The Nation Newspaper

Tag: restructuring

  • Restructuring and Anti-restructuring of the Right, the Centre and the Left: A People’s Guide

    Restructuring and anti-restructuring dominate politics in Nigeria and have done so now for about at least two decades. This fact is common knowledge regarding what restructuring has come to mean to the generality of ordinary Nigerians. Indeed, no other idea or topic has percolated so thoroughly beyond English, the official national lingua franca, to virtually all the major and minor indigenous languages of the country. Wake up any Nigerian adult from the deepest of sleeps and begin to talk to her or him about restructuring; he or she will immediately know what it is that you are talking about.

    Also well-known, if slightly less so than the dominance of restructuring itself in our national political discourses, are the two big themes of restructuring and its advocates and champions, these being economic restructuring and political and administrative restructuring. With regard to economic restructuring, the two outstanding ideas or themes are the principle of derivation and the closely linked principle of resource control. For its part, political and administrative restructuring has at its object, its focus, the breakup of the over-centralized institutions, organs and services currently under exclusive or main control of the federal government. These include the armed forces, the police and other security forces and agencies of the state; education; health; the administration of justice; land and sea ports, railways and waterways; foreign and international affairs; etc., etc. And while we are about this business of drawing attention to the things that most Nigerians know and think about restructuring, it might be useful to draw attention to the fact that institutions and services under the control of the federal government that advocates of restructuring – restructurenistas – want above all others to decentralize are the police, education and health.

    Well, so far so good. But what of vital things about restructuring that Nigerians in general and restructurenistas in particular almost never talk about? This is the topic of discussion in this piece. Let me quickly indicate the things I have in mind here. Chief among them is Nigerian capitalism as the economic order through which all production and consumption, all the avenues through which every Nigerian can have property or be property-less for life are organized. I am placing emphasis here on the Nigerian brand of capitalism because of its almost unique nature among all the varieties of national and regional capitalisms in the world. It is very rare, almost to the point of impossibility, to encounter a discussion of Nigerian capitalism among restructurenistas and their opponents. More on this point later in the discussion but meanwhile let us note that the omission of Nigerian capitalism in discourses and action around restructuring is rather like excluding way that the existential fact Being is usually excluded when we talk about the anxieties and worries that we encounter in life: we simply take it for granted since it is at the bottom, the foundation of everything else.

    More down to earth than the abstract, existential fact of Being but extremely portentous, is the near total silence on the pervasiveness of poverty and destitution in Nigeria in talk and action on restructuring. To be fair to restructurenistas, it is not that they do no care about the tragic nature of poverty in a land flowing with the milk and honey of oil wealth; many of them do care, especially those on the Left. But the truth of the matter is that they almost completely separate the two – pervasive poverty on one side and the struggle for restructuring on the other side. In other words, when they write or act on or about poverty, restructuring does not feature in the discussion or action; conversely, when they talk and act about or on restructuring, poverty and destitution are far from their concerns. Indeed, it is specifically with this issue of the separation of the scourge of widespread poverty from the challenge of restructuring in mind that I began this piece with the epigraph from Chinua Achebe’s novels: where one thing stands, another thing will stand beside it.

    Achebe might have added that the “thing” that always stands by the side of everything in nature and society does not stand idly or passively; on the contrary, it always does so potently and dynamically, even if its place is barely noticeable to the naked eye or any of the senses of touch, smell and hearing. But Achebe does not make this explicit or insistent; he merely states, rather laconically, that where you see or hear one thing, look or listen carefully because another thing is there by its side. This is perhaps because being a master of irony and understatement in his novels, Achebe was content to leave things to subtle implication rather than explicit iteration. But needless poverty and destitution, being so pervasive in our country, cannot be said to stand passively beside every other thing in our country, least of all the great and urgent challenge of restructuring.  This observation, this claim stands as the basis of the profiles of restructuring of the Right, the Centre and the Left that I very briefly explore in this piece. Let us take, first, restructuring of the Left since, as regular readers of this column probably know, it is the group or formation to which I belong.

    Without any intention at all to make my profile a caricature, I would characterize restructurenistas of the Left as mostly writers, activists, commentators and pundits generally with high education but little or no personal, disposable wealth. With remarkably few exceptions, they do not have their own independent or commercial organs of mass information and education; they are therefore “condemned” to rely on organs and media like newspapers, publishing outlets and radio and television owned by the bourgeoisie. This might seem to be the explanation for why the scourge of nationwide poverty looms so large in the ideas and perspectives of the restructurenistas of the Left but that is not the case! The real reason is their unwavering ideological and ethical opposition to the extreme predatoriness, wastefulness and squandermania of Nigerian capitalism.

    Moreover, this group or formation of restructurenistas are quick to point out that through a massive privatization of our national assets and resources an unprecedented transfer of our national wealth to a very small oligarchy of Nigerians is going on right now as most Nigerians are made to endure poverty and destitution. For them, this is, ultimately the thing that is standing right there by the side of restructuring though barely acknowledged. In other words, a redistribution of wealth and resources is going on even now as, officially and ostentatiously, the national bourgeoisie, the restructurenistas of the Right, continue to delink egalitarian redistribution from their demands for urgent and necessary true federalism.

    Is the Right separable and distinguishable from the Centre among the Nigerian bourgeoisie and their ideological apologists among the national intelligentsia? I believe so, even if these terms have almost completely disappeared from our national discourses. Indeed, the very fact that these terms – the Right, the Centre and the Left – used to enjoy wide usage and currency should be cause enough to make us ponder the reason for their disappearance or erasure. For it is either the Left, the Right and the Centre did exist when the terms were in wide usage or the terms have disappeared largely because no ideological differences of the kind indicated by these terms now exist among the political class and/or the national intelligentsia. How many people reading this piece now remember the time when, in the early 1990’s, Ibrahim Babangida popularized the phrase, “a little to the Right and a little to the Left”? Let us recall the interesting fact that it was on the basis of this phrase that the two parties that contested the fateful presidential elections of June 1993, The National Republican Convention (NRC) and the Social Democratic Party (SD), were formed by the military dictatorship. Fast forward now to the present and can anyone validly say of the APC and the PDP that one is a little to the Right and the other a little to the Left? I don’t think so!

