The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restructuring

  • Restructuring and the 2019 election

    There is no doubt a reasonable degree of consensus among informed Nigerians on the need at the very least of some measure of tinkering with the structure of the polity in order to overcome some of the persistent existential threats to the country’s peace, progress and prosperity. It is obvious, for instance, that the current unitary policing structure is grossly deficient to ensure internal security in a complex, plural society like Nigeria. Hence the glaring impotence of the Nigeria Police in the face of the prevalent high crime rate and the drafting of military task forces and specialized operational squads to perform police duties in no less than 30 states of the federation if not more. Consequently, the country’s internal security is not necessarily better guaranteed since the military is not trained for such civil assignments while the protection of her territorial integrity, which should be the sole focus of the military, is jeopardized due to the avoidable distraction of the latter.

    In the same vein, the federal government continues to be burdened with a surfeit of responsibilities including education, health, agriculture, trade and commerce, which can be more efficiently administered at the lower levels of government with the centre only setting and enforcing regulatory standards. Thus, the federal government enjoys a more than proportionate share of federal revenues while most of the states and local governments where the vast majority of Nigerians actually reside are perennially short of funds to even pay public sector workers not to talk of providing quality social services and infrastructure for their citizens.

    Most of the states are economically unviable not because they lack natural or mineral resources within their jurisdictions that could be exploited for the benefit of their people.  Rather, the extant 1999 constitution makes the ownership, control and exploitation of these resources the exclusive preserve of the federal government.  A good example is Osun State, which is reported to have considerable deposits of gold that she is constitutionally prohibited from mining. Experts contend that there is no state or local government in Nigeria that is not similarly endowed with diverse natural and mineral resources that could guarantee their viability if exploited.  Against this background, it is inevitable that the issue of restructuring will be a dominant theme in the campaign for the 2019 elections.

    One reason for this is that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has not taken any step towards effectuating, even minimally, the restoration of true federalism that is stated in its constitution. This is obviously because from the perspective of its leader, President Muhammadu Buhari, the fundamental problem with Nigeria is more behavioral than structural. Specifically, corruption will kill Nigeria if Nigeria does not kill corruption as the President is wont to say. It is, of course, logical to argue that corruption is a function more of personal moral deficiency than structural debility.

    This column has consistently maintained that structural change is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for accelerated national transformation in Nigeria. No less imperative is a thorough revamping of the country’s value system to inculcate in a critical mass of the citizenry significantly higher standards of ethical integrity. But this does not diminish the necessity to urgently eliminate the structural impediments to moral probity particularly in the country’s public life. The excessively centralized character of Nigeria’s federal structure itself provides fertile ground for corruption to thrive.

    Does this then mean that devolving greater resources to the sub-national units of government will necessarily help to check corruption? Not necessarily. It only implies that decentralization of powers, responsibilities and resources to deepen federalism in Nigeria must be accompanied by mechanisms to strengthen checks, balances and accountability at these lower levels of government.

    The failing of the APC in this regard has been smartly exploited by a wily political tactician like Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to place restructuring on the front burner of his campaign. Atiku signaled his intention to maximally exploit the not insignificant sentiment for restructuring in wide swathes of the country to his advantage when he took on the Vice-President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo (SAN) on the issue recently. The Turaki Adamawa vehemently contested Osinbajo’s reported submission at an event in the US that what the country needs most critically now is good governance rather than ‘geographical restructuring’.

    Closely reading the public exchange of the two men on the issue, however, there seems to be hardly much difference on their perspectives on the ideal political structure for Nigeria. They both essentially advocate a deepening of federal practice in Nigeria through some degree of decentralization of powers and resources to sub national units of government. At the rhetorical level, Atiku sounds more radical in his advocacy of restructuring and this has no doubt endeared him to such groups as Afenifere, Ohaneze and the Pan Niger Delta Forum who have publicly thrown their weight behind his candidacy. However, there will certainly be the need, during the campaign for next year’s elections, for both parties to spell out in concrete terms exactly what they mean by restructuring. What are Nigerians to expect in terms of structural re-engineering of the polity if either party wins?

    There are different contending perspectives on what constitutes restructuring. For some, it is a radical and drastic alteration of the current order to either return the country to the regional structure of the first republic and/or the restoration of the parliamentary system of government. Others advocate the merger of states across the country or the adoption of what amounts basically to a loose, confederal structure that is difficult to distinguish from disintegration. Is Atiku likely as President to embark on any of these wild, emotive and arbitrary adventures in political engineering? By temperament, ideological outlook and personal disposition, I do not see him doing so.

