Nigeria will continue to wallow in political distress, if it does not embrace true federalism and adopt a constitution that emanates from the people, Prof. Nsongurua Udombana has said.
Udombana, a professor of International Law, Babcok University Ilisan Remo, Ogun State, was the lead speaker at the United Action for Change (UAC) public lecture on “Constitutional Restructuring: An Exercise in Perpetuity?” He said the 1999 Constitution remains an illegitimate conclusion as it lacks collective consensus of Nigerians.
He said since government is in continuum, the President Muhammadu Buhari administration should not jetisson the resolutions of the 2014 National Conference which according to him, contains revised and acceptable approaches to solving the nation’s woes in the collective interest of all.
“The 1999 Constitution is an adulterated version of the 1979 Constitution, written in secrecy by Professor A. Yadudu for General Abdulslami Abubakar who decreed it into existence in 1999. It has the imprint of authoritarianism written all over it, with no consideration to the genuine desires of the Nigerian people.
“There was not even the civility of a Constituent Assembly, let alone a referendum, thereby making the “We the people” in the preamble a lie and fraud. It is an illegitimate document and will remain so notwithstanding the number of amendments that it had been subjected to.
“We should never confuse validity of a constitution with its legitimacy. Validity addresses the question of legality. Decree 24 of 1999 took care of that, which is why the Constitution is justiciable before Nigerian courts. However, legitimacy addresses the question of acceptability, which is a function of the conscious or deliberate participation of the people in the Constitution’s making process,” said Udombana.
Chairman of the lecture, Dr Muiz Banire said efforts to achieve a constitutional restructure have failed since the the 1957 Constitutional conferences that ushered in the independence of the nation.
He said: “The situation in the country, as volatile as it is, has definitely called for wise measures that can guarantee peace and harmony without having to fragment into unviable structures where life may become more nasty and brutish than it was in the days ofThomas Hobbes”.
Meanwhile, Senator Musiliu Obanikoro, reacting to the question of nationality said being a Nigerian should not deemphasize people’s respective ethnicities. “That I’m a Yoruba man should not belittle the fact that I’m also a Nigerian. Don’t let us bring conflict into the two and misappropriate priorities. Elevation of injustice caused ethnic nationality to be an issue.”
Tag: true federalism
-
Nigeria can’t survive without true federalism, says Don
-
Our Girls; No ‘change’ in rejecting True Federalism again!; Nigeria in the ‘Solar Century’
Our Girls are still missing since April 15, 2014. Are Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) being properly catered for?
True federalism seems to be a call to arms in Nigeria, but should unite, not divide us as we work to move the country to a level of equality, opportunity and maximum development! The power of the federal government to draw us back was again demonstrated before the last election when indigenes of states were given federal political positions to empower them to destabilise their own states run by ‘opposition parties’. That is False Federalism. Countries evolve. Nigeria should too! Look at the UK and its recent democracy issues in the last one month with the BREXIT and a disappointed PM Cameron’s humorous and non-bitter departing from power! No one country stands still to the advantage of only a few!
God did not create this False Federalism. Military ‘man’ did starting with Ironsi and military men make mistakes often to the advantage of some, not the many. Armies are not democratic. Everyone in central government fights to keep their personal power under ‘current federalism’ exemplified by the Vice President Professor Osinbajo and cannot trigger true democracy, just as salaries will never be reduced for National Assembly (NASS) by NASS members! Military unitarian, centrist government may have helped save Nigeria during wartime, but now it is the opportunistic cause of the ongoing destruction of Nigeria and the destruction of legitimate aspirations of hundred+ millions. This spinoff of the unitary military government imprinted on a democracy as a ‘constitution’ is an aberration. It exists nowhere else and it has failed the majority of Nigerians, except a few tenacious elite, and it will fail us forever, enriching a few, until we ‘change’ it or die trying. Amendments to a bad militarist Abacha constitution cannot be the same as new constitution written by citizens free of military and ethnic oppression. Will a new constitution happen?