    The Right is, at the present time and at least on the surface of things, overwhelmingly the dominant ideological force in Nigerian politics, including and especially the politics of restructuring. There are small formations of the Centre-Right and the Centre-Left, but they are neither very visible nor particularly influential. This may be because the most visible and best organized groups for or against restructuring like Oodua People’s Congress (OPC), the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Ohaneze Indigbo (OI), Yoruba Council of Elders (YCE) and Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) are all very rightwing in both their leadership and membership. But there is, for me, the far more consequential fact that for virtually all those listed in this group, there is not the slightest interest in a critique of Nigerian capitalism and its many depredations on the poor and destitute of all the ethnic, religious and regional communities in the country. For most of the organizations in this group, the primary thing, indeed, the only thing beside which almost nothing else stands, is the revanchist restoration of the “lost” or “stolen” or “violated” sovereignty or glory of the ethnic group, the geopolitical zone or the religious or faith community. But as we have said again and again in this piece, nothing stands alone, absolutely by itself; not ethnicity, not religion and not even historic regional configuration. Where you see or hear anything, look closely and you will find one or many other things standing beside it.

    It is because nothing stands completely alone by itself that even within virtually all the predominantly rightwing organizations that I listed above, there are pockets of Centre-Right and Centre-Left formations and individuals. But just what is the Centre, within all capitalist societies in general and Nigerian capitalism in particular? At the risk of oversimplification, I would argue that the Centre in most of the capitalist societies of the modern world is made up of those who, even if they are not doing well in the existing order of things, hope eventually to do well. For this reason, the Centre in any given national context or configuration is (only) as large or as small as the economic order, to a certain degree, is either able to sustain or dash hopes that the national wealth or social surplus can and will in the end be fairly and widely distributed.

    Is it because Nigerian capitalism, as it is presently deeply entrenched, gives so little hope for equitable redistribution of the social surplus for the majority of our peoples that the Centre is so demographically and ideologically insignificant in Nigerian politics? I think so. If this is the case, then we can credibly and usefully argue that the Right and the Left dominate Nigerian politics in the inversely perverse form of a Right that is very large and seems to be growing larger and larger, side by side with a Left that seems to be shrinking, shrinking and yet again shrinking. For make no mistake about it: at the present time, the idea that the federating units that make up Nigerian federalism is and can only be ethnic nations and regional zones is gradually but inexorably pushing out all other ideas that indicate that Nigeria, like all other federal, multicultural nation-states of the modern world, is actually federated not around or by a single axis. This is erroneous, but it is the sort of “error” that can be corrected not only by words and discourse alone but in conjunction with deeds and actions. Let me be concrete and specific about this: the day that we Leftists start to march and demonstrate around the links between restructuring and equitable redistribution, that will be the day, as the Americans might put it.

     

    Biodun Jeyifo

    bjeyifo@fas.harvard.edu

  • DAWN Commission, others hold colloquium on restructuring

    A colloquium aimed at upscaling the call for restructuring has been slated for tomorrow in Ibadan, Oyo State capital.

    It holds at the House of Chiefs, Oyo State Secretariat, from 10 am.

    The event is the first edition of the Dipo Famakinwa Colloquium, organised by the Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN) Commission, Yoruba Academy and Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG).

    Famakinwa was the pioneer director- general of the Western Nigeria regional integration organisation.

    He died last year after serving the commission for four years.

    The theme of the colloquium is “Restructuring: Ending the talk and starting the walk.”

    The biennial event serves to immortalise Famakinwa’s vision and ideals.

    A statement by the Executive Director, Yoruba Academy, Dr. Ade Adeagbo, on behalf of the organisers, said the event would highlight the values and ideals Famakinwa lived and died for.

    It advised Nigerians to seek local solutions to national challenges.

    “It is important we immortalise him through his ideals targeted at developing our people and space, because Dipo was successful in his enterprise and he could have stayed privately to enjoy his labour. But he literally abandoned his business and threw himself into a cause to engender good governance in Nigeria.

    “This is the lesson we are hoping people learn from Mr. Famakinwa’s life. Nobody will develop our country for us if we don’t. We must be participants in the development processes,” the statement said.

    Adeagbo said the restructuring agenda should become a proper engaging and ongoing conversation owned by the masses.

    “This is what the colloquium aims to achieve,” he added.

  • Practical restructuring

        •Proposed ring road in the South East is a huge step towards a productive federal Nigeria 

    STATES, in the South East geo-political zone are planning a 430-kilometre ring road, to link all five states, thus giving the region closer economic integration and swifter movement of people and goods. This is a very good idea, and these five governments, with their governors, deserve commendation. The swifter this intent morphs into reality, the better.

    Dave Umahi, governor of Ebonyi State and chair of the South East Governors’ Forum, announced the plan in Enugu, after the group’s meeting. ”The South East Governors’ Forum at its meeting,” he disclosed, “discussed extensively on the possible strategies towards economic development of the South East; and at the end of the meeting resolved to undertake the construction of a ring road, covering a total area of 430 kilometres, that would connect all the states of the South East.”

    Also at the meeting were host governor, Enugu’s Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi and Abia’s Okezie Ikpeazu. Eze Madumere, deputy governor of Imo State, was also there. Only Anambra’s Willie Obiano was absent.

    For such a ground-breaking idea, the high level of gubernatorial attendance and representation — 80 per cent — is heart-warming indeed. It suggests some unanimity, over a common regional good, laudable and recommendable to other regions. Yet, Anambra’s Obiano’s absence and lack of representation was rather puzzling. Nevertheless, the forum should swiftly avail the Anambra State government of the full details of the plan. Let the region strike when the iron is hot, when the idea is fresh. It is imperative that everyone is brought on board. The region would be far better for it.

