it right with restructuring, says OPC

    The Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) has said Nigeria will get it right when the Federal Government restructures the federating states and allows them to develop at their own pace.

    Addressing reporters yesterday in Lagos, its Publicity Secretary Yinka Oguntimehin said it is important for stakeholders in the country to raise issues that have direct impact on the development of the nation.

    The OPC chief noted that Nigerians deserve the right to vote for political parties or candidates who have something reasonable to offer the nation.

    He said: “Nigeria can only get it right with restructuring. The coming election will definitely come with various challenges and opportunities. Some of the opportunities will be for us to align with the yearnings of the masses on who becomes the President of this great nation and is ready to bring to the table a policy direction that can impact their lives positively. It is also our duty as a group to promote the ideals of restructuring.”

    Read also: ‘No clash between OPC, Hausa in Lagos’

    The OPC publicity secretary said the beauty of restructuring is all-encompassing, adding that the best would come to Nigeria through restructuring.

    Oguntimehin said: “It is sad that we are still borrowing money to finance the budget, particularly at a time the elections are about three months away. It is sad that majority of Nigerians are suffering, despite the abundant human and material resources that are abound in the country.

    “It is sad that Nigerians are suffering at all levels; yet, we need to promote ideals that have human face. That is what restructuring is all about.”

    Oguntimehin disclosed that the group has no preferred candidates among the various political parties that are jostling for political offices, especially, the position of the Nigerian president, adding that OPC will gladly support candidates that truly believe in the ideal of the group.

    “We are very much on top of the current situation in the political milieu. We are watching the political developments as they unfold in the country. We believe in the struggle to promote the cultural identity of the Yoruba race. We believe in the struggle to liberate the Yoruba nation as it is being promote consistently by our amiable leader, Aare Gani Adams, therefore, we will never compromise our values as a self-determination group”, he explained .

  • “Restructuring” — mean what you say

    A certain bard, at the Department of Mass Communication at the Univesity of Lagos, would always tell his students: “say what you mean and mean what you say”.  It was his own way of saying his young wards must cultivate the rigour of clear thinking, before hoping to master the Art of mass communication.

    Mean what you say and say what you mean just jumped into the fray — the cacophony over “restructuring”, the political vogue everyone mutters but hardly anyone can say for sure what it means.  But even with some recognizable meaning, can anyone wager it doesn’t mean different things to different people?

    President Muhammadu Buhari just muttered what is close to an SOS to the Nigerian Diaspora in France.  ”There are too many people talking about restructuring in Nigeria. Unfortunately, people are not asking them individually what they mean by restructuring.  What form do they want restructuring to take? — could Nigerians in France please help?

    In Lagos, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo repeated what he had always believed, and projected, from his days as Lagos attorney-general and commissioner for Justice: fiscal federalism and a doughtier defence of the right of states.

    PYO has been consistent in his views, since he fought those titanic legal battles against the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidency and won hands down in the courts.  That, to him, is “restructuring”; and “geographical restructuring”, to him, is a no-no.

    Even Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, a “restructuring” high advocate, is assailed by the noise.  ”I agree with him [Buhari] conceptually in the noise-making part,” he told The Nation.  ”There is so much noise about restructuring that even proponents of restructuring have forgotten about what it means.”  Is that so?  So, if gold rusts, what will iron do?  If proponents have forgotten, in the din of the moment, how would the fair weather “restructuring” friends fare, who are just in it for election time gravy of gullible votes?

    Still, Agbakoba sheds some light: “The issue is that Nigeria is a fundamentally sick and tired nation.  Personally, I don’t like the word restructure, because it frightens those who are against it … I’d rather use the word rebalancing”.  From “restructuring” to “rebalancing” — any evidence even that would won’t lead to noisier noise?

    Restructuring would appear, indeed, a concept whose time has come — and it has come a long way from a near-exclusive South West campaign, to having adherents (real or genuine) from almost every part of the country.

    But that same mainstreaming would appear its very new nemesis.  It is like the Yoruba felling of the huge elephant — knives of all sorts and all shapes come to party!  The result is a Tower of Babel and its babble of confused voices.  Though the noise might account for what appears a momentum in the media, it is doubtful if it can enhance the chance of its coming to fruition.

    As the South West rally has proved thus far, talking at, as against talking with people, on the restructuring question, could be a fatal fixation that does no one no good.  This is because positions are stiffened and fear might even spiral off into paranoia.

    Which is why what is needed is a pan-Nigeria consensus over the issue, taking cognizance of the interest of those genuinely fearful of radical re-federalization, in a polity that has run on practical Unitarism since 1966.

    Media posturing, streams of insult, booming threat and vulgar abuse won’t achieve a consensus.  But cold and patient reasoning, with one another, just might.  Still, even that would start by saying what you mean and meaning what you say!

