Most of the commentaries on the recent spat between the Lagos and Anambra state governments over the so called deportation of Ndigbo, in my humble view missed the most essential challenge at stake. The worst of the comments concentrated on whipping up ethnic tensions, without sparing a thought for facts and the consequences. Others in service of their misplaced interests sought to impugn the integrity of either of the distinguished governors of the two states, in most cases, leaving the substance, and chasing shadows just to impress their perceived group or parochial interests. Very few of the renowned commentators, if any, spared a whiff of concern for the person of the urban poor, and his or her faith or rights in our inhuman capitalist economy.
But the challenge posed by the urban poor is likely to get worse, and Lagos with its status as the most economically viable city in Nigeria will have to brace up for more of the crisis, as Nigerians from all parts converge here for economic liberation. The defenders of the policy to prove that the issue is not a case of ethnic segregation, argues that similar repatriation of the urban poor has taken place within the south-western states, specifically to Oyo State, and also to Kwara and Kano states in the northern parts of the country. The antagonists of this policy choose to ignore those facts and rather prefer to argue that the policy shows that the government of Lagos State has an axe to grind with Ndigbo. To counter this apparently false claim of bias against Ndigbo by Governor Fashola’s administration, the names of Igbo sons and daughters holding prominent positions in Lagos State are touted; as if the appointees have accepted to take in the 14 urban poor, left to their faith at the Onitsha head bridge.
In my view, the real challenge in this drama is the dilemma faced by the urban poor; and also the governments of cities, such as Lagos or even Onitsha, as they strive to strike a balance between protecting the constitutional rights and privileges of the urban poor and maintaining the expected public decency and security for the comfort of the majority of the people living and plying their trade in those cities. In the entire mix, one thing is, however, constant; and that is, that the essence of the famed social contract in governance is to strive to lift as many people as possible out of poverty, as well as to ensure the security of lives and property of the people living within the sphere of influence of the government concerned. As expected of any modern society, it is also very important to make the process of dealing with those challenges predictable and humane, through transparent rules and regulations.
In the instant case of the repatriated 14 urban poor, an examination of the duties and responsibilities of the government of a state to a citizen/resident/indigene and the rights and privileges of an indigent or destitute citizen/resident/indigene are the fair grounds to determine the appropriateness or otherwise of the actions or inactions of the parties in the circumstance. In my humble view, generally speaking, under the laws of Nigeria, particularly the provisions of the 1999 Constitution on fundamental human rights, the rights and privileges of a Nigerian citizen living in Nigeria, cannot be impugned by the circumstances of his state of origin or economic status. Unfortunately, that is the law, as the practice is substantially different. Conversely, a state has an ample rights and prerogatives under the constitution to make extant laws and regulations to guide those who may choose to reside or ply a trade within the state.
The challenge for the governors is how to manage the convolution between our constitution and our national reality. For while there is no citizen of Lagos or Anambra state, but citizen of Nigeria, under the constitution; there is the recognition of a state of origin, but without a definition of the aborigines or methods of legally becoming citizens of such states, in the constitution. The palpable confusion in the constitution is also manifested for instance when the constitution allows any Nigerian resident of a state to context the highest office within the state, but throws up serious confusion when in sharing some federal political offices, it segregates as it envisages only the aborigines for such named federal appointments. Thus, when an indigent Igbo or talakawa Hausa or hinterland Yoruba invade Lagos in search of a better life, the administrators of the state are torn between which sides of the inherent two faced goddess that the 1999 Constitution is, to worship.
This invitation to constitutional idolatry is made worse by the economic crises of our modern times. It is also worsened by the deliberate dissonance between the federal and state administrations; heightened by an obtrusive federal power, which does all in its power to make the states economically powerless and dependent. So at great cost, Lagos State with its peculiar challenges for instance is forced by the Federal Government, to always go to court to gain what ordinarily should be its standard economic right, were our constitution to be truly federal in character and content. And so the state of excellence after such individual battles to grow its economy, feels further let down when it has to take the pains of managing the fallout of the developmental challenges of its indigent indigenes and those of other states in the country. Unfortunately, for the urban poor, there is no Mother Theresa in this part of the world, populated by strange capitalists in a strange country without any form of social security, or even diverse viable economic centres.