    Latterly, there has been a clamour for restructuring, even in the South East which hitherto appeared rather cool to the idea. That is a welcome move, for Nigeria would not attain its manifest destiny or realise its full economic and human potentials without breaking down the vast country into workable and productive economic dynamos, each specialising in its own sphere of competence, in a vibrant competition to feed the centre. That would be a departure from the present practice, when the states live on dole from Abuja.

    But while the legal framework and political compromises to make that productive utopia possible are still in the works, it is initiatives like a South East-wide ring road, that well and truly domesticates and demonstrates the beauty of the new imperative: changing Nigeria’s lot from a bloated centre feeding hungry regions to thriving and spritely states, in regional baskets, feeding the centre. It is a practical example, which benefits would further help to mainstream the idea — as it is currently being done — but also race to its implementation. Time, after all, is of essence!

    Besides, such regional economic hubs, thoroughly domesticated, would further push the gospel of value. Now, there are sundry allegations that state authorities often divert money from the centre; but roast the Federal Government in front of their own people, just because Abuja is too far away. Even if these allegations are true — and a good many of them may not be — states combining to deliver value would more and more be subjected to higher scrutiny by their own people. If they pass the muster, they earn their people’s respect, and stand a better chance of widening the local tax net, to fund further development. That is practical “restructuring”, which other regions would do well to embrace.

    Good enough, the South West already has its Development Agenda of Western Nigeria (DAWN) Commission, pushing such a regional and integrated developmental philosophy. The South-South has a similar body. The South East is joining. Other regions too should look inside to facilitate intra-regional infrastructure, to fire regional development nationwide.

    That states are engaged in free inter-state economic cooperation, with Lagos doing business with Kebbi (LAKE Rice) and Lagos and Kano are involved in the Lagos-Kano Economic Summit, are happy bonuses that would issue from such a glorious change of economic paradigm.

    That is the practical “restructuring” everyone needs. Because it is win-win, the political and legal ratification would follow in a matter of time. Still, the South East governors must know that starting, no matter how crucial, is nothing. Only a glorious conclusion matters, in the final analysis. That is why they should move fast to consummate this wonderful idea.

     

  • Why Eastern Assembly demands restructuring

    Why Eastern Assembly demands restructuring

    Eastern Consultative Assembly (ECA) held a crucial meeting on Tuesday this week in Enugu, where it demanded for restructuring of Nigeria before the next general election. Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, reports on why the organisation believes that only an immediate restructuring of the country can save the Nigerian state

    CALL for early restructuring of Nigeria dominated this Tuesday’s General Assembly of the Eastern Consultative Assembly (ECA), held at the Universal Hotel, Enugu. The event, with the theme, ‘Addressing the Unresolved National Question,’ recorded what a participant described as “unprecedented attendance and raw passion.”

    Amongst the distinguished members in attendance were elder statesman and legal luminary, Prof. Ben Nwabueze, First Republic Minister, Chief Mbazuluike Amaechi, the widow of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the First Nigerian President, Prof (Mrs.) Uche Azikiwe, Prof. Elo Amucheazi, Prof. Obasi Igwe, Chief Mrs. Maria Okwor, Prince Emeka Onyesoh, Comrade Emma Zopma, Chief Nduka Eya, and many others.

    Aside demanding for and explaining why Nigerians must embrace early restructuring of the country, ECA used the occasion to honour some selected patriots from the Eastern Region who made enduring positive impact, as a way of pointing the way for good leadership. Some of the awardees were honoured post-humously while others were physically present to witness their day of glory.

    Those honoured post-humously included the First President of Nigeria, Dr. Nnamdi  Azikiwe, the former Governor of old Imo State, Chief Sam Mbakwe, and Mrs. Magrate Ekpo, a pioneer Nigerian women’s rights activist and social mobilizer in the First Republic . Others honoured are Prof Ben Nwabueze, a foremost constitutional lawyer in Nigeria and Chief Mbazuluike Amaechi, a First Republic Minister.

    Why we insist on restructuring

    Both the awardees and other speakers at the event did not mince words as they called for urgent need to restructure the country if the people want Nigeria to survive. As if they held a previous meeting where a consensus was held before the General Assembly, all the speakers warned that to save the entity called Nigeria, there is no alternative to full and early restructuring. The speakers and other guests also explained the manner of restructuring they consider suitable for the country.

    In his contribution, First Republic Minister, Chief Mbazulike Amaechi, said there is the urgent need to have a restructured Nigeria based on a new constitution, because, according to him, “the 1999 Constitution is an illegal document and the source of all the problems in Nigeria.”  He explained therefore that the only way to salvage Nigeria now is to get a new constitution. According to him, those who are resisting restructuring of Nigeria under a new constitution are only making it difficult for Nigeria to survive.

    He also said Nigeria, as it is today, “is an illegality,” lamenting that the country was being ruled by laws unknown to the majority of the people of the country.

    According to him, this was not the case “when the country’s founding fathers, including the Governor-General, late Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, who also became the first President of Nigeria, the Premier of the old Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and the Premier of the Northern Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello, among other nationalists, had an agreement on what should constitute Nigeria.”

    Comparing what obtained immediately after independence and what Nigeria has turned out to be today, Amaechi pointed out that “there was a need to go back to the structure that made Nigeria the pride of Africa and the Black race during the First Republic and in the early 1960s,” warning that “Anybody not supporting this move did not want the best for the country and wants us to remain retrogressive all the way.”

    Elder statesman, Prof. Ben Nwabueze, also spoke at the meeting with similar passion when he said Nigeria should be restructured before next election. As he puts it, the country needs to resolve the national question before the next election; if we are serious about having the country we call Nigeria.

    The renowned constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who has been on the vanguard of call for restructuring of Nigeria, specifically recommended the need to have what he described as “a new and workable constitution for the country.”

    As he puts it, what we need is “a constitution that will take care of various needs and interests in the country while engendering peace and love devoid of various agitations going on in the country.

    “The elders of the country want a country that will work for all and respect individual rights and liberties as seen in countries with advanced democracies,” he said.