     

  • Buhari lists conditions for restructuring

    …Why Nigerians in diaspora won’t vote in 2019

     

    President Muhammadu Buhari on Monday gave conditions to be fulfilled before the government can go into restructuring of the country.

    He pointed out that there should be proper definition of what Nigerians want before the government can delve into restructuring the country.

    The President also noted that many Nigerians who have been calling for restructuring have been doing so without defining what the restructuring should be.

    Read Also:Jail terms no longer deterrence for illicit financial flow, says Buhari

    Buhari, who spoke during the interactive session with Nigerians living in France, was in the country for the Peace Forum attended by about 70 world leaders in Paris.

    The Nigerian community, which was made up of Nigerian Diaspora Organization (NIDO), All Progressives Congress (APC) members in France, students and friends of Nigeria, asked the President questions ranging from restructuring, security, anti-corruption, education and opportunity for Nigerians in diaspora to vote in 2019 general elections.

    The President said; “There are too many people talking lazily about restructuring in Nigeria. Unfortunately, people are not asking them individually what do they mean by restructuring? What form do they want restructuring to take?

    “Do they want us to have something like the three regions we used to have? And now we have 36 states and the FCT. What form do they want? They are just talking loosely about restructuring.

    “Let them define it and then we see how we can peacefully do it in the interest of Nigerians.

    “They are just saying they want Nigeria restructured and they don’t have the clue of what the form the restructuring should be.

    “So, anybody who talks to you about restructuring in Nigeria, ask him what he means and the form he wants it to take,” he stated.

    He also gave reasons why Nigerians in diaspora might not vote in the 2019 general elections.

    According to him, it will be very difficult for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to put in place structures to accommodate them with just about three months to the 2019 elections.

    Noting that the increasing Nigeria population in the diaspora supports the calls for their participation in electing Nigeria leaders, he said that it might not happen in the 2019 general elections as INEC had been more focused on strengthening and consolidating on its achievements to conduct credible elections within the country.

    But he said that Nigerians in diaspora would definitely participate in future elections.

    Buhari said “We want to secure the Nigeria votes first before we go foreign. We are going to strengthen the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to be more independent and viable ….  so that they can recruit more committed and educated Nigerians to be in charge and use technologies to get the votes from all the constituencies.

    “So, with the way the economy is now, I think with the elections in three months’ time, it will be very difficult for INEC and the government to organize quality survey of those that are outside,” he said.

    Responding to the question on education in Nigeria, the President said that his administration is doing its best to invest more in infrastructures, education and other sectors.

    The Nigerian elites, he said, disappointed Nigeria and the Nigerian masses under the sixteen years administrations of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

    According to him, so much waste has gone down the drain from the huge resources earned in during the PDP administrations in the country between 1999 and 2015.

    He said that there was nothing to show for the earnings including the $16 billion said to have been spent on power.

    He urged Nigerian elites, both at home and diaspora, to do more in contributing to the educational sector of the country, expressing surprise that the elites tolerated the fall in standards and structures of educational institutions despite the huge oil earnings.

    He said; “So, really I have seen it all and I was disappointed in the Nigerian elites. What have they done in these sixteen years?”

    “What do we have with our oil production down to half a million and the price per barrel went down to about $30, what could we have done with the infrastructure?

    “You should find out the damage done by the main opposition now to the economy and the integrity of the country.

    “So, we are now trying to improve infrastructures and do more in education and other areas.

    “We are currently reviewing investments in the entire infrastructure of the country like road, rail and power, including investing more in education. We will certainly need to do more in education,’’ he said.

    He added “I am doing my best now to utilize our resources to develop the country. We are already getting results on road, rail and power. My frustration is that some people still have plenty stolen money stashed in Europe, U S and other countries.’’

    According to him, return of stolen assets in some safe heavens will bolster the administration’s current effort of investing more in critical infrastructure that directly impact on the livelihood of Nigerians.

    He said that the war against terrorism will be reinforced with new weapons and hardware for the military

    The challenge of abduction and kidnapping in some parts of the country, he said, will receive more attention with better gathering of intelligence.

    According to him, God and technology in form of card readers and Permanent Voters Card (PVCs) won the Presidential elections for him in 2015 despite not succeeding in three earlier times.

    “We campaigned on three key issues; security, improving the economy, and fighting corruption, and we have not been controverted by anyone that we have not recorded some results,’’ he said.

    Speaking earlier, the Nigerian Ambassador to France, Dr. Modupe Irele, said that the Nigerian community in France had demonstrated high sense of responsibility, dedication and morality.

    According to her, the large number of professionals had been encouraged to also contribute to the country’s development.

    “Nigerians here are law abiding, peaceful and resourceful,’’ she said.