    If elected as President, will Atiku have the constitutional latitude in a presidential democracy characterized by countervailing checks and balances to engage in such experiments with unpredictable outcomes even if he desires to? It appears to me that built into the extant constitution are institutional road blocks to prevent such indulgences in political phantasmagoria except by revolution. This may have been a restraining influence on the APC’s federalist aspirations even though I doubt if the party in the last three and a half years summoned sufficient political will to move the country even tentatively in the direction of true federal practice.

    Ironically, from the perspective of a radical organization like the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), those seemingly radical advocates of restructuring in the form of a return to regionalism or strengthening ethnic micro nationalism are part and parcel of a backward and reactionary political class. In an insightful publication in The Punch of Thursday, July 5, 2018, ASUU avers that “The debate on restructuring goes on within the context of domination of the economic, political, educational, and all welfare institutions in Nigeria by the same group of Nigerians, from all states and all geopolitical zones, who have since 1960 used their political power as a tool for collective looting of the country’s resources. The debate about restructuring is, at the base, about how to satisfy the demand for redistribution of political and economic power among the contending ruling class groups in the country. The debate is conducted without the participation of the people of Nigeria; it is dominated by coalitions of ethno-nationalist leaders, politicians, businessmen and women (contractors) and their intellectuals”.

    There is certainly much that is true in ASUU’s submission and we will be taking a deeper look at the organization’s perspective in due course. If the APC were a radical progressive party and not just a little to the left of the PDP ideologically, that is the kind of position on restructuring that would set it apart distinctly from the former ruling party.  Paradoxically, it is the ideologically ultra –conservative but morally puritan President Muhammadu Buhari that seems to be the most notable exception to ASUU’s sweeping categorization of the Nigerian political class as largely venal, exploitative and self-serving irrespective of their ethno-regional origins or religious conviction.

    Buhari’s fierce aversion to corruption or mindless material acquisition by ruling class elements must certainly be informed to an extent by some empathy for the millions of poor and downtrodden victims of the excesses of Nigeria’s political class. Unfortunately, he apparently lacks a corps of intellectuals capable of shaping his elementary views on morality, puritanism, religion, discipline and governance into a coherent and easily assimilable body of political ideas around which a mass, pan-Nigerian movement can be mobilized.

    More damagingly, the embarrassingly nepotistic inclination of Buhari’s inner circle, the infamous cabal, casts a dark shadow over an otherwise quite luminous political figure in contemporary Nigeria. And it is largely because of the sectional and arrogant antics of this cabal, as demonstrated by the impunity exhibited at the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) during the week, that restructuring will be a key issue in the campaign. Many Nigerians are so angry and pissed off that they will be easily swayed by ethnic entrepreneurs and regional political merchants masquerading as advocates of restructuring.  It is a pity.

  • Restructuring and Nigeria’s development

    There have been deliberations on the structure of government at all levels. While some opine that the system best suited for our peculiar socio-political system is the British parliamentary system, others believe that the American style should be the most appropriate. There is yet another school of thought which supports the adaptation and adoption of the “home-grown” political system.  Some hold, tenaciously, to the belief that the inherited colonial structure of governance is the root cause of the problem. Some are very quick to conclude that the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates by the British colonialist was a fundamental error of judgement.

    Not a few believe that the raging controversies on the best form of political arrangement for the country are influenced by current politics of relevance. The inability of the purveyors of this idea to present their thesis devoid of ambiguity creates doubt and perpetuates the needless cacophony dominating political discourse in the public space. It is important that the issue of definition is resolved for appropriate contextual appreciation of issues. When politicians hold on to a viewpoint, one must be hesitant in jumping into the fray. The question to ask is, why now? And the answer may well be, why not?

    There are some in our country today who believe that unless we “restructure” the polity, there will be no progress. Others, depending on which side of the political divide from where the query emanates, hold that the government should concentrate on improving the economy and all problems will be solved.  To some still, this new political lexicon is about state creation and the control of resources. The “cure-all” remedy will address all socio-economic cum political issues once it is applied to suit parochial preferences.

    The 1979 constitution proceeded with denial; Nigeria was once again under civil rule. The four regions had become, at first, 12 states in 1967, and later 19 states in 1976. The unicameral legislature adopted to suit the parliamentary system of government had changed to bicameral. The presidential system replaced the Westminster model. There appeared to be a semblance of a federal system of government with the president at the centre and the governors at the states. The local government administration was also guaranteed in the new constitution.