    Virtually every speaker at the well-attended meeting spoke of the need for an immediate restructuring of Nigeria, even as they warned that anything short of this would not be in the interest of Nigerian unity. For example, the National Secretary of ECA, Evang. Elliot Uko, said his group “believes in one indivisible and united Nigeria but restructured to give everyone, every interest and every group, a sense of belonging.”

    Uko, who was also the convener of the assembly, explained that “ECA had remained committed to the total restructuring as advocated by Prof. Nwabueze and other prominent patriots of the country.”

    As he puts it: “ECA stands for the unity and progress of Nigeria and wants a total restructuring for the country to make progress as it was during the First Republic and in the 60s in the country.”

    This call for a restructured Nigeria has remained the main vision of ECA for some time now. It would be recalled that in 2017, the group also made pointed demand for restructuring of Nigeria. It coincided with the time when some youths in the region, desperate for a fundamental change in the polity, but disappointed by the leadership’s refusal to give a listening ear to their plea, demanded for a sovereign state of Biafra. Alarmed at the possible consequences of such a movement, the Federal Government had moved against pro-Biafran groups and against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in particular. But in the ensuing confusion, different groups and observers had interpreted the agitation of groups like IPOB as part of growing disillusionment in Nigeria and the need to restructure it so as to give all the citizens a sense of belonging. Some groups, including ECA, had argued then that the agitation of Kanu-led IPOB has helped to bring to the fore the need to restructure Nigeria.

    For example, while commenting on a book, How Nnamdi Kanu Restructured Nigeria, the Deputy Leader of ECA, Mrs. Maria Okwor, who, incidentally is one of the leaders honoured by the group this year, had said then that “The book produced by the ECA, documents the travails, the journey and frustrations in the spirited attempt by good men and women to save Nigeria from collapse, through a holistic restructuring of the polity back to true federalism and regional autonomy.”

    Okwor, who is also the Leader of Igbo Women Assembly, explained then that, “The book reveals how Nigeria is crippled by an over-powerful center, prebendalism, unitary structure, ethnic divisions, corruption and ill-fitting military constitution.”

    She added that “The book also recalls the struggles by late Anthony Enahoro, late Abraham Adesanya, late Rotimi Williams, late Tunji Braithwaite, etc., to reconstruct and redesign Nigeria through a wholesome restructuring of the polity that will throw up a new people’s constitution that would be affirmed at a referendum.”

    According to her, “The book exposes the reasons why enemies of progress have consistently killed reports of past National Conferences, just so they could continue to hold Nigerians hostage and deny the people opportunity to take back their country from the vicious cabal that believes they are born to rule and dominate others forever.”

    The passion betrayed by almost all the speakers in this year’s General Assembly of the group shows that the group’s position on the need to urgently restructure the country has not waned a bit. The Convener of the Assembly, Evang. Elliot Uko, told The Nation this week that the group is demanding restructuring of Nigeria before the next general election “because it is the only thing that can stop the country from the impending implosion.”

    He explained that “unlike the fears expressed by some misinformed elements and opponents of a progressive Nigeria, restructuring of the country into true federalism is the surest way to preserve the entity called Nigeria.”

    According to him, “Nigerians must face reality by understanding that our quasi-unitary structure is clearly responsible for all our problems, including corruption.

    “We must restructure Nigeria. It is the only way out. It will reduce ethnic and religious tension, check sleaze and encourage diversification of the economy,” he said.

  • Imperative of total restructuring

    It was believed that after the 1914 amalgamation of Nigeria, the amalgamation would be due for review or restructuring in 2014. The late Professor Tekena Tamuno, FNAL, a renowned historian was appointed to chair the 100th anniversary and probably review of Nigeria’s amalgamation and destiny by President Jonathan on the eve of the centenary celebration. In celebrating that anniversary, Prof. Tamuno delivered the lead lecture at the Nigerian Academy of Letters’ Annual Lecture on “Nigeria’s First Century: Critical Pluses and Minuses”, in Abuja on March 7, 2013 published in Nigeria in Evolution, Nigerian Academy of Letters Publication.

    In his lecture, Tamuno proposed what he considers more appropriate and more realistic name for amalgamated Nigeria. He set out some requirements to the effect that Nigeria must be widely seen as ready, with effect from January 1, 2014, to give a new name to their beloved “re-shaped and reinvigorated country”, which shall be named by the title “The Commonwealth of Nigeria” (Democratic Republic of Nigeria). Thereafter, its rightful owners shall be “we the people” as opposed to the unitary constitution foisted on Nigeria in 1999. With wide acceptance of this cardinal principle in our constitutional making, a proper role shall emerge to ensure the legitimacy of the unique new name and new constitution as Nigeria’s next outing or second coming in 2014. We are now in 2018, four years in default of a new constitution.

    It is interesting to know that the issue of restructuring that should have followed the expiration of 100 years of Nigeria’s amalgamation in 1914 has been kept in the cooler for selfish rather than national interest. The question has been, “who is afraid of restructuring?” Fortunately, what has now forced the issue of restructuring to limelight after four years of the life span of amalgamation in December 31, 2013, were Buhari administration’s lopsidedness, crass nepotism, favourism, clannishness, ethnic and religious cleavage. Even the reluctant gesture of his administration to suddenly accede to restructuring through a committee headed by Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai is highly suspect, owing to the lack of trust and confidence in his administration. Why is the president who has been a die-hard anti-restructuring crusader, now suddenly make a u-turn after 2 ½ years of brutal authoritative silence and anti-restructuring posture which runs counter to APC’s manifesto that had prompted many electorate, including the present writer, to vote massively for Buhari and the APC in 2015? It was believed that the APC would complete President Jonathan’s unfinished work.  Unfortunately, this was not to be.

