Nigeria is operating what experts have described as a unitary system of government, which is falsely labelled a federal system. In recent times, some ethnic groups have been complaining of marginalisation and clamouring for a proper federal system that will guarantee equity, fairness and justice. Assistant Editor LEKE SALAUDEEN examines the implications of the warped arrangement for national stability and development.
The structure of the Nigerian federalism can be traced to 1914 when the Northern and Southern protectorates were amalgamated: Power shared between the Central Government headed by the Governor-General and the governments of the two protectorates headed by the Lieutenant Governors. Thus, the evolution of federalism started with the existence and recognition of the two autonomous parts of the Northern and Southern provinces.
The division of the country into three regions by the Governor of Nigeria, Sir Arthur Richards under the 1946 Constitution, laid the foundation for the emergence of Nigeria as a federal state. The Macpherson Constitution of 1951 gave further concrete support because the constitution made provision for the appointment of lieutenant –governors to head the three regions; it granted legislative power to the legislative and executive councils that were established.
The Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 removed the final shade of a unitary system of government from Nigeria by establishing a true federal state by sharing powers between the central and the regional governments. To avoid constitutional conflicts that might arise between the central and regional governments, a supreme court was established to handle such conflict.
With the approach of independence, power over the regions was transmitted to Nigerian-born citizens, and regional legislatures were established. By the time Nigeria became a republican state in 1963, the office of President was created to replace Governor-General, a national bicameral parliament was established and the country became a federation of three regions. The Mid-West Region was carved out from the Western Region in 1963. Lagos, the Federal Capital was effectively governed outside the bounds of the Western Region.
The founding fathers were desirous of a system of government that would neutralize the political threats and accommodate the divergent interest of the various ethno-cultural groups. This desire eventually found expression in the federal system of government.
Analysts observe that the practice of federalism which allowed the regions to develop at their pace, had changed with the advent of the 1979 and 1999 constitutions. According to them, the system is being practiced in an awkward manner which has raised the question of whether Nigeria is operating true federal system.
A political scientist, Dr Peter Odion, said before a country can be categorised as operating true federalism, the following criteria must be observed: “There must be at least two levels of governments and there must be constitutional division of powers among the levels of governments. Each level of government must be coordinate and independent. Each level of government must be financially independent as this will afford each tier of government to perform their functions without depending or appealing to others for financial assistance. There must be Supreme Court of independent judiciary to resolve conflict over power sharing. In terms of the amendment of the constitution, no tier of government should have undue power over the amendment process.” He maintained that, once a country is able to satisfy these conditions, such country will be able to practice true federalism.
The late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, in his book “Thoughts on Nigerian Constitution” stated: From our study of the constitutional evolution of all the countries of the world, two things stand out clearly and prominently. First in any country where there are divergences of language and of nationality-particularly of language, a unitary constitution is always a source of bitterness and hostility on the part of linguistic or national minority groups.
“On the other hand, as soon as a federal constitution is introduced in which each linguistic or national group is recognised and accorded regional autonomy, any bitterness and hostility against the constitutional arrangement must disappear.
“Secondly, a federal constitution is usually a more or less dead letter in any country which lacks any of the factors conducive to federalism.” From the analysis made by Awolowo, the following principles can be deducted: If a country is bilingual or multi-lingual like Nigeria, the constituent state must be organised on linguistic basis. Any experiment with a unitary constitution in a bilingual or multi-lingual or multi-national country must fail, in the long run.
Despite the introduction of federalism since the British left, Nigeria political system has been characterised by series of instability and backwardness. Apolitical scientist, Dr Luke Archibong believes Nigeria operates federal system on paper because the federal structures are not in existence in the country.
Archibong blamed the distortion in Nigerian federalism on the military. He said ever since the military intervention in government, the federal government has always assumed superiority over the state government. “Military federalism had been more prevalent than civilian federalism. This model made the federal government the master in relation to the dependant state governments.
Archibong added: “At independence, largely autonomous regions possessed the residual powers in the federation and functioned almost independently. The regions had independent revenue bases, separate constitutions, foreign missions and the primary and secondary education were under the residual list while the university education was under the concurrent list.
“All these changed under military rule. Attempts by the state governments to reassert their autonomy during the second republic were aborted by the return of military rule. Some states that were controlled by the opposition parties took the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) controlled federal government to court on many occasions over matter of jurisdiction competence. This trend also reoccurred in the present dispensation when the former governor of Lagos State, Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu took the federal government to court over the creation of new local governments in the state.
“This act, where the federal government sees itself as superior to the state governments, does not make federalism work in Nigeria. Federalism is an arrangement whereby powers within a multi-national country are shared between a central authority and a number of regional governments in such a way that each unit, including the central government exist as a government separately and independently from one another. In other words, each government exist, not as an appendage of another government but as an autonomous entity in the sense of being able to exercise its own will on the conduct of its affairs free from direction by any government. Thus, the federal government and the state governments are autonomous in their respective spheres. However, this autonomous entity has never been found in Nigerian federalism and has continued to hamper the political stability in the country.”
A political analyst, Dr Ahmed Farouk, agreed that federalism does not work in Nigeria. He cited lack of financial autonomy for state governments as minus for true federalism. Farouk noted that financial autonomy has never been achieved in Nigerian federalism. According to him, the high level of intervention of the federal government through national financial policies, grant-in-aids among others increases the power of the federal government and makes the federating units subordinate to the central government.