    This specious presentation of regularity is deceptive. There were indeed no federating units but administrative posts manned by the so-called elected prefects. The presidency had assumed the stature of a patriarchy with an all-powerful president. The federation was more of a unitary system as more items had found their way into the exclusive list in the constitution. States existed mainly as convenient creations to meet political exigencies.

    The oil boom had ensured that revenue allocation from the central administration substituted the very creative essence of the federating units. The states had been reduced to the status of insolvency, perpetually begging for survival. Nigeria was running a monolithic economy and creating miseries instead of jobs. Industries started to fold up. All states abandoned other means of generating revenue because the country was awash with petro-dollars. The seat of power at the centre was so attractive that every politician strove to partake of the largesse mindlessly shared. Crass consumerism was the overriding philosophy. Nigeria was rich; money must be shared.

    The Second Republic barely lasted four years before the return of the military on December 31, 1983. The political itinerary between 1983 and 1999 was tortuous. The structure of dependence became firmly entrenched despite the appearances of attempts at self-reliance by the military government. This period witnessed some remarkable improvement in infrastructure, no doubt. No state was, however, allowed to showcase ingenuous creativity towards self-reliance. The created states had lost their creativity and identity.

    The means of production had shifted heavily to the federal government. Crude oil was the only commodity upon which aspirations were hinged. Nigerians, however, lacked, still do not have, the capacity to participate meaningfully in the industry. The healthy competition, which had existed among the defunct regions, had disappeared. Administrators of states sought approval and received orders from the Federal Military Government on execution of projects considered beneficial to the people.

    The culture of dependence was pervasive and total. A few states which were regarded as economically viable availed themselves of the advantages accruable from their locations and history. The politics of domination played a key role in the intervention of the federal government to the so called states. Political patronage of pliant politicians became prevalent.

    The return to civil rule in 1999 held a lot of redemptive promises. The problems of nationhood remain largely unresolved. The new dispensation commenced on a shaky foundation. The basic law of the land, promulgated by the departing military, had no significant input of the populace. The status quo has been retained and the periodic elections held to change political leadership is seen as progress. The structure of dependence, which stultifies growth, has been exacerbated. Virtually all states of the Federation have become insolvent.

    The current agitations for restructuring of the polity must be put in perspective. There is an unassailable logic in the proposition which holds that unless the country re-examines the basis for co-existence among the ethnic nationalities in the country, any reference to development will continue to be a mirage. This is very correct. But the proponents of this “new political theory” have been unable to articulate their positions with clarity. Many people are, however, convinced that the new wave of agitations gained currency after the last general elections held in 2015 which saw the incumbent president lose his office.

     

    • Akeredolu is governor, Ondo State.

  • ‘Restructuring ‘ll shape 2019 election’

    NIGERIANS need to know the presidential candidates’ position on restructuring before deciding on whom to vote for, Afenifere’s spokesman Yinka Odumakin and former Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman Prof. Maurice Iwu said yesterday.

    According to them, restructuring should be top on the agenda of whoever is elected in next year’s general elections.

    For Odumakin, a comprehensive restructuring would encourage conducive and viable political and economic growth.

    Iwu said restructuring was inevitable considering what he called “an existential threat staring Nigeria in the face”.

    They spoke at a briefing in Lagos on the maiden “Handshake across Nigeria/Restructuring summit”, organised by a pan-Igbo group, the Nzuko Umunna, in partnership with a group known as The Core Federalists.

    The summit, which will hold on November 19 at the Shell Hall, MUSON Centre, by 10am, will feature Nobel Laureate Prof Wole Soyinka as the keynote speaker. Its theme is: Nigeria beyond oil.

    Dignitaries expected at the event, which will be co-chaired by General Ike Nwachukwu (rtd) and Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari, are President Muhammadu Buhari, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and Deputy Senate President Senator Ike Ekweremadu, who will be the guest of honour.

    Other speakers will be House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara, Ohaneze Ndigbo President Chief Nnia Nwodo, Afenifere chieftain Chief Ayo Adebanjo and Pan Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) leader Chief Edwin Clark, among others.

    Odumakin said the summit was part of a worldwide consultation process on the peace and development of Nigeria.

    “Unfortunately, our national unity has recently come under palpable challenge, which in turn slows down the pace of national development.