    As of now the party, having wasted valuable time because of its leadership’s reluctance to embrace the popular will of restructuring, finds itself under extreme pressure to do the needful, just only a year to the presidential and other elections. On the issue of restructuring, some strong forces within the new political alliance (handshake across the Niger) from the Middle Belt (North Central) have said: “The military gave us the 1999 constitution; we need to have the people’s constitution which will spell out devolution of power and enthrone true federalism. The question of restructuring is not debatable, it is a deal that must be done and it is not in the hand of one person (Buhari, mine). We must have a future for our children and Nigeria must be in unity”. In the same vein, the leader of Middle Belt Forum, Timothy Gwandu, who hails from Southern Kaduna, while looking at the matter from the perspective of population, stated: “The 2006 census gave Southwest 22.5 million people, Southeast 16.3 million people, South-south 21 million people and North-central 33.9 million people, making it a total of about 99 million people while the Northwest had 33.4 million people and Northeast 11 million people, making a total of about 44 million people”. He therefore wondered how 99 million people will say yes to restructuring while 44 million will be saying no. He said the people of Southern Kaduna are in far more slavish condition than the rest of the country (See New Telegraph, February, 15 2018, p. 16, from “The Symbolic Hand Shake (across the Niger) pp 11 & 16).

    In spite of the advantage derived from skewed population figure based merely on land mass without human habitants in the north and which is the mother of all restructuring, religion and ethnic divide has affected the unity of the North, and this unfortunate situation has been compounded by the nefarious activities of the Fulani herdsmen who operated mainly in the North-central and some other Christian states in the Southwest, Southeast and South-south, but whose operation in the North-central, according to Prof. Abdulahi, has divided the North.

    If the activities of the herdsmen have divided the North, it has also divided Nigeria into North and South, including the North-central who have joined the new phenomenon of symbolic hand shake across the Niger, a phenomenon that may   trigger a loud and clear unified cry “to your tents oh Isreal”, unless Nigeria is truly restructured with the birth of true federalism. That would keep Nigeria together in their unity in diversity. Therefore, from all indications and available evidence, ranging from injustice, cheating, crass nepotism, clannishness, sectionalism, ethnic and religious cleansing to indiscriminate killings of innocent farmers, women and children with impunity by the Fulani herdsmen, the clarion calls for justice through restructuring by the affected states in these regional zones has become a done deal and a foregone conclusion. Anything to the contrary is now unimaginable as restructuring, through true federation, devolution of power, resource control and other ingredients that would ensure peace, unity in diversity and rapid developments in each of the federating units or regions of Nigeria as in Malaysia, Singapore and the rest of the Asian Tigers who have used unity and diversity in their countries for maximum profit.

    It is believed that lack of restructuring has led to a section of the country keeping Nigeria, with its “large population” educationally, scientifically and technologically backward, and even in sports. What we have now is underdevelopment as a whole, and the sorry case of forward never, backward ever! Having woken from their dogmatic slumbers, intellectually sophisticated Nigerians have been awakened to the stark reality that, without proper and total restructuring, Nigeria is heading to what Tamuno describes as “a critical point of darkness with serious implication for the security, safety and peace of society and the state”. In my view, any organism that ceases to fight for their existence is doomed to extinction. By the same token, any groups or section of the federating units which cease to fight for their existence is equally doomed! In all the circumstances, therefore, we can argue that truth in the matter of restructuring which, from all indications, is a done deal, can be resolved by means of a conflict for which well meaning, patriotic and detribalized Nigerians are well prepared, perfectly armed with potent intellectual weaponry. Nigerians have spoken and said enough is enough.

     

    • Makinde, FNAL, is a retired professor of philosophy, Ile-Ife.

     

  • Ohaneze youths support restructuring

    The Southsouth zone of Ohaneze youth wing has supported a call for restructuring.

    It said it would benefit all zones.

    Chief Chinedu Arthur-Ugwa, the zonal coordinator, in an interview with News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) yesterday, at the activities organised to commemorate the 6th anniversary of the Governor Seriake Dickson administration in Bayelsa State, said the comments by Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo on the desirability of state police and All Progressives Congress committee report on restructuring were indications that it had gained acceptability.

    He said restructuring entailed devolution of power to the regions, to ensure control of resources from where they were derived.

    According to him, regions will be better off in terms of development, as they have comparative advantage in certain sectors they can leverage on to fast track development.

    The youth leader noted that rather than depend on the Federal Government for sustenance, the regions in a restricted federation would engage in a healthy competition in the exploitation and development of their resources.

  • Alaafin challenges intellectuals on restructuring

    Alaafin challenges intellectuals on restructuring

    The Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, has urged intellectuals to be pro-active in finding solutions to the‘ socio-economic and political problems in the country .

    Oba Adeyemi said that scholars should not concede leadership to indolent politicians and self-appointed opinion leaders who have nothing to offer.

    His words: “Scholars should lead other stakeholders and segment of society to provide intellectual response to restructuring the Nigerian Federation. The African academia and intelligentsia should not conceded leadership in this enterprise to indolent politicians and self- appointed opinion leaders whose stock in trade is soapbox grandstanding and parliamentary rhetoric.

    The Alaafin spoke at a conference on “African Knowledge and Alternative Futures” held in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital,  in honour of Professor Toyin Falola of the University of Texas, Austin,  United States of America. Falola, a professor of African History, clocked 65 on January 1.

    He emphasised the importance of education for Nigeria and other African countries to overcome myriad of socio-economic and political challenges retarding their progress. He said: “Our claim to bring back education will be meaningful if we acquire knowledge, internalise its values and appropriate wisdom therefrom for finding solutions to the twin problems of under-development and state collapse.”

    The permanent Chairman of Oyo State Council of Obas stressed that the Nigerian case calls for the intellectual input of the Yoruba to redefine the nature and pattern of relationship among the diverse and seemingly disparate ethnic groups or nations in Nigeria.

    The monarch paid tribute to the first Premier of the old Western Nigeria, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who transformed the region. He mentioned that Awo built the first television station in Nigeria and the first dualised road from Mokola to the Secretariat, Ibadan.

    Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola regrets that Nigeria depends solely on rent. “We are rent seekers; we are joking on development; people must work to produce surplus for government and government must provide enabling environment for the people through infrastructural development. It is a self-sustaining circle that must not be broken.