    President Buhari’s commitment to change, she noted, will make Nigeria the envy of other African countries.

    Speaking to journalists at the end of the interactive session, Katsina State Governor, Aminu Masari, said that it was very important for President Buhari to attend the Peace Forum in Paris.

    He said “President Muhammadu Buhari has been preaching for peace, especially when he came on board, he met our country religiously and ethnically divided.

    “I think it is important that he meets with other world leaders to discuss how peace can be promoted among the nations and various people of the world.

    “There is no way you can promote peace where there is massive corruption. Massive corruption deprives people of development, and if there is no development, there won’t be any peace.” he said

    Willy Obiano of Anambra State said that it is important for Nigeria to be emphasizing peace.

    In the education sector, he said that the state has invested a lot of money into the sector in the last four years.

    He said “We revamped 1482 primary and secondary schools. We have sent our teachers to Singapore and Germany for training.

    “More importantly, what my administration has done in Anambra State with respect to education is to reach the … end of Anambra State.” he said

    House of Reps member, Nasir Ali Ahmed, representing Nasarawa Federal constituency of Kano State, said that the interactive session was a very successful meeting.

    He hoped that a lot of the Nigerians living in France will come back home to contribute their quota to Nigeria’s development.

    Mrs Abike Dabiri-Erewa, a Senior Special Assistant on Diaspora Affairs, recently nominated Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the National Diaspora Commission, who facilitated the meeting, said that a lot of Nigerians living in France are already doing many things at home for the economy.

    “So, we will continue to engage with them and continue to stress the positivity about our country, Nigeria,” she said

    Stressing that there are some Nigerians in prisons in France, she said that Nigerians are being encouraged to obey the laws of the land wherever they go.

    She also pointed out that the new commission is not a charity organization, but aims to tap into the enormous resources of Nigerians in the diaspora.

  • Still on restructuring

    Regionalism worked for Nigeria when it did, not because of structure, but was the result of the dedication and patriotism of the visionary founding fathers of that era

    With the state of things in Nigeria today, the type of restructuring we need is one which, among other things, will empower states to mine the minerals under their soil as part of their sources of internally generated revenue.  This  will  leave states with enough funds which,  if prudently managed, will not only make for more development, close to the people , but will make it absolutely unnecessary for them to always carry the begging bowls to  Abuja” – Emmanuel Egwu.,

    I am, this Sunday, greatly indebted to Mr Emmnuel Egwu, one of my avid readers, whose  well articulated views – see quote above and within – inspired today’ article. He wrote from Ebonyi State, in reaction to my recent article on Afenifere and Restructuring.

    Happy reading.

    “Your article of  Sunday, October 2, captioned ‘His Eminence Olorunfunmi Basorun’s refreshing take on restructuring’, was a clear confirmation of the fact  that we still have in our midst, some thinking Nigerians with a good sense of how to make Nigeria work. His propositions on restructuring carried with them a wisdom akin to that of the gods and,  you capped it all in the article when you advised the president that it was not too late for him to take advantage of the very  sensible proposals in devolving power to Nigeria’s  constituent parts before the next general elections  rather than going back to regionalism when, in truth, many  Nigerians are still desirous of having  new states created for them, as shown in the recommendations of the 2014 national confab. I am convinced beyond doubt that there is no universal,  one best, political arrangement that is all time relevant to a particular country. Regionalism worked for Nigeria when it did, not because of structure, but was the result of the dedication and patriotism of the visionary founding fathers of that era. Today, we need more of attitudinal change of both the leaders and the led than we need physical, or geographical, restructuring, barring which, there can be no meaningful progress in our  country; no matter the type of political arrangement we may devise . In fact, we still need to carefully interrogate what will suit us best lest we inadvertently play into the hands of the separatist agitators who are now running all over the place, looking for an opportunity to destroy the country.

    “Yes, we need a weak, less centralised federal authority but not one that gives room for dismemberment under whatever guise. We need to restructure, but certainly not by going back to regionalism or to one that will involve dissolving or collapsing the existing states structure. Nobody who is privileged to see how seriously states take the mere celebration of the anniversary of their creation, making merry and dancing late into the night, just like when they  were first created, would like to see the kind of protests that will erupt, and the type of implosion collapsing states  can very easily ignite.

    The problems confronting the country today are not the result of our structure, however dysfunctional, but more the result of the systemic corruption that ravaged the country during PDP’s 16 year stranglehold over Nigeria. That was when corruption became the directive principle of state policy; when the CBN was nothing more than an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) and when millions of barrels of crude oil were being salted away with not a single dollar being paid into the federation account -those were the ugly days of President Goodluck Jonathan and his oil maestro, the one and only Diezani. That was when corruption and impunity became the order of the day and Nigerians were living like captives thrown into a deep red sea with their hands tied behind their backs.