    “There have also been calls from many thought leaders and Nigerians from various regions for a comprehensive restructuring to encourage conducive and viable political and economic development.

    “The forthcoming “Handshake across Nigeria/Restructuring Summit” will bring together the various thought leaders of the component regions to articulate progressive ideas that could foster national integration and development especially as we approach the 2019 general elections.

    Iwu said Nigerians need courage to confront their fears, adding that restructuring would place Nigeria on the path of development and rebirth.

    He said restructuring would help foster unity and a sense of belonging, and enable the federating units harness their potentials.

     

  • Restructuring key to nation-building, says Adams

    The Aare Onakakanfo of Yoruba, Iba Gani Adams, has said the restructuring of the country is vital to evolving a greater nation.

    He urged the Yoruba nation to adopt a new paradigm shift on issues that affect the country.

    Adams spoke at this year’s two-day summit and interactive session of the Oodua Progressive Union (OPU) in Hamburg Germany.

    He said: “As the 2019 general elections draw nearer, there is need for the Yoruba to adopt a new paradigm shift.”

    The Aare Onakakanfo frowned at what he called the desecration of the sanctity of the traditional institution by some people who he said arrogate to themselves the position of a Yoruba monarch in the Diaspora.

    “Our traditional institution is sacred and we won’t allow anybody to tarnish the image, even as we urge all Yoruba Obas in their states to condemn the abominable act,” he added.

    Aare Adams, who met with the Nigerian Ambassador to Germany, Mrs. Mobolaji Sakirat Ogundero, said contending issues discussed at the summit include restructuring of Nigeria as well as decentralisation of security, monetary, education and infrastructure.

    The Yoruba leader said this would allow the federating unit to develop at their own pace.

    He said: “The word ‘restructuring’ simply means reorganisation, not disintegration. Our position on this is clear: that is, Nigeria cannot afford to isolate itself from the rest of the world.

    “For years, patriotic Nigerians have been agitating for restructuring, but a few elements in the country are against it. As far as I am concerned, those calling for restructuring should not be seen as enemies of state but partners in progress.”

    OPC members from 84 countries as well as other prominent Yoruba groups were present at the summit.

    President of Isokan Omo Yoruba in Germany, Chief Adewole Albert, also attended the ceremony.

     

  • Now that they all want restructuring

    SIR: It is understandable that the Nigeria political terrain has become this charged as it is only about six months to the general elections. While all the elections are important, the most significant remains the Presidential election. This is because the direction of a nation is akin to the nation’s chief executive officer in our own case, the president. This is further made so by our system of government, our political structure, our form.

    Every election has its peculiarities and the votes are driven by specific factors. They are rarely the same for every election year. In the last election, the then opposition made the most important of the factors to drive the votes the fight against corruption. So the last election became a referendum on corruption. What then should drive the votes in 2019? It is now a common rhetoric that Nigeria has never been this divided since the post civil war. This division has given rise to all manner of insurgencies thereby making insecurity to be at its peak. Daily, people get killed in droves and it doesn’t seem there is an end in sight to all these.

    The issues are a myriad and will not be solved by a single action. So no one is under the illusion that restructuring is the magic wand that solves the myriad of problems.  However, the problems have a nexus and identifying that nexus is a panacea for the solutions we sought. It is widely believed that most of these problems have roots that are easily traceable to the present structure. Our politico economic form has not profited us irrespective of our belief, region or religion. In his speech in July 2016, at the late  Gen. Usman Katsina Memorial Conference,  Alhaji Atiku Abubakar did posit that the present system which has largely evolved from the need to put us together almost at all cost especially following the civil war has not helped any region. Not even the North which is viewed by many as the only beneficiary of the present system. He has therefore continued to talk about the need to change our political structure or form.

    Unfortunately, while this position of his has earned him a place in the hearts of many, some persons, especially those in power have continued to deride him and tag him as merely playing politics. It is ironical that despite not turning up for the popular 2014 National Conference where the discussion of our form or structure held, the ruling party went ahead to include in its manifesto the promise to change our political structure. That this manifesto won them the election only goes to show that amongst other promises, the citizens believed their promise to restructure Nigeria.

    Having been in power for more than three years now, not a single bill or any other action has pointed to intent to fulfilling this promise. As a matter of fact, every effort by anyone to discuss the issue has been turned down blatantly by the president. Now as the election season approaches fast,   they have all began to turn around. Even those who have never mentioned a word about restructuring and have openly argued that there was nothing wrong with the present system, are all now shouting “restructuring.” The denial and refusal to see our structure as an albatross to our national growth and development cuts across the aisle and just saying they support restructuring now should not be enough to win the votes of the delegates. It is now very important that the candidates’ long time position on the issue of restructuring be well analysed and debated. Like they dangled “fighting corruption on electorates” we must refuse that they do same with this very important issue, now that they all want restructuring.