Farouk observed that the increased revenue from oil boom has made the federal government to be more financially powerful over the state governments than before. As a result, the federal government embarks on some projects which were meant to be in the state residual list. For example the federal government has taken over primary and secondary education through universal basic education project. Similarly, the increased revenue from oil enabled the federal government to give financial support to the state governments that belong to the ruling party while the opposition states are starved of funds. It happened under former President Goodluck Jonathan regime when he released ecological funds to only states controlled by the PDP. The opposition states hardly received any form of financial support or assistance from the centre, he stated.
The analyst said the issue of resource control which was usurped by the military has contributed to ineffectiveness of federalism in Nigeria. According to him, Nigeria has witnessed and is likely to witness more ethnic crisis especially in Niger Delta region, if the states are not granted the right to rule and control their resources.
Farouk recalled that the discriminatory policy or usurpation of states resource control by the central government was carried out by the General Yakubu Gowon administration as an expedient measure to execute the 1967-1970 civil war. Since then the Niger Delta states have been reduced to beggars with cap in hand pleading for their rightful share of the resources.
A Niger Delta activist, Comrade Thomas Umukoro said there will be no peace in the region until the Federal government allow states to control their resources. “No amount of amnesty will restore peace in the Niger Delta except the federal government completely hands off from the control of the Niger Delta resources.
Umukoro said resource is not a new concept in Nigerian federalism. He said: “In the First Republic, regions were allowed to control resources in their jurisdiction and paid taxes to the Federal Government. I can’t understand why we can’t revert to that system now that we are in democracy. A return to resource control is the much needed panacea to Nigeria’s present state of arrested development that would at the same time offer relief to impoverished and degraded peoples of the oil producing communities”.
On the contentious issue of revenue allocation, elder statesman, Alhaji Femi Okunnu, said the sharing formula is lopsided in favour of the Federal Government. He said: “We are not ready to face the historical truth about the basis of revenue allocation; the reason why in the colonial era, and until 1979, why the Federal Government was assigned only 20 per cent of the revenue allocation, instead of the 54 per cent the Federal Government now takes for running the central government.
“We are not fair to the oil producing states. The retention of the 13 per cent of the profit from the sales of petroleum and agricultural products to state of origin under the 1999 Constitution is grossly unfair to the states of origin of minerals and agricultural products.”
The legal luminary cited Section 134 (1) of the 1960 Constitution that stipulated that: “There shall be paid by the Federation to each region a sum equal to 50 per cent of the proceeds of any royalty received by the federation, in respect of any mineral extracted in that region and any mining rents derived by the federation during that year from within that region.
Okunnu said the 1960 Constitution further provided that, “the federation shall credit to the Distributable Pool Account, a sum equal to 30 per cent of the proceeds of any royalty received by the federation, in respect of the mineral extraction in any region and any mining rights derived by the federation from any region.”
The former Federal Works Commissioner explained that the remaining 20 per cent was kept by the Federal Government as its own share. He recalled that, under the colonial administration, the revenue allocation was fashioned in such a way that regions would derive revenue from the Federation Account according to the functions and powers, which the region would carry out under the Constitution.
Okunnu said: “Before independence, the colonial government, with the consent of the regional of the regional governments, appointed the Fiscal Commission to look into the functions and powers of the legislative list and determine the percentage of revenue the regional government will need to carry out their functions and the percentage that will go to the Federal Government; to determine how much the Federal Government would spend to service its own functions. That was how government at independence up to Murtala/Obasanjo era followed the fixed constitutional formula of 20 per cent to the Federal Government; 50 per cent to state of origin and the remaining 30 per cent to the distributive pool to be shared among the regions or states.”
A lawyer, Mr Chuks Ikeazor, is of the opinion that federalism cannot work in Nigeria under the present arrangement whereby local governments are viewed as part of the federating units in the 1999 Constitution. He said it is against the spirit of true federalism. He said in all countries where federalism is practiced that local governments are not considered a federating unit. It is the responsibility of state governments to create local government and decide the type of local government it wants for the people, he said.
The lawyer blamed the contradiction within the system on what he described as legacy of the military rule. “It was the practice of the military to create local governments and even states. The military went into a frenzy of proliferation of the local governments, and even took on itself the burden of its funding just as it was funding the states from the Federation Account. The military passed on this legacy in 1999 to the civilian government.
Why are Nigerians rooting for true federalism? The agitation for true federalism is on the rise. Notable Nigerians among others are calling for adoption of the 1963 Constitution which they described as the best for federalism to work perfectly in Nigeria.
All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, has said true federalism in the country will correct power imbalance in the country. He said the imbalance between the roles of federal and state governments lies at the root of our difficulties.
His words: “We need to re-balance the duties of the federal and state governments. The quest to correct the imbalance is the essence of federalism that I have advocated for so many years. Due tour particular political history and its military legacy, the quality of our federalism and the quality of our democracy are intertwined. The more we repair federalism, the more we improve democracy.”
Tinubu added: “Federalism denotes a division of labour between the federal and state governments that functions to maximise the benefits of governance to the people. True federalism is that brand which provides that the federal government should focus on those few but essential things only that it can provide such as foreign policy, defence, and national economic policy. All other matters should be left to the states. If there is doubt over a particular issue, the presumption should be that the states, not the federal government, should take the lead.”
Former External Affairs Minister Professor Bolaji Akinyemi said the constitution made provisions for the concretisation of competitive federalism. According to him, there were 44 items on the Exclusive Legislative List and 28 on the Concurrent.
Akinyemi pointed out that each region had its own constitution, its own coat of arms and its agent-general in London. Besides, each region allowed its local government authorites to have its own local police force. He said the Independence Constitution was the best compromise possible under the prevailing circumstance and compared it with the 1999 Constitution in terms of the legislative lists.