    How very easily we seem to forget?

    So bad was the situation that all the genuine efforts of President Muhammadu Buhari to turn things around on his emergence couldn’t stop the nation from slipping into recession, an event which some people ignorantly attribute to President Buhari not immediately appointing his ministers as if the treasury had not been completely pulverised at home, and the external reserves thoroughly shrivelled. President Buhari hasn’t only rapidly exited the recession, he is doing everything through a very aggressive infrastructural procurement programme, to lay a solid  economic foundation for the nation which translates to bad business for those whose rapacious banking collaborators are now rapidly moving out of the country – thanks  to the combined effects of BVN, which President Jonathan was too afraid to fully implement, and TSA which have both robbed the enemies  of Nigeria of billions of free money. These are the loud motley crowd daily badmouthing Buhari with the intent of scamming Nigerians to bring PDP back together with the original deal maker which will, of course, tantamount to handing Nigeria over to an undertaker. Of course, it is no longer news that it was alleged Atiku could not have won the PDP primaries had there not been a recourse to serious vote buying, in millions of dollars.

    They are doing everything to manipulate themselves back to power, using

    restructuring as a bait, and rapidly recruiting some ethnic powers and principalities who we know failed to do the magic for President Jonathan in 2015. But even then, eternal vigilance is necessary, and required, because those who recruited Cambridge Analytica four years ago will very soon be dangling millions of dollars before such nefarious organisations, both in Europe and the U.S to come win elections for them. Nor should we forget that the Ekiti governorship election of 2014 was contracted to a notorious wheeler dealer who is still very much in business. We must equally bear in mind that the armourers of the Offa historic bank robbers have not left town. These people will throw everything into the 2019 Presidential election which will be the definitive election in Nigeria ever; one in which the candidates of the two leading political parties could not, integrity wise, have been more dissimilar.

    Of course, nobody is against restructuring, especially when it isn’t going to involve retrogressing into regionalism, or lose confederacy, that is simply the easiest route to dismember Nigeria. Corruption is Nigeria’s ‘numero uno’ problem, and it is vigorously fighting back, leveraging on a few complicit SANs for whom the future of Nigeria means little or nothing, as long as they have briefs in millions of dollars. This is precisely why Nigeria needs four more years of an  incorruptible Buhari, even when there are some small thieves in his government, compared to Jonathan’s, since  he will not go to paradise to recruit those who work with him; but hire Nigerians many of who PDP and their supporting  Army generals have so negatively impacted.

  • ‘If elected senator, I will push for restructuring’

    Ladilu of Oyo Chief Oyebisi Ilaka, is the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) senatorial candidate for Oyo Central District. In this interview with Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU, he speaks on his passion for reforms and restructuring.

    How did you emerge unopposed as the PDP senatorial flagbearer for Oyo Central District?

    This time round, it’s been a little bit of a journey, Our leaders called us and said why not come together and decide on a candidate. So, the party came together. At that point in time, I had gone round the 11 local governments that make up the senatorial district. Some people left in the process to other parties but those of us that resolved to remain in the PDP promised to unite. We talked to each other, that in order to avoid all forms of acrimony, we had to observe the principle of true internal democracy. Coming up to the primaries-because this is a normal game as everybody knows it, the other aspirants reached an understanding with me and that was it. So I became the party’s candidate.

    What are your programmes for Oyo Central District, if elected senator?

    We want to give people more money for their sweat, in their rural and urban areas. Creating wealth for these people would be something that I will pursue with all passion. We will also promote technological knowhow to the advantage of our teeming young population. People will vote on the basis of who is presenting the best candidate and they know me very well, and have confidence in me. Besides, I will go the senate to legislate on things that will attract development to our teeming youthful population, especially as we have in Oyo Central District. I will also push for the restructuring of the Nigerian state, in concert with people of like minds.

    How do you intend to push for the restructuring of the country?

    This presidential system in my own view is too expensive. The money we spend on both the executive arm and the national assembly can actually create a lot of schools, hospitals and the stuff. I won’t say I have a solution to the restructuring thing really. But I will propose we go back to the regional system whereby we will have regional parliament and a national parliament. Those regions would have their own independent strategies for development, and grow at their own pace. A region can emerge as the food basket of the nation while another as the nation’s technological giant; it’s nobler than this idea of going cap-in-hand to the central to collect monthly handouts.

    What gives you the confidence that you can defeat Senator Teslim Folarin of the APC, who is a tested politician?