     

    • Dr Emenena Bright,

    Warri, Delta State.

  • Stance on restructuring not a political gimmick, says Atiku

    Former vice president Abubakar Atiku has restated his commitment to restructuring Nigeria if elected President in 2019, declaring that his stance on the matter was not a political gimmick.
    “I am truly committed to restructuring Nigeria because I believe that its future depends on leaders’ ability to confront the concerns of the people,” he said.
    Atiku, who is seeking the PDP ticket to contest the 2019 presidential polls, spoke in Makurdi, when he met with the party’s delegates to the National Convention slated to hold Oct. 6.
    “Most segments of the country keep talking about restructuring. We cannot run away from that. We must confront it and tackle it,” he said.
    According to him, section 7 (2) of the APC constitution provides for restructuring, fiscal federalism and the rest.
    “But, the APC have refused to talk about it because President Buhari doesn’t believe in it. But it is there in their constitution,” he claimed.
    Atiku, who decried major concerns like insecurity, poverty and hunger, said that he had gone round the country and had found that there was “total dissatisfaction” with the current government.
    “There is nothing to cheer about the economy. Our unity is precarious and our security is deplorable.
    “Everybody in the country, the farmers, businessmen and students, appear  dissatisfied with the current government.
    “That is why those of us who have gone round and have felt the pulse of the people are calling for a change in 2019,” he said.
    In his remarks, Benue PDP chairman, John Ngbede, assured Atiku that Benue delegates would vote for a credible candidate who would support national unity and move Nigeria forward. (NAN)

  • Kwankwaso: Restructuring will speed up Nigeria’s development

    A Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential aspirant, Senator  Rabiu Kwankwaso, said  yesterday that Nigeria stands to undergo  accelerated development if it is restructured.

    Kwankwaso, a former governor of Kano State, expressed the view in Lagos while addressing party delegates at the PDP secretariat in continuation of his tour of state chapters to seek support for his aspiration.

    He said restructuring would strengthen the various federating units to reach their potential to promote the country’s prosperity.

    Kwankwaso said he was a strong advocate of restructuring and would speed up the development of the country, if elected president.

    “There have been agitations for restructuring in the South West and other parts of the country,” he said.

    “Let me assure you that I am for anything that would promote the country’s progress.

    “I am for anything that would deliver democratic dividends. I support restructuring and I am going to implement it, if elected,”

    The aspirant said the All Progressives Congress (APC) had failed in the delivery of its electoral promises to Nigerians.

    He said the ruling party had not been able to address security and economic challenges, among other problems facing the country.

    Kwankwaso said the PDP would provide the kind of impactful leadership needed to reposition the country, if elected.

    He said he had the capacity, experience and passion to turn the country around.

    The aspirant appealed to Lagos delegates to vote for him at the convention.

    He said apart from having the capacity to deliver, he was the only aspirant with the wide support needed to defeat the APC.

    On why he left the PDP in 2014 to join the APC, Kwankwaso said he did so because of the problems in the PDP then.

    He said he was back because of the new spirit in the PDP, and that it was the only party that could move the country forward.

    “When we left the PDP, we thought it was the worst party due to the crisis then.

    “Now, the party has been repositioned and we are back.

    “We have since realised that the PDP is 1000 times better than the APC.

    “We are back in the PDP to join forces with our great party men to ensure we defeat the failed APC in 2019,” he said.

  • Northerners not afraid of restructuring, says Makarfi

    Former Caretaker Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Presidential aspirant Senator Ahmed Makarfi has dismissed insinuations that northerners are not favourably disposed to restructuring.

    According to him, the issue has more to do with those promoting it from the North.

    Senator Makarfi said it was important for Nigeria to discuss the way and manner the country is restructured to promote fairness and equitable allocation of resources for the good of all.

    He said: “It is not that northerners don’t want restructuring addressed, it is the issue of who in the north is talking about it. There are people they (northerners) trust, and there are people they don’t trust. There are people they think can say anything to get power, and so it is important to northerners to listen to people they trust because when they do so, they will have no concerns.”

    Makarfi said part of his agenda for the country is to consider the report of previous conferences on restructuring, and also tackle security challenges.