    He attributed the economic recession in the country to a drop in oil price in the world. According to him when the rent goes up (oil price) our GDP rises, when it goes down the GDP also come down. Government capacity to sustain itself is in jeopardy if people fail in their own responsibility by contributing to the economy.

    The governor said: “Nigeria must not only exist but it must be strong and must be able to lead the continent to achieve its manifest, and historic destiny.”

    Oba Adeyemi decried the killing by herdsmen in various parts of the country and urged security agencies to end the menace. He said: “The taking of human lives, especially of unarmed innocent people, who are not in state of war, is unjustifiable, cruel and should not be tolerated in any civilised society.

    “As a people, we need to tread carefully on the killings by the herdsmen across the country. As bad and reprehensible they as they are, they are not as deadly as the Nigerian Civil War we fought between 1967 and 1970.

    “The cardinal duty of the government is the protection of lives and properties. Every life is sacred and government should keep it so. Those who engaged in the barbarous act should be apprehended and face the full wrath of the law.

    “If there is no peace, the country cannot make progress, peace must be protected throughout the country.

    “All of us must reflect on this issue and not just pretend as if it doesn’t matter.”

  • Will Buhari implement APC panel report on restructuring?

    Will Buhari implement APC panel report on restructuring?

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) Committee on Restructuring has recommended restructuring in its report. Will the Federal Government implement it or throw it into the dustbin like the reports of the 2004 and 2014 National Conferences? Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU highlights the report and its implications for the resolution of the national question. 

    For pro-restructuring crusaders, there seems to be a ray of hope. Following the presentation of the report of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Committee on True Federalism to the party leadership, the clamour for the repositioning of the polity can now take a new dimension. Advocates of restructuring can now re-strategise and intensify their agitation for its implementation by the Federal Government. According to observers, the ruling party is also in a vantage position to lead the struggle from inside and persuade the government it midwifed to accede to the popular yearning for restoration of true federalism.

    Despite President Muhammadu Buhari’s lone and illogical position on the national question, the committee mustered the strength to produce a bold and brave document. Therefore, presidential influence on the committee members may have been virtually absent. In his new year broadcast, the president had narrowed down the perspective on national reconfiguration when he categorically told the anxious nation that, the process, and not the structure, was the main problem. The report underscored the desirability of a rethink, more so when it has affirmed the APC’s commitment to true federalism as specified in its manifestos.

    Specifically, the party promised a “more equitable distribution of national revenue to states and local governments.” It promised to devolve more powers to states and local governments, especially the control of policing, local prisons and the right to nominate state police commissioners by governors.

    The 27-mmber panel chaired by Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai was mandated to examine the constitution of the party and its manifestos to “distil the true intent and definition of true federalism, promised by the party, review the various ideas being canvassed by stakeholders on restructuring, look at the reports of previous National Conferences to identify areas of congruence, recommend a party position and propose an appropriate mechanism for implementation.

    The panel organised public hearings in 13 locations across the six geo-political zones and Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). But, there was no wide participation by Southeast stakeholders. The probable reason was that, since the efforts were spearheaded by the APC, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)-controlled states of the Southeast did not show enthusiasm. Rufai said in preparing the report, the recommendations of the previous 2004 and 2014 National Conferences were considered. Also, the secretary of the committee, Senator Bunmi Adetumbi, said a team of legal draftsmen have identified some recommendations that require legislative action and skillfully drafted “all the proposed bills” for the consideration of the National Assembly. “The work of this team made a distinct difference between our work and similar previous exercises to the extent that the implementation framework was factored into the report,” he added.

    Accordingly, 13 major issues germane to restructuring engaged the attention committee. They are the creation of states, merger of states, derivation principle, devolution of powers, federating units, fiscal federalism and revenue allocation, forms of government and independent candidacy. Others are land tenure system, local government autonomy, power sharing and rotation, resource control ant type of legislature.

    It has always been difficult for previous administrations to implement far-reaching recommendations on restructuring. The 2004 National Conference Report did not see the light of the day. It was sacrificed on the altar of the alleged third term agenda of the Obasanjo administration. The 2014 conference set up by former President Goodluck Jonathan was a decoy. He was only trying to thread the populist path to secure a second term, a target he later missed. The question is: will President Buhari have the courage to implement the report of a panel set up by his party?

     

    State creation:

    The agitation for state creation is now new. As found out by the committee, the strongest opposition to it came from the North, particularly from the Northwest, which has seven states. But, the Southwest and Southeast rekindled their hope. The Southeast called for an additional state to achieve parity with other geo-political zones. While 48 per cent of respodents opposed state creation, 36 per cent supported it. As pointed out by the panel, the demand for regionalism is not popular outside the Northwest and Southwest. Thus, it was not considered by the committee.

    To the panel, state creation is not expedient, adding that new states will “merely create new sub-national bureaucracies and their attendant costs while reducing the share of federal statutory allocation accruing to existing and proposed new states that are already grappling with the high cost of governance, payment of salaries of workers, and bringing development to the people.” Besides, it pointed out that state creation may weaken federalism by denying the federating units enough resources and ability to discharge additional responsibilities that would be thrust on them.

    However, the committee observed that the Southeast’s demand should be viewed as an isolated case to foster equity. Also, it suggested that, should the need arise, those pushing or new states can follow the requirements highlighted for the exercise in the constitution, if the demand enjoys widespread support.

     

    Merger of states:                     

    The consensus is clearly on opposition to merger of states. According to the committee, there is no widespread support for merger of states. Merger means the fusion of two or more states into one as the previous states cease to exist. “Hardly anyone would want their state abolished or be replaced with a higher or different political leadership and authority,” it added. However, in view of the push for regional economic cooperation among contiguous state, the committee recommended  that the constitution should provide for legal and administrative frameworks for states that may consider the option of mergers.

     

    Derivation principle:

    The committed noted the “widespread support and consensus in favour of state control of resources and payment of taxes to the Federal Government” across the six zones. The North and, so some extent, the Southwest favoured the application of the derivation principle to solid minerals and hydro-power generation. But, the three zones in the North canvassed the maintenance of the status quo.