    You need to bear in mind that, the last two elections, I scored double the votes the PDP candidate had scored on each outing. Teslim Folarin, when he even contested for governor on the platform of PDP in 2015, and I contested on the platform of Accord Party, I scored more votes than him. So these are facts that are available generally. The records of those two-the serving senator in the Oyo Central district and his predecessor are abysmal. And that will be put to scrutiny by the people of Oyo Central Senatorial district. So I think I have come to the poll with precisions and projections. And I am connected with our people over a long period of time. I am well known to my people. My brand is stronger because I am with the people and it is what they want that they get. These put me in good stead to win at the polls.

    How about the general perception that people are unwilling to vote PDP because the party largely performed woefully for 16 years?

    Well, post-2015, a lot of people felt the party (PDP) which had challenges had been retooled. The problem we had, had to do with that of internal democracy. But from the various primary elections we have had across the country, with little or no acrimony, you’ll be convinced that the party is back and stronger. The challenge we had was the issue of internal democracy, and that has been resolved. What do they mean by saying that for 15 years PDP didn’t do anything? Everybody knows that it is patent falsehood. One of the achievements of the PDP is that we brought up strong institutions. EFCC, ICPC came through PDP, and it goes on like that. The PDP brought to the fore, different mechanisms of running our economy. It is unlike APC that does not believe in the rule of law.

    The 2019 election is a straight fight between President Muhammadu Buhari and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who is your party’s presidential flagbearer. What advantage does Atiku have over Buhari?

    As an advantage, one, in my own view, this government has a lot to answer for, as a result of the parlous state of the economy. Also, the man (President Buhari) talks about corruption, corruption. But the basis on which any country should dwell is the rule of law. This government has flouted numerous court orders. In fact, they proposed to use security issues to oust the rule of law.

    Remember that it was Atiku who put together an array of talents for the Obasanjo administration. The Okonjo-Iwealas of this world, the Oby Ezekwsilis, the Professor Adesinas, the Nuhu Ribadus. I think many of them are out there, both in this country and in the Diaspora. He has been a private business man and also possesses the discipline of the private sector.

    This is because we all know that if Nigeria is not in business, it would simply go bankrupt, because we spend more than we earn. Atiku has the requisite experience to take us out of the woods, having been a successful business man himself.

    How will you rationalise the frequent crises between the Presidency and the legislative arm?

    You see, the legislative arm definitely has a role to play. When you talk about separation of power, there ought to be checks and balances, working in a manner that is complimentary to one another. I think what has been the challenge is basically the style of leadership. One wants to ride roughshod over the other, and the other wants to resist.

    But, this is not new. President Obasanjo had a pretty turbulent time with the National Assembly as well. I think it just makes our democracy a lot more reformed. In my own view, I think it is interesting because whenever there is this fallout, the public at large scrutinises issues that brought about the fallout. To a large degree, I think it is just a stylistic issue with the leadership of both arms of government.

     

  • Oyebode, Basorun and restructuring

    As far as he is concerned, the subsisting 1999 constitution that provides the legal framework for the country’s socio-economic, political, spiritual, secular and moral life, is utterly, irredeemably defective and should be discarded altogether for the country to make progress rather than “going round in circles in a manner reminiscent of the potter’s will – all motion, no movement”. The proponent of this revolutionary view is none other than the respected, radical scholar of international law and jurisprudence, Professor Akin Oyebode.

    Delivering a lecture titled “The Nigerian Conundrum and the way forward” at an event organized by the Oriwu Club, Ikorodu in Lagos, the distinguished scholar averred that “The necessity for what the lawyers call an autochthonous constitution goes without saying. We cannot continue living a lie by calling a military decree, which propagates an untruth against itself, the country’s constitution. More importantly, the military-imposed constitution is lopsided, inequitable and dysfunctional and it should be jettisoned and replaced with a more acceptable instrument which adheres with the tenets of true federalism”.

    Continuing the distinguished scholar argued that “The existing division of powers needs to be reworked such that the Federal Government would shed its bloated powers and the constituent units would exercise more powers in a re-configured federal system. Luckily, there is already in existence a draft constitution elaborated by the National Conference of 2014 in the event that some would argue that the country does not require yet another constitutional conference…A new constitution is a condition sine qua non for the rebirth of this country”.

    Now, is it strictly true that the extant 1999 constitution is nothing but an imposed ‘military decree’ that ‘propagates an untruth against itself’? I don’t think so. The reality is more complex than that simplification. This column has had cause in the past to trace the trajectory of the 1999 constitution to the 1979 constitution, which was drawn up by 59 of some of the country’s brightest and most accomplished lawyers, intellectuals, diplomats and public administrators albeit under the aegis of the Murtala/Obasanjo military administration’s political transition programme.

    The draft constitution was later debated and ratified by an elected Constituent Assembly before being signed into law by the Supreme Military Council (SMC), which made some insertions that could easily have been expunged had the succeeding civilian political elite summoned the will to do so. There is no significant difference between the current constitution and that of 1979 that provided the legal basis for the defunct second republic (1979-1983). It is thus not correct to create the impression that the 1999 constitution is wholly an illegitimate jurisprudential child of military arbitrariness utterly delinked from the country’s political history.