    He added: “To move Nigeria forward from the present situation, I will immediately establish the request for the restructuring of the country. We already have a report of previous conferences, so we will dust them and I will get Nigerians to review them, discard what is obsolete, inject new ideas, and then get Nigerians to discuss the way forward in terms of how to restructure this country in a way that will be fair and equitable to each part of Nigeria…”

  • Restructuring, distemper and dystopia

    Restructuring” proponents — classicists, neophytes or even rank opportunists — love to have Vice President Yemi Osinbajo for dinner, over his Minnesota, USA, address, to diaspora Nigerians.

    In “restructuring”, these lobbies have conjured up a utopia where, as in the fairy tale, everyone would live happily ever after!

    Dare to differ, and they work themselves up — with the ready, teeming and merry army of the gullible — into a rabid distemper.

    That distemper, in a high season of high-wire posturing, brands non- or even partial conformists, as high enemies of the people; that bait a future dystopia.

    That is the strait-jacket the current restructuring orchestra are framing a post-Minnesota Osinbajo!  It is nothing but cheap blackmail.

    Yet, barring any fixation with a trending cliche, the Vice President is no less right than the impassioned restructuring ensemble.

    That is simply because, from the beginning, he has been in on a strain of “restructuring”, even if his own core track, dating back to the Bola Tinubu Lagos governorship (1999-2007), is fiscal federalism.

    As Lagos attorney-general and commissioner for Justice, Osinbajo bloodied the nose, in the courts, of the Obasanjo Presidency (1999-2007), a government in which, by the way, Atiku Abubakar, now posturing as new restructuring Prince, was No. 2.

    At Minnesota, therefore, Vice President Osinbajo only stayed glued to his core belief.

    Still, give it to the restructuring classicists, Afenifere: restructuring has always been their core agenda; just as it is a pristine South West rally, spaning no less than three political generations.

    It birthed with Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s ethnic federalism, which he espoused in his 1947 classic, Path to Nigerian Freedom — that durable fundament of Nigerian federalism, to which the 1st Republic never fully conformed.

    With military rule’s over-centralization, which came with charges of internal re-colonization against military-era northern czars, Awo’s pristine theory mutated into the “national question”.

    That spiked when Gen. Ibrahim Babangida started dribbling everyone, and the late Alao Aka-Basorun, and fellow braves in 1990, attempted Nigeria’s own sovereign national conference (SNC), following Republic of Benin’s feat of that same year, which birthed, for it, a new constitution.

    The latest strain, of that mutation, is the current restructuring buzz.  The June 12 injustice, against Basorun MKO Abiola, had reinforced the clamour for SNC to re-federalize Nigeria.

    That dovetailed into the questioning, by progressive elements, of the legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution, calling for an SNC to correct the fraud.

    That campaign, near-exclusively South West, would rage all through the Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan presidential era, peaking in an election-eve National Conference gravy in 2014, which sucked the Afenifere into Jonathan’s 2015 electoral agenda.

    So, though the Afenifere were restructuring classicists, their election fiasco, in the Jonathan camp of 2015, has left them with “restructuring” as sole ticket to continued political relevance.

    To worsen matters, a faction of the South West progressive mainstream, of which VP Osinbajo is part, are top partners in the Buhari Presidency.  So, it’s perfectly understandable if the Afenifere and allies gore Osinbajo to have, on restructuring, “betrayed” Awo, his great grandfather-in-law.

    Again, that is nothing but arrant blackmail.

    But somewhat, Afenifere’s “restructuring” has gathered some nation-wide moss, no thanks to severe pains, from severe economic changes; and some shared resentment against the so-called “Hausa-Fulani”, in the Nigerian power mix.

    Without necessarily discounting the excellent re-federalization prospects of pristine restructuring  — which, by the way, Ripples had earlier written umpteen articles to canvass — anti-Hausa/Fulani resentment (by southern elements) and progressive posturing (by northern elements, essaying a power capture) power the latest restructuring strain.

    Indeed, a rather interesting mix, this new restructuring orchestra!

    First, the South East political elite that, right back to the Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi first military regime (January to July 1966), had helped to promulgate the Unification Decree 34 of 1966.

    That decree not only dismantled the 1st Republic’s regional federalism, it also helped to erect — and milk, with the now hated “Hausa-Fulani”, over the years — a dysfunctional centre.