That change from a FALSE FEDERALISM, self-centred, greedy centralism to true multi-pronged TRUE FEDERALISM, is possible but appears elusive, destroying the stage for the great leap forward towards becoming a GREAT AND THEN EVEN GREATER NIGERIA. True federalism can come during the Buhari regime but so far there is no ‘change’ in the fairly repetitive ‘rejecting True Federalism again and again’!
For 50+ years Nigerians, mostly honest folk trying to get by in a corrupt society, have been made peaceful by swallowing an ELIXIR OF LOYALTY TO NIGERIA through the psychological trap of National Anthem and Pledge, leading to a miserable existence, in a country placing 150th + in every positive international index and top of every negative index like corruption. The ‘good’ elders weep at our lost glory and lost potential they worked for only to be thrown away by political greed! Only those in active power or retired have been exempt from this tragedy because they stole ‘legally and illegally’ for themselves, their unborn progeny with blood-stained corruption treating the treasury as personal and political party property. Has this systematic federal and state treasury looting by the incumbent party stopped temporarily under ‘The Fear of Buhari’? If so, for how long?
Do Nigerians in authority swallow some other ELIXIR OF DISLOYALTY TO NIGERIA which ensures they cheat Nigeria with perpetual pensions, undeserved salaries for life, plots of land, cars and servants for life? Strangely, the poor Nigerian citizens always fail to fight for rapidly broken promises of politicians who actually use the national anthem and pledge to cajole the citizens into becoming beggars and even Internally Displaced Persons–refugees- in their own country, begging. Why has a good 21st Century existence constantly eluded most Nigerians, their children and now their grandchildren who die mentally in rubbish schools, on rubbish roads and in rubbish hospitals and are denied pensions and salaries while all politicians get paid promptly and seek life pensions and perks and salaries for a few years work sometimes also getting governor and NASS salaries and pensions together monthly.
While tackling Nigeria’s massive corruption, this ‘change’ government should introduce the ‘change’ needed to achieve ‘True Federalism’ and institute measures to save us politically, economically and morally from the years of ethnic authoritarianism and any future abuse of ‘Federal Might’. The sending of morally bereft indigenes masquerading as ministers from Abuja to destroy their home states is STATE TERRORISM. It must be documented as a low point in federal government/ state political relations and taught in political science lessons. The negative interface between federal and ‘political party state’ was Machiavellian mischief of false federalism and a disaster for Nigeria. True federalism ‘change’ is more than finance and can accompany current fiscal and agricultural reforms. ‘Change’ can dismantle a false federation. Long Live a True Federal Nigeria- if and when it happens!
Nigeria must re-strategise and bypass all pipeline projects, only useable in peacetime, and redraw its plans for wartime survival. When war is ‘declared’ on Nigeria, Nigeria may talk but also must take evasive action especially in ‘POWER SUPPLY’. We also face the murderous Fulani–Farmers War and may boycott ‘blood meat’!
Nigeria must decentralise electric power towards on-and-off grid ‘LOCAL POWER SUPPLY SOURCES’. Someone tried to tell Nigeria it has the wrong sun for solar power and should stick with oil, gas and generators. There is only one sun shining, offering every Nigerian God’s gift. We use solar to dry food and clothes. Now let us use ‘Nigeria for Solar Power!
-
Constitutional hurdles against true federalism
There have been calls for true federalism, a euphemism for the country’s restructuring. How can this be achieved? Through Constitution amendment or a referendum? What are the legal hurdles? ROBERT EGBE sought lawyers’ views.
Calls for true federalism are not new.
But recent economic and security challenges have given filip to demands by some groups for the country to radically re-align its geo-political structure.Unlike in the past, the calls do not appear to be resonating from any particular region or socio-political divide.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar renewed the call at the launch of We Are All Biafrans, a book by a journalist and scholar, Chido Onumah, in Abuja.