    In any case, how did the military come to play a supervening role in the country’s political and constitution making process? Was the military intervention of 1966 not a function of the virtual breakdown of the essentially regional and parliamentary constitution of 1963 just as the failure of the 1979 presidential constitution resulted in the collapse of civilian rule in the second republic? Under the now highly romanticized first republic constitution, law and order had broken down in a large swathe of the country. In the Western Region, a legitimate and very popular government had been illegally removed by the centre in collusion with bitterly detested minority elements in the region.

    The badly rigged 1965 regional elections in the West spawned a reign of anarchy and total breakdown of governmental authority with daily blood- letting across the region when the masses rose up in the famous ‘operation wetie’ revolt. The first Premier of the Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and some of his associates were unjustly incarcerated on trumped up and farcical charges of treasonable felony while it was an open secret that the NPC and its NNDP allies in control of the centre were planning a full scale military clamp down on the opposition before the preemptive majors’ bloody coup of January 1966.

    Both the federal and regional governments devised ingenious schemes through which public funds were diverted to enrich those in control of state power and their allies though not on the current industrial scale of corruption in contemporary Nigeria. In the North, a brutal military repression had been unleashed on the minorities particularly the Tiv who were demanding political autonomy from perceived Hausa-Fulani domination. Why then must anybody create the absolutely erroneous impression that the first republic was an era of idyllic governance disrupted for no reason by the military, which then went ahead to replace a thriving  and stable four-regional structure with the current centralized multi-polar state structure?

    Hadn’t leading politicians from the south including Awolowo and Nnamdi Azikwe been advocating the creation of more regions in the country because they saw the existing regional structure of the first republic as unjust and unsustainable being overly skewed in favour of Northern Nigeria? What exactly does Professor Oyebode mean by terms like ‘autochthonous constitution’ or ‘a re-configured Nigeria”? Reconfigured according to whose definition and imagination? Does he mean a return to the discredited regional structure of the first republic as advocated by some? Is it not instructive that the 2014 National Conference’s draft constitution to which the professor approvingly alludes actually recommended an increase in the number of states in the country to no less than 54?

    Yes, hardly anyone disagrees with the fact that structural adjustments to strengthen democracy, deepen federalism, accelerate socio-economic development and enhance security in Nigeria are long overdue. But this can be done within the subsisting constitutional context rather than pulling down the entire existing structure and embarking on the ultimately illusory expedition of crafting a new, supposedly perfect constitution, emerging magically from a tabula rasa.

    Perhaps the most practical, realistic and achievable suggestions for restructuring Nigeria I have come across are those articulated by Chief Olorunfunmi Basorun and popularized in Dr. Femi Orebe’s column in The Nation of Sunday, October 14, 2017. Lawyer, former Deputy Director of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Secretary to the State Government in the high achieving Alhaji Lateef Kayode Jakande administration and now leading member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos State, the highly regarded Chief Basorun certainly has the experience to speak authoritatively on the issue.

    In his memo to the APC restructuring committee, Basorun advocates that items such as electricity generation, transmission and distribution, minimum wage, labour matters and industrial relations, fingerprint identification and criminal records, tourism as well as federal roads should be moved from the exclusive to the concurrent list “to enable the states, and by extension the local governments, have more responsibilities”. He also offers concrete and detailed suggestions on a new revenue allocation formula to enable the lower levels of government meet their new responsibilities.

    Chief Basorun’s brutal frankness on the issue of going back to regionalism illustrates the formidable political and emotional obstacles to attaining that objective. Femi Orebe summarizes his views thus: “For instance, he asks: in the Northwest, will the man from Sokoto or Kebbi, or the one from Zamfara want to come and report in Kaduna, his new regional hub? We, in Lagos, he says emphatically, will never like to go to Ibadan nor would people in Ogun, Ekiti or Ondo. When you go to the East, he continues, are you saying those in Abakaliki will now go to Enugu, or Benin to go and report at Port Harcourt; states in the North East to all head to Maiduguri and those in North-central to go and report in Jos? Regionalism, he concluded, will just not work. Rather, the six geopolitical zones should be included in the constitution to serve as units of sharing preferment”.

    Again, Orebe captures the sheer originality and audacity of Chief Basorun’s thinking specifically here on enhancing the financial viability of states and local governments: “It is his considered view that with the huge amounts daily going to owners of oil blocks in the country, and with every oil block making a minimum of N4 billion daily according to a former senator of the Federal Republic, government should embark upon a complete redistribution of oil blocks such that one each goes to the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory. Specific functions, he suggested, must be set for the revenue accruing from these, just as there should be an agency, domiciled in the office of the Vice President, to monitor and oversee compliance. Also, 10 per cent of the funds must go to the local governments to energize them and rapidly increase economic activities at the local government level”.