    That elite, as unfazed neophytes, intoxicated by the giddy wine of new belief, are new ”restructuring” radicals!  Instructively, Prof. Ben Nwabueze, who in 1966 was a Unification  Decree young Turk, is now the wise and wizened Solon of new-found restructuring!

    The trio of Nwabueze, the late F. C. Nwokedi, a federal permanent secretary and the late C. C. Mojekwu, attorney-general of the defunct Eastern Region, were linked to Decree 34, itself a near-wholesale lifting of the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) 1951 manifesto, which craved a unitary Nigeria.

    Then, the South-South lobby!  Throughout Jonathan’s six presidential years, that elite was too busy, trying to foist minority domination, over the majority — ”restructuring” be damned!  — on this same flawed centre.

    Yet, the Jonathan era offered the most golden opportunity to push that campaign.

    The northern “neo-progressives” complete this new sweetheart coalition.  Among those, former VP Atiku Abubakar fancies himself as some self-crowned Pericles, Nigeria’s answer to the czar of progressive thinking in ancient Athens!

    That is rank opportunism, given Atiku’s funereal quiet over restructuring during the Obasanjo power years.  Besides, when did the peripatetic Atiku start standing for anything durable, beyond his perpetual flux of political parties, to chase illusive power?

    Beatified, the Afenifere high priests, with near-divine swagger, are sweating in the “restructuring” high shrine: canonizing some; excommunicating others.  That would explain the “we-have-endorsed-Atiku-no-we-have-not” mix-up!  It’s excellent election-eve fever!

    Still, all these restructuring-buzz-as-sweet-lollies, to lull adherents into some magical future, issue from a debacle: too much central cash chasing absolutely no value.

    The result is crippling corruption, which the Buhari Presidency has been condemned to battling.

    Now, Osinbajo’s Minnesota message seeks to uproot that debacle of over-centralization: you must radically tweak things, so that every kobo chases radically increased value.

    That is the long and short of the Vice President’s case.  That can’t violently jar against “restructuring”, can it?

    So long for election-eve buzz!

  • Restructuring: Between Atiku and Osinbajo

    The general election season has acquired notoriety for how it is wantonly exploited by some politicians for self-promotion on the back of issues of public interest. This reality is currently playing out in the public space with the fast approaching 2019 general elections with politicians and especially presidential hopefuls seizing on the issue of ‘restructuring’ the country. It is thus not a surprise that the issue of restructuring has become subject of debate between Vice President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN) and ex-Vice President Atiku Abubakar.

    Osinbajo and Atiku have laid claims to being advocates of restructuring Nigeria with at least implicit suggestion of a lack of sincerity from both sides. Talk is of course cheap. So, it is crucial that the record is set straight on the matter. The issue engaged here is who has been a genuine advocate of restructuring or true federalism in Nigeria between Osinbajo and Atiku? We need a fact check of their past engagements and performance in office to set the records straight and separate pseudo advocacy from genuine commitment to true federalism and who is employing it to score cheap political points.

    It is a matter of the records that Atiku was Obasanjo’s vice president from 1999-2007. So, what did he say and, or do as vice president for eight years to advance his agenda for restructuring Nigeria which he has now become a ‘champion’ of? An excellent point of reference for Ex-VP Atiku’s personal life and political views as articulated on his personal website  is his biography ‘Atiku: The Story of Atiku Abubakar’ authored by the now late former MD of Daily Times, Adinoyi Ojo Onukaba in 2006. In the 271-page book, ‘restructuring’ is mentioned three times and ‘restructure’, once. In the electronic version of the book, restructuring is first mentioned on page 62 where it came up with reference to the late Biafran leader, then Col. Odimegwu Ojukwu (in the run up to the civil war) who had ‘asked for a restructuring of Nigeria into a loose confederation of autonomous regions’. The second mention is of ‘restructure’ on page 226 where we are told that the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) in the run up to the 1999 general elections had ‘also resolved to restructure Nigeria in the spirit of true federalism so as to achieve a just and equitable distribution of power, wealth and opportunities …conducive for our living together in peace, unity and social harmony.’

    The third reference is with regard to the attempt to recruit late Chief Bola Ige to become President of Nigeria through the Abdusalami Abubakar political transition programme. We are told that Ige was ‘tough and uncompromising in his demands for restructuring and other fundamental changes in Nigeria.’ The fourth and final reference is on page 230 of the book where we are informed that Atiku ‘said the PDP is solidly in favour of restructuring of the federation… “Any politician who is opposing the clamour for a true federalism in Nigeria is not sincere.”’ This is the only place in the book where the word restructuring is connected to Atiku.