He said: “The call for restructuring is even more relevant today in light of the governance and economic challenges facing us. And the rising tide of agitations, some militant and violent, require a reset in our relationships as a united nation. Nigeria is not working as well as it should, and part of the reason is the poor way we have structured our economy and governance, especially since 1960.”
He added that the country required “a smaller, leaner Federal Government with reduced responsibilities”.
A few days later at events to mark the 23rd anniversary of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, the dominant theme was restructuring Nigeria.
From Lagos State Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, who urged the country to install a viable federal structure, to Rear Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu (rtd) and Chief Ayo Opadokun, convener of the Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER) – all expressed similar sentiments.
Former Vice President Alex Ekwueme, Chief Ayo Adebanjo and Prof. Jerry Gana, among others, also vigorously canvassed restructuring at the 17th Annual Convention of the Igbo Youth Movement, held same day in Enugu.
On the theme of the convention, “Still in Search of True Federalism,” Ekwueme said during his incarceration in 1984 at the Kirikiri Prisons by the military, he came up with the idea of six geo-political zonal structures.This he pushed for at a national conference much later.
What is restructuring?
According to Longman Contemporary English Dictionary 2014 Edition, the word ‘restructure’ is defined as: “To change the way in which something such as a government, business, or system is organised.”
While there is widespread acceptance of a need for an urgent solution, there appears to be no uniformity as to what restructuring or true federalism means for Nigerians.
A lawyer and Political Science lecturer at the Nasarawa State University, Associate Prof. Jideofor Adibe, observed that Nigerians have various things in mind when they talk of restructuring – “as they do when they talk of ‘Resource Control’ or National Conference.”
He said: “Depending on the speaker, restructuring could mean anything from minor constitutional amendments to greater devolution of powers to states and local governments. It could also mean a reconstitution of the country such that the six geopolitical zones will replace the current state system.
“The ambiguity over what we precisely mean by ‘restructuring’ has been one of the reasons why the term excites some anxieties and concerns among those opposed to it – even though technically speaking, restructuring has been taking place throughout our political history such as when we change the formula for revenue allocation among the three tiers of government.
“Some have sought to complicate the conceptual ambiguity over the word ‘restructuring’ by advocating for ‘true federalism’ – when in fact there is nothing like that concept. The truth is that every federation is unique.”
Chief Felix Fagbohungbe (SAN) viewed restructuring from the point of a fair system that caters to the legitimate needs of the various peoples of Nigeria.
“If the country is well restructured, we’ll be talking of a system whereby no group will benefit at the expense of others,” he added.
‘Problem’ of the Constitution
and referendum
Any move to solve the Nigerian problem will have to contend with the Constitutional role of the National Assembly (NASS) as the custodian of the legislative powers of the federation.
Part 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 vests the legislative powers of the federation in the National Assembly. Thus, Section 4(1) and (2) provides:
“The legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be vested in a National Assembly for the Federation, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
“The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.”
Thus, the NASS has regularly opposed attempts to water down its exclusive right to exercise this power on behalf of Nigerians, insisting that the laws can be amended to reflect Nigerians’ desires.
Last Friday, Senate President Bukola Saraki kicked off a two-day retreat in Lagos organised by the Senate Ad hoc Committee on Constitution Review, with the theme: “Towards ensuring governance accountability in Nigerian federalism.’’
He emphasised the “inviolability of the Constitution and its integrity” with regard to legislative powers of the NASS.
Saraki said: “This National Assembly is seeking to further consolidate and entrench the essence of our Constitution as the only basis for the exercise of all powers under a constitutional democracy forged under the rule of law.”
The Senate’s position is meritorious in many respects, because some of the items on the list of proponents of restructuring or true federalism are obtainable by constitutional amendment.
They include revenue allocation in favour of states, equity in the principle of derivation, state police, reduction in this list of the items on Exclusive List to enable states to have a greater leverage and creation of local governments by the states among others.