    Incidentally, radical human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), has also consistently advocated the allocation of oil blocks to the states rather than individuals in the interest of justice and equity as well as to enhance fiscal capacity at the levels of governance closest to the people. With creative thinking and the requisite political will, remarkable progress can be achieved under the present constitution without incinerating the valuable experiences – good and bad- of the last nearly two decades of slowly but steadily deepening practice of democracy and federalism in Nigeria.

  • Restructuring and warring vice presidents

    Blame not Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and former Vice President Abubakar Atiku who have been trying to outdo each other in the last two weeks selling different narratives of their exploits in the struggle for workable federal arrangement in Nigeria. Precisely because Nigerians hardly read anything about how we got to this sorry pass, very few, including our political representatives have been able to properly articulate our crisis of nation building.  This is perhaps the reason the warring former vice president and the incumbent are waging subliminal war to reposition themselves as the best that has ever happened to the struggle for federal arrangement which started in the 1940s, long before both were born, as 2019 draws near.

    As his own major contribution to the struggle for workable federal arrangement, Osinbajo regaled us with the now very familiar story of how Lagos State created 37 local councils;  how  former President Obasanjo, then Atiku’s boss and now his sponsor for his 2019 presidential bid, frustrated Lagos State efforts and how he fought it up to the Supreme Court. Besides fingering Atiku as an accomplice in his principal’s assault on Nigerian constitution, he thinks Atiku has limited knowledge of what restructuring is all about: “People talking about restructuring, if you ask them what they meant by restructuring, they won’t even know what it means and that is the problem we have to face”, he sneered.

    Atiku has also tried to equate his treachery and unsuccessful coup against the second term ambition of his principal, Obasanjo when he mobilized self-serving South-south governors to demand that littoral states of the federation be allowed to get more benefits from offshore proceeds as his own positive contribution to the struggle for restructuring of Nigeria in line with what was bequeathed on to us by our founding fathers.

    He is also taking credit for the six geopolitical zones structure that came up for discussion but not authored by the 1995 Abacha’s dubious constitutional confab. If Osinbajo is in doubt about Atiku’s grasp of what restructuring is about, he took pains to explain. It is according to him, to “return some items on the concurrent list to the states; to reverse the epidemic of federal take-over of state and voluntary organisations, schools and hospitals which began in the 1970s” under Obasanjo his principal; transferring of federal roads to the state governments along with the resources it expends on them; devolving more powers to the federating units with the accompanying resources and ensuring greater control by the federating units of the resources in their areas. All these which both PDP and APC have been unable to accomplish in 19 years, he said ‘can be done in six months.’

    First, I sympathise with both warring leaders who suffer from the same affliction. Their principals, Obasanjo and Buhari, as former soldiers who believe they not only own the state, but are custodians of the constitution, see any discussion of restructuring as a threat to the unity of Nigeria they both fought to preserve.

    It is also not difficult to conclude the warring former vice presidents are playing on the intelligence of Nigerians. Osinbajo , a professor of law, a former Attorney General of Lagos and an active participant in the drafting of APC manifesto which featured restructuring of the country as part of its selling point in 2015 and Atiku, with a diploma in law from ABU and a vice president for eight years, cannot pretend not to know what Nigerians want.

    A return to a pre-independence federal arrangement has been widely canvassed by many credible and patriotic Nigerians across the country as well as Afenifere, Ohaneze, the Middle Belt Forum, and many others as representatives of their ethnic groups.

    Nigerians agitating for restructuring are not asking both men and the unambitious Nigerian governing elite to invent the wheel. They are only asking for a return to a federal arrangement embraced by our founding fathers which up to 1966 guaranteed ‘individual and group rights defined in form of language, culture, and religion or socio-economic status’ and guarantee freedom, liberty and equality for every group. This was a battle long fought and won by our founding fathers.

    Because of the nature of state formation in Africa, the colonial powers impressed it on us that the ‘Hausas of Zaria are different from the Bantu tribes men of the valley of the Benue’ just as the Scandinavians in the Baltic are different from the Slavs of Bulgaria; that we are a ‘collection of mutually independent native states, separated by difference of history and tradition, by ethnological and racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers’.

    Consequently, Hugh Clifford, the then Nigerian Governor-General in an address to the Nigerian Council on December 1920 was unequivocal about a British policy designed to produce a ‘regional government that secures for each separate people, the right to maintain its identity, its individuality and its nationality and its own chosen form of government which have been evolved for it by the wisdom and by the accumulated experiences of generation of its forbearers’.   This stated policy was what later influenced the constitutional changes of 1954, 1957 and the 1958 Lancashire debate at which October 1, 1960 was chosen as the date for our independence.