    We otherwise do not have a direct mention of the word restructuring in the political agenda or career of Atiku for the eight years of his vice-presidency. Needless to say then that he did not articulate it during his tenure nor actively took steps to advance the course of restructuring the country when he had auspicious opportunity to do so. For eight years as number two man in the country, his authorised biography shows he was neither an advocate nor active implementer of a restructuring agenda in Nigeria.

    Moreover, in his autobiography; ‘My Life’ published in 2013, the word ‘restructuring’ appears once and ‘restructure’, also once. He stated that: ‘Another major plank of our economic reforms programme was restructuring the tax system to yield more revenue, stimulate economic growth and redistribute income between the rich and the poor.’ He also stated that: ‘Also, we set up the Debt Management Office (DMO) to review and restructure Nigeria’s debt.’ Both are on page 47 of the book and clearly, none was talking about true federalism. Thus, those who have pointed out that the ex –VP’s newly found love for restructuring is opportunistic and a matter of political brinksmanship have a strong point, especially as his public statements on it are coming months to another general election in which he is aspiring to contest for president.

    Now, let us look at the public service profile of Osinbajo. As Attorney-General of Lagos State from 1999-2007, he led a series of legal battles against the federal government to secure true federalism. The PDP was in power with Olusegun Obasanjo and Atiku Abubakar as president and vice president respectively. The National Assembly was dominated by the PDP. The cases ranged from laws which sought to control urban and regional planning in the states, monitoring local government revenue (allocation), to the creation of local governments.

    Let us look at just two of the cases and their significance for true federalism in Nigeria.

    In Attorney General of Abia State & 2 Ors v Attorney General of the Federation and 33 Ors, Osinbajo (as Attorney General of Lagos State) challenged the constitutionality of the Local Government Revenue Monitoring Act in the Supreme Court contending that it is a major negation of true federalism. As third plaintiff in the case, Lagos State filed the most comprehensive objections to the Act. Osinbajo had argued that the National Assembly could not exercise oversight functions over local government administration in the country. The Act which provided for direct disbursement of local government allocations from the federal account and monitoring of the process by the federal government, amounted to undue interference with the powers of the states over local governments as provided by Section 7 (and other sections) of the 1999 Constitution. He argued too that it was also unconstitutional for the National Assembly to impose a duty on the state as- the Act sought to do-, in matters within the legislative competence of the state legislature. The other 33 states supported the arguments.  The Supreme Court agreed with his position and ruled in favour of Lagos State. This case has been pivotal to maintaining the powers of states over local governments till in line with the principles of true federalism till today.

    In Attorney General of Lagos State v Attorney General of the Federation & 35 Ors (Urban Planning case), he challenged the provisions of the Urban Planning Decree which had been passed by the military and adopted by the PDP government of President Obasanjo. The law had purported to confer powers of urban and regional planning for the whole country on the federal government. Based on the decree, the federal government was issuing building plan approvals to people in Lagos State and other parts of the country, in complete disregard of the physical planning laws and arrangements of the states. Osinbajo led the way in arguing that the provisions were unconstitutional and emphasized the need to preserve the autonomy of the states in physical planning matters to enable them develop based on their preferences. He won the case. The Supreme Court gave judgment in favour of the states declaring the provisions unconstitutional and thus preserved the autonomy of the states for planning with their territories which is critical for their development and maintaining true federalism in the country. To be sure, the states have been able to regain and maintain their powers to control the physical development of their territories till today, more than 12 years after the judgment of the Supreme Court.

    Moreover, as VP, Osinbajo has been unequivocal in his support for state police among other issues on restructuring of the country.  There is thus, a consistency here which is clearly missing in Atiku’s public record on restructuring. True federalism is important. However, unless there is accountability and good governance, no system of government will salvage the morass in the polity. We are all living witnesses to the monumental pillage and stealing of public funds by governments that have ruled the country from 1999-2015 when billions of dollars earned mainly from oil revenues were diverted into the private accounts of those in public office and their cronies. The blatant corruption has held the country hostage and we are now reaping the harvest of the impact of the gross abuse of public trust. Osinbajo has lately stated that Nigeria’s major problem is the lack of good governance and the grand corruption by the political elite. It beclouds the fundamental problem of governance in Nigeria to disagree.

     

    • Dr Yusuf is a Reader in Global Legal Studies at the University of Birmingham.