Former Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) president Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) suggested that the Federal Government and the NASS could implement “critical” “economic and other policies” that could quickly solve some of the country’s troubles.
He said: “There are several important critical nuggets of economic and other policy that must be made or taken by the Government of Nigeria, very quickly. The first is peace and stability. Nigeria is at low grade civil war caused by structural defects in our Federal system. The President must address this as a matter of urgency by announcing a new balanced Federation. The process is very simple. All the president has to do is to present a bill to the National Assembly for the devolution of certain powers from the centre to the state and local governments.
“Related to the problem of a fractured structure of Nigeria is the issue of insecurity. While the government has done well in containing Boko Haram, many other issues create instability and impede economic investments. The President must deal with Biafra agitations, which in my view are genuine grievances. The President must deal also with exclusion felt by the people of Niger Delta, who in my view have genuine reasons to feel aggrieved. The President must deal with mass poverty in the North, because it allows the festering of fundamentalism in the region. Boko Haram in the North is caused in part by underlying issues of hunger and poverty.”
However, it has also been argued that whatever the Federal Government and NASS do within the current framework may not be good enough.
NASS not the solution
Fagbohungbe said the clamour for restructuring is because “the current system is not working well, it’s not well operated”.
He added: “It may have been good for a while but as it is, it hasn’t produced the desired result or met the expectations of Nigerians. The restructuring can be carried out through a Sovereign National Conference and the constitution can be amended to make a provision for referendum. Thereafter any decision taken at the National Conference can be subjected to a referendum and the result will be the decision of the entire country, so everybody will be able to really vote for it.”
Head of Department, Jurisprudence and International Law, University of Lagos (UNILAG), Dr. Adedayo Ayoade, agreed that although the Nigerian Federation does not seem to be “really working”, restructuring requires careful planning.
Ayoade said: “The danger, I think, is that if we’re not very careful the restructuring we are hoping for might end up creating more problems than what we have now, because there’s a reason why all these states were carved out of the three regions.
“Personally, I’m keen on a leaner federation, where bigger semi-regions create their own wealth and they are big enough to survive, not having so many governors and so many ministers and other people spending money.
“One thing I think our politicians are not saying, which I think is important, is that they’ve not really asked the Nigerian public, ‘what do you want?’ We’ve had politicians with their special interests and their cronies telling us what we should want. Is it not time perhaps for a referendum for the Nigerian people to be asked, ‘Do you want this country restructured?’ Don’t forget that many minorities are afraid of being dominated by the majority ethnic groups.”
A referendum, the don added, could be organised despite that the law does not provide for it.
“It doesn’t mean that because the Constitution does not provide for it, we cannot organise a referendum. The Constitution is a living document. Does it mean because the Constitution does not provide for it we should allow the country to collapse? Didn’t we all witness how the problem of Vice President Goodluck Jonathan succeeding the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was solved with a Doctrine of Necessity? So, maybe there’s a doctrine of necessity that says this country is in trouble, therefore, let the people be asked, ‘what do you want?” Ayoade said.
Lagos-based lawyer Mr. Jiti Ogunye said the NASS’s attempts at solving the problem through constitutional amendments may not be far-reaching enough.
He said: “It won’t have a fundamental effect. What we need is a fundamental remaking of the constitution and why we say that is this: I listen to some of them (lawmakers) speak and it’s obvious to me that none of them would be willing to legislate out of existence their respective states, for example, or to cut down the number of local governments, and so on and so forth. So, they won’t make such fundamental changes.
“Nigeria is the size of California or Texas and between 1979 and now we atomised states such that we now have 36 fledgling states that cannot even pay salaries. What do we need to do about this? The reality of our situation now is that we either restructure, we either return to a manageable set of federating states or we collapse. We cannot continue like this. It’s obvious to me, it’s obvious to them. These kinds of retreats and amendments can only go thus far, it cannot address fundamental issues.”