    To foster unity and ensure that states are financially empowered to deliver services to their residents, the committee recommended that the Federal Government should expeditiously review the current derivation formula in favour of “state control of resources,” “pay tax to the Federal Government, and solid minerals and hydro-power.” This will necessitate the amendment of Section 162 (2) of the constitution.

    The panel raised an important issue. It noted that “there is no clear provision in any legislation assigning the specific responsibility for initiating the review of the derivation formula to any particular organ of government, although Item 32 of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution stipulates that the formula shall remain for a period of not less than five years. This implies a periodic review after five years. But, as pointed out by the committee, “the current formula has been in place for over 17 years without review. This is probably because of the failure to assign responsibility for initiating the review process on any organ of government.

    “The Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Allocation Commission Act, 2004 should be amended to vest the commission with the power and responsibility to periodically review the derivation and make proposal to the President who shall then table same before the Nationl Assembly for necessary legislation.”

     

    Fiscal federalism and revenue allocation :

    Apart from state police and local government status, no issue has generated more tension than revenue allocation. It is at the core of the fiscal federalism struggle. There is a linkage among derivation principle, fiscal federalism and revenue allocation and their understanding by the stakeholders is basically the same. The panel acknowledged that they are technical issues. Therefore, it suggested that the Federal Government should urgently direct the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission to fashion out a new revenue allocation formula in consonance with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which envisages a periodic review. “Furthermore, since Section 162(2) of the constitution already provides for the principle of derivation of not less than 13 per cent, there is clearly room for its upward review,” it added.

    Also, the committee recommended an upward review of the current revenue sharing formula in favour of states, in view of the proposed control of resources by the states and the devolution of powers from the Federal Government to states. “The current formula for sharing revenue is 56 per cent to the Federal Government, 24 per cent to state governments and 20 per cent to local governments. To give effect to this recommendation, the Allocation of Revenue Act, 2002 will have to be amended in favour of states,” added the report.

     

    Devolution of powers:

    Seventy four per cent of respondents were in favour of devolution of powers while only seven per cent were opposed to it. Top on the list of items were police and community policing. Other items were education, prisons, health, road, security, agriculture, railway, mineral resources, trade, commerce and housing. According to the report, the ruling party should put its weight behind the overwhelming popular demand for devolution to states by the Federal Government. This would entail the transfer of items on the Exclusive Legislative List; some to Concurrent List and others to Residual List to enhance and localize the demand side of governance and make states more accountable to the electorate and thereby allowing the Federal Government to concentrate on regulatory functions and other national priorities.

    The committee observed that “a major issue with the Nigerian federation is the enormous exclusive legislative powers of the Federal Government with resultant over-centralisation of power and authority. It is generally believed that a further decentralization of some of these powers by devolving more [powers, authority and resources to the federating units will foster efficiency and sub-national responsiveness and local accountability.”

     

    Federating units:

    States were upheld by respondents as the federating units. The committee agreed with this view. But, it also articulated the view that the agitation for six geo-political zones or regions as federating units may gather more momentum in the future, if the cost of governance continues to rise.

     

    Form of governance:

    There were two opinions; preference for the continuity of the presidential system and return to the parliamentary system. Majority opinion favoured presidential system. The two points raised against presidential system are corruption and high cost of governance. There is no evidence to show that the parliamentary system is not assailed by these vices. In recommending the continuation of presidential system at the federal and state levels, the committee said the two issues of corruption and high cost of governance should be addressed.

     

    Independent candidacy:

    Although the majority of respondents were opposed to independent candidacy, the committee still recommended it for the purpose of widening the political space. Instructively, the National Assembly has approved it as part of the constitution amendment and its awaiting its adoption by the Houses of Assembly. However, according to the report, “it is necessary to introduce strong eligibility criteria and process checks to prevent abuse by attention-seeking candidates who will demand their inclusion on the ballot papers and thereafter use it to create crisis in the electoral process. It is necessary and important to ensure that INEC is not inundated and overwhelmed by a large number of independent candidates, some of whom may be unserious.”

    The committee said the constition should be amended to accommodate the novel proposition. Thus, Sections 65(2), 106(d), 131 (c), 142 (1) 176 ©, and 187 of the constitution will have to be amended to provide for independent candidacy. Also, Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 will have to be amended to provide strong eligibility criteria, which must be met by persons wishing to contest as independent candidates.

    Four criteria were suggested by the panel: the person should not belong to any registered political party at least six months before the elections he intends to contest; his nominators must not belong to any party; the candidate must deposit to INEC the same range as the non-refundable deposit fee payable by candidates sponsored by parties, which amount should be determined by an Act of the National Assembly, and the candidate must also meet other qualification requirements provided by the constitution and any other law.

     

    Land tenure system:

    There is a consensus of opinion on the removal of the Land Use Act from the constitution. The committee, nevertheless, recommended that “Land Use Act should be retained in the constitution in the greater interest of national security and the protection of Nigeria’s arable land from international land grabbers. The wisdom of their suggestion is debatable.

     

    Local government autonomy:

    More people were opposed to local government autonomy than those in support. Sixty seven per cent of respondents opposed it while 33 per cent was in support of it. The only exception is the Northcentral and the FCT where there is noticeable stronger support for it. The opposition is overwhelming in Northeast, Northwest and Southwest. The public understanding of the true meaning of true federalism is found to be inadequate, as underscored by their attitude to council autonomy.

    In its recommendation, the committee stated: “The demand for local government autonomy is as a result of the alleged interference in the management of the monies allocated to LGAs from the Federation Account. There are widespread allegations of diversion of these funds by state governments to the detriment of effective performance and service delivery by local councils. However, as brought out in some memoranda, local governments cannot be federating units under the principles of federalism, thereby making the whole notion of direct allocation to LGAs from the Federaion Account an aberration.