    As opposed to the military that has dominated Nigerian politics since 1966, their civilian accomplices benefitting from our current tragedy and the warring vice presidents trying to play the ostrich, what true lovers of our country pray for is a restructured Nigeria with constituents power over law and order, education and public information; a restructured Nigeria that guarantees freedom and justice for all;  that protects the right of indigenes as enshrined in the UN charter; a restructured Nigeria that can end the orgy of killing of defenceless  women and children in the Middle Belt region by unidentified suspected immigrants herdsmen from across West Africa‘, and a restructured country that will guarantee each constituent has the capacity to protect its citizens from killer fake drugs and other substandard goods imported by evil minded Nigerians.

    There is a consensus on the above demand by Nigerian opinion leaders and various leading socio-cultural groups. Chief EmekaAnyaoku, a former secretary-general of the Commonwealth, captured this when he said ‘the present   36 federating units and the federal capital territory, each with its full paraphernalia of administration, spending disproportionate amount of its resources on recurrent expenditure’, is responsible for the collapse of education and health sectors and infrastructural decay’. The most appropriate structure of governance for Nigeria, according to him should be a return to a ‘true federation of six federating units with each developing at its own pace, and the proceeds from “God-given” national resources’.

    Except warring Osinbajo and Atiku who are trying to play the ostrich and their principals – President Buhari and ex-President Obasanjo, there is no ambiguity in what Nigeria want and demand of their leaders.

  • Atiku not sincere on restructuring, says Osinbajo

    Vice President Yemi Osinbajo yesterday named the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, as one of those who stood against the restructuring of the country when the party was in power.

    Atiku made restructuring a key plank of his campaign in the run up to the PDP national convention where he was nominated as the party’s presidential flag bearer in next year’s election.

    But Osinbajo, speaking in Ibadan yesterday, said Atiku who was Vice President between 1999 and 2007, opposed every move made by the Lagos State government at that time to assert its authority.

    Delivering a lecture entitled  “Developing the nation through youth empowerment”, at the University of Ibadan, the Vice President said: “I am not just an advocate of restructuring as there is no other government in Nigeria that has actively pursued restructuring such as we did when I was Attorney General in Lagos State.

    “People talking about restructuring, if you ask them ‘what do you mean by restructuring’? They won’t even know what it means, and that is the problem we have and that we have to face.

    “Let me tell you what it is. When I was the Attorney General in Lagos State, we pursued in the Supreme Court, all of the issues of restructuring. We started with fiscal restructuring, which is more of resource control. Should states control their own resources? We went to the Supreme Court. They argued that each state should control its own resources.”

    Osinbajo explained that the states that argued in favour of autonomy of states to control their resources were the oil-producing states in the country and Lagos State argued on one side, while other states of the federation argued on another side because every state wants to share the oil money.

    “So, our own argument was that each state should control its own resources. We lost at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said no, that you cannot control your resources. If you are an oil producing state, take 13 per cent extra, which is a derivation.”

    Osinbajo said Lagos State further argued that it has ports and the ports serve the entire nation, so the state should also take 13 per cent derivation. The Supreme Court, he said, said no, adding that the argument was pursued further, which has led to the introduction of the onshore and offshore law, “which is fast enabling the state to share from onshore resources.

    “All this time, this was 2000, some of those people, including the presidential candidate of PDP, who is talking about restructuring today, was the Vice President then. They opposed every step that we took. Of course, we were taking the Federal Government to court then. They opposed every step.

    “The next thing we did was that the states should be able to create their own local governments. So, we created 47 new local governments in Lagos. The President then, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, seized our local government funds and said we could not create new local governments. So, they seized the funds they were supposed to allocate for our local governments.

    “We challenged the seizure by going to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the president had no right to seize the funds meant for local governments of the state and that we have a right to create local governments.

    “But after they have created the local governments, the process is not complete. They must still bring the list of new local governments to the National Assembly and the National Assembly will then amend the whole list of the local governments in the country. So, our local governments remain. But we could not get the National Assembly’s endorsement. So, we passed the LCDA Law. We created 47 and made them local council development areas.

    “If you ask those people now talking about restructuring, none of them has done anything compared to what we have done. So, I am not a latter-day convert to restructuring. I am an active practitioner of restructuring, and I have gone to the Supreme Court 12 times to test restructuring.

    “If today, somebody is talking about restructuring, ask him what does he mean? And where was he when we were going to court? Were they not opposing restructuring when we were going to court? We were in the opposition then. They were in the Federal Government, and they opposed every step that we took on restructuring.”

    The lecture was in commemoration of the 68th anniversary of Sigma Club, University of Ibadan.