Ogunye added that the country had to retrace its steps to “what our founding fathers and the British left for us and survive or we continue to pretend that we’re amending a unitary constitution which we’re passing off a federal constitution, and then we perish, both politically and economically. The state will run bankrupt and we’ll no longer be able to meet our obligations.”
He suggested the setting up of a sovereign national conference or a constituent assembly that will be democratically constituted all over the country, based on the real component units of Nigeria “to discuss everything under the Nigerian sun including the National Assembly”.
Ogunye said: “Then they can do the job of crafting a new constitution that will determine whether we need a National Assembly or a unicameral legislature, or the number of senatorial districts that will be required, etc. In the meantime, the current National Assembly can continue to carry out its day to day legislative business until the national conference finishes its job and comes out with a brand new constitution, subject to a referendum and promulgation.”
He also agreed that another Doctrine of Necessity might be necessary.
“The Nigerian state is facing one of its greatest crises ever and some people are pussyfooting whether Doctrine of Necessity is legal or not, saying they are the legislature, they are the ones to amend the constitution. The legal framework will mean that, the current National Assembly will enact a legislation that will give the national conference a legal backing and ensure it comes into existence. If we continue to insist on the legality of the status quo, that means we are just crazy people.
“The will of the people is the basis of governance. That is sovereignty. The constitution does not pretend not to realise that sovereignty belongs to the people from whom the legitimacy to govern emanates. So, if you have a process that recognises that sovereignty and allows the people to exercise that sovereignty to make a constitution for themselves truly, such that the constitution that we’ll have can now rightly say ‘we the people of Nigeria decided to give ourselves a constitution, unlike this one which tells a lie about itself,” Ogunye said.
-
June 12: Ambode, others demand true federalism
Abiola should be confirmed president, says family
Kanu, Opadokun stress restructuring
The 23rd anniversary of the June 12, 1993 presidential election won by the late business mogul, Bashorun Moshood Abiola, was yesterday marked in Lagos, Ogun, Osun and Ondo states.
The governments of Oyo and Osun states declared today a public holiday to commemorate Nigeria’s fairest and freest ever.
Abiola, a billionaire accountant and publisher, won a pan-Nigerian mandate on the platform of his Social Democratic Party (SDP), beating Bashir Tofa, the Kano-born businessman, who ran on the ticket of the National Republican Convention (NRC).
The two parties were the creation of the Gen. Ibrahim Babangida military regime, which supervised the election. But the government annulled the results, leading to a national crisis. Abiola, who declared himself president, was arrested. He died in detention in 1998.
In Lagos, there were at least three activities.
The Abiola family called on the Federal Government to declare him the winner of the election and pay presidential entitlements to his family.
The head of the family Alhaji Muritala Abiola, made the demand at the commemoration event in Abeokuta, organised by the Ogun State government.
“First, we want the Federal Government to declare June 12 as Democracy Day. It should do even more than that.
“Ken Saro Wiwa died fighting over Ogoni oil spillage, the Federal Government is doing the cleaning up of the oil spillage in Ogoni land.
“MKO was killed because of an election he won; it is you journalists or the government calling him acclaimed winner.
“ He is not acclaimed winner, they should confirm him as the slain president of Nigeria,” he said
Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola described June 12 as the real Democracy Day, saying May 29, which is marked as Democracy Day, is only a symbol of the transfer of power from the military to civilians.
Lagos State Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, one-time Military Governor of Lagos Rear Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu and Convener of the Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER) Mr Ayo Opadokun, called for the restructuring of the country as a “true federation”.
Ambode, who was represented by Secretary to the State Government Tunji Bello, said: “Going by what we have today, we still have a long way to go, and that is to say that we are not practising true federalism. What we owe Nigeria today is nothing but true Federalism and for us to be able to achieve true federalism, we have to work hard for it.
”Lagos, as it is today, has everything to stand on its own. We run the police, we have the most viable infrastructure in the country, yet we are not given what we deserve. Look at the number of local governments we have, if we run true federalism we would not be having 37 Local Council Development Areas and 20 Local Governments. We should be able to create the number of local governments that we desire.”