    “In conformity with conventional principles of federalism, LGAs should be no more than administrative units of states as otherwise would make them become third their federating units. In view of these and in line with empirical findings during consultations, the committee recommends that LGA should be removed from the federal constitution and states be allowed to develop a local administrative system that is relevant and peculiar to each respective state.”

     

    Power sharing and rotation:

    The committee recommended that “the complexity of power sharing and rotation be managed at the party level rather than it being provided for in the constitution or have a dedicated law. This suggestion, as noted by the panel, is consistent with the position of the APC.

     

    Resource control:

    The exercise of control by states over their natural resources and payment of taxes on them to the Federal Government was recommended. If the recommendation is accepted, then, there will be need to amend the Petroleum Act, LFN 2004; Nigerians Minerals and Minig Act, 2007; Section 12(1) of the Land Use Act and Petroleum Profit Tax Act, 2007.

     

    Type of legislature:

    The committee favoured a full-time bi-cameral legislature due to the reason of balanced representation and work load of parliamentarians.

    States realignment and boundary adjustment:

    This issue was considered very important to achieve better ethno-cultural homogeneity which the creation of states and local governments by military fiat failed to consider. For example, the Okun people in six local governments in Kogi-Ijumu (100 per cent Yoruba), Kabba/Bunu (100 per cent Yoruba), Yagba East (100 per cent Yoruba), Yagba West (100 per cent Yoruba), Mopa Amuro (100 per cent Yoruba) and Lokoja (75 per cent Yoruba) are strongly advocating a return to the Southwest geo-political zone. Also, the Association of Middle Belt Ethnic Nationalities (ASOMBEN) has advocated that a portion of Kaduna State (proposed as Guara State) should be moved from the Northwest to the Northcentral zone. The committee recommended that these requests for the choice of preferred states within the context of constitutional guarantees of freedom of association should be granted.

     

    Provision for referendum:

    The committee recommended that there should be constitutional provision for referendum to allow members of the public to decide major political decisions and as a tool for popular participation.

     

  • Restructuring: Jonathan, Dickson demand sincere implementation of APC recommendations

    Restructuring: Jonathan, Dickson demand sincere implementation of APC recommendations

    Former President Goodluck Jonathan and Bayelsa State Governor, Seriake Dickson, on Thursday challenged the All Progressives Congress (APC) to sincerely implement its committee’s recommendations on restructuring.

    Dickson led a high-powered delegation of Ijaw leaders to Jonathan to deliberate on the recommendations in Otuoke, Ogbia local government area of the state.

    Jonathan, Dickson and the top Ijaw leaders urged President Muhammadu Buhari and the leadership of the APC to enforce its recommendations.

    They insisted that a holistic and sincere implementation of the recommendations of the report on restructuring would encourage inter- ethnic harmony and development in the country.

    A statement issued by the Special Adviser to Governor Dickson on Media Relations, Mr. Fidelis Soriwei, quoted Jonathan as saying that the issues were exhaustively treated during the 2014 National Conference.

    He said the sincere enforcement of the conference outcome would definitely move the nation forward.

    The ex- President said it was a good idea that the APC was able to set up a committee to look into the same grey areas which featured prominently in the deliberations of the 2014 conference.

    Jonathan commended Dickson for playing the leadership role of coordinating the thoughts of the Ijaw people on the sensitive issue of restructuring.

    He said the governor must be appreciated for ensuring that the Ijaw Nation did not speak with discordant tones on the issue of restructuring.

    He stressed that he was pleased that Dickson was performing the leadership role by coordinating the Ijaw Nation on the topical issue.

    He said: “I am pleased with the caliber of people who came with the Governor to brief me on the recommendations of the APC committee on restructuring.

    “I must say that I am happy with the role being played by the Governor on this issue of restructuring. Ethnic nationalities must not speak with discordant tones on such pertinent issues. I am pleased that Dickson is coordinating the Ijaw Nation.

    “I am also pleased that the APC set up a committee to look into the grey areas to come up with these recommendations. When we were in government, we came up with a confab and several issues were addressed which if sincerely implemented would encourage relationship in the country. A sincere implementation of the recommendations on these grey areas will make the country to move forward.”

    In his remarks, Dickson said he led the delegation of the Ijaw leaders to the former President to a consultation and brief him on the steps the Ijaws had taken to build bridges of understanding in the pursuits of equity in the country.

  • APC report on restructuring will stoke onshore/offshore dichotomy – Mimiko

    APC report on restructuring will stoke onshore/offshore dichotomy – Mimiko

    Former Governor of Ondo State, Dr. Olusegun Mimiko, said on Thursday the report of the All Progressives Congress (APC) committee on restructuring would stoke the already resolved dichotomy on onshore/offshore oil production revenue.

    Mimiko stated this in his lecture at the 2018 Yoruba Youth Assembly Lecture with the theme: “National Development, Restructuring and the Yoruba,” held in Ibadan, Oyo State.

    The former governor said that while it is commendable that the report endorsed the resource control principle, it has brought back the sensitive and controversial onshore/offshore dichotomy issue.

    “While I agree that the fears of all part of the country must be allayed as regards resource control, it is important to note that every part of our land is well resource endowed. With the recent advances in power storage technology in batteries and progressively reducing cost of renewables, we must be constantly reminded that fossil fuel will soon become truly fossil,” he said.

    Mimiko expressed his lack of confidence in the APC’s commitment to restructuring with President Muhammadu Buhari’s stand in his New Year message that it is the process of governance in Nigeria rather than the structure that requires some tinkering.

    He added: “Rather than waste useful time tinkering with process, the appropriate thing to do is a wholesale review of the nature of the structure, such that it is reconfigured to be able to deliver on its mandate. That the President’s political party, APC, came out very quickly to attempt a reformulation of the President’s proposition is needless, as it is doubtful if the party is in a position to veto the President of the nation.

    “That President Buhari made his statement despite the bold and unequivocal commitment of the APC manifesto to restructuring is also indicative of the questionable pattern in which the party swept its way into office some three years ago. APC can, in the circumstances, safely be accused of promising what it never intended to do.”