Ambode said it was imperative to ensure that some of the things that the country has gained since return to democracy is not wasted; one of which is to install a viable federal structure, through which the memory of the late Abiola will continue to guide and abide with us.
Kanu said: “We are at this time struggling to build and we may still have the chance to build the country but it is a dwindling chance. Whatever is happening now in the country, either militancy, Independent People of Biafra and others will not stop until we go back to the Nigeria that we are expected to build; a federal Nigeria.
“We should be prepared. Prayer will not solve the problem. We have to get back to a federal Nigeria. If not, we should be prepared because what we are seeing is just a child’s play. I have not lost faith in the country’s old anthem- Nigeria we hail thee”
Opadokun said the country won’t get out of the wood until it restructures this “skewed, warped, lopsided national structure; we will continue to grope in the dark. We will never find our bearing until we restructure the country.”
At another event, prominent Nigerians urged Nigerians to keep the dream of June 12 alive.
Guest lecturer and human rights activist, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) said the role of the media in pushing for a better Nigeria is huge.
“The restructuring called for by Atiku Abubakar will not lead the country to anywhere because it will only amount to the transfer of power from Abuja to the state governments.
“That means transferring power without responsibilities. You will recall that nobody debates the budget of states. The governors are so powerful and would move against those who wish to stand between them and their plans. No President can do that in Abuja,” he said.
Publisher Ray Ekpu put the blame of the problems facing the country on former Military President Ibrahim Babangida and Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar.
“They brought a man and showed him to Nigerians, but the man initially objected, but he later accepted and became Nigeria’s President.
“President Olusegun Obasanjo also gave Nigeria the late Umaru Yar’Adua and President Goodluck Jonathan. Nigerians have not actually elected their own President; it has always been tele-guided”
Ekpu urged the government to look into the reports of the 2014 National Conference, stressing that it was the most comprehensive paper that addresses the problems facing the country.
“People have told President Muhammadu Buhari not to look into the reports. They don’t even know what it contains, as far as I am concerned, the reports are the best for Nigeria.
“The Avengers in the Nigeria Delta have done colossal damage to the economy, what they are simply saying is that they have not been fairly treated. Though, the method is condemnable. We have to look at the restructuring issues very seriously,” he said.
Pro-democracy activists also had a solemn evet at the late Abiola’s residence in Ikeja. They called for the restructuring of the polity.
The activists had a prayer session at the late politician’s tomb and laid some wreaths.
The late Abiola’s son, Alhaji Jamiu Abiola, who said he believes that President Muhammadu Buhari will eventually recognise his father as the winner of the election and accord him all the rights and privileges as a former President.
The young Abiola said Nigeria is like a country standing on a quicksand, because it does not stand on the truth. He said: “This country cannot move forward, because it does not stand on the truth; any country that does not stand on the truth cannot move forward.”
Among those at the ceremony were Mr. Wale Okunniyi, Mr. Debo Adeniran, Mr. Chido Onumah, Dr. Chris Nwaokobia, Mike Ozekhome, Dr. Tunji Abayomi and Alhaji Shettima Yerima.
-
Gbonigi, others call for true federalism
•Yoruba group urges Southwest states to ban grazing
LEADERS of a socio-cultural group, Yoruba Unity Forum (YUF), have called for the country’s restructuring to reflect true federalism.
Addressing a news conference on the state of the nation at the Premier Hotel, Ibadan yesterday, the group, led by Rt. Rev. Emmanuel Bolanle Gbonigi, urged President Muhammadu Buhari to implement the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference.
Senator Mojisoluwa Akinfenwa, Senator Femi Okunrounmu, Prof. Tunde Adeniran, Bishop Ayo Ladigbolu, former Lagos State Deputy governor Chief Kofowola Akerele-Bucknor , Chief Olabisi Sangodoyin, Dr. Kunle Olajide and many others attended the event.
The forum advised the President to put together “a strong team of patriotic economists to help navigate through the country’s economic challenges”.
It said the activities of armed Fulani herdsmen in the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria constituted threat to national security.
According to the group, the attitude of the Federal Government and the security agencies in confronting the “criminals who roam the streets of Nigeria with automatic weapons in broad daylight send mixed signals and may compel citizens to take necessary measures to defend themselves”.
“We are very unhappy that the President has remained silent even in the face of the heinous crimes committed by this group such as the Agatu massacre in Benue State and the Enugu massacre, just to mention a few,”the forum leader said.
Gbonigi maintained that the President must publicly condemn the atrocities being committed by the herdsmen with the passion he had shown with lesser crimes.
appointment shows that the Northwest, which is the President zone has 26 positions or 44 per cent of all appointments made by the President so far, Northeast has nine positions or 15 per cent, Northcentral has six positions or 10per cent, Southwest has seven positions or 11. 8 per cent, Southsouth has eight positions or 13.56per cent and the Southeast three positions or five per cent.
“This brings the total for the North to 41 positions or 69.5per centand the South is left with 18 positions or 30.5per cent.”
On the economy, the YUF leader noted that the economy in the last one has continued to perform dismally leading to contraction.
He added that inflation rate soared to 13.7 per cent in April from 12 percent a month earlier.
“The Foreign investors are fleeing our shores in droves. The production of crude oil, our major source of revenue, has collapsed from a projected 2.2million barrels per day to just about 1.4 million barrels per day due to Niger Delta militancy.
“Power generation level in the country has dropped to 2320 megawatts (mw) as compared to a previously attained high of over 4000mw. Our external reserves have dipped to below $27billion from about $32billion a year ago. These are dire statistics,” the group said.
But he hailedBuhari on the fight against corruption, calling on the National Assembly to amend the laws establishing the anti-graft bodies with a view to placing the agencies under the supervision of the judiciary due to constant abuse by the Executive.
-
‘True federalism’ and all that…
Last week, legal luminary and founder of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti (ABUAD), Aare Afe Babalola (SAN), made a case for confederation as a solution to Nigeria’s political and socio-economic problems. He made the case at the maiden edition of Diplomatic Dialougue, a programme organised by the university’s Department of International Relations and Diplomacy.
He had, he said, participated in three constitutional conferences in Nigeria and each time he came away convinced that, given its ethnic and religious composition, what the country needed was “a confederation or a loose federation, where each region will be allowed to grow at its own pace and contribute to the centre.”
This, he said, “has been the practice in the USA, Australia and Canada” whereas what we’ve had in Nigeria since the first military coup ended the First Republic and its regional arrangement in 1966, “is a central government where only one person determines what happens elsewhere.”
Nigeria, he concluded, now has six geo-political zones. They should, he said be “allowed to function as component parts and Nigeria will be good for it.” If the country had continued with its old regionalism, he argued, it would have developed even better than Malaysia, whose ambassador in Nigeria, Mr. Lim Juay Jin, was the guest speaker on the occasion. Malaysia, which started out poorer than Nigeria in the 60s, is today a middle income country.
Babalola’s advocacy of confederation is little, if at all, different from Dr. Arthur Nwankwo’s solution to Nigeria’s problems which, as I argued last week, was no solution at all in spite of the fact that structure, as I said, does matter in finding solutions to problems.
Perhaps the difference between Babalola and Nwankwo is that the high chief is not motivated by malice against any section of the country. But malice or no, the chief’s advocacy is popular among sections of the country that consider themselves “progressive.”
With due respect to the chief, there are at least three things wrong with his advocacy. First, it is not true, as he said, that the USA, Australia and Canada practise “loose federalism” or confederation. What they practise is federalism in which the component parts are autonomous but still defer to a strong centre whenever the two levels differ. The USA, which is the role model for the others, did start out as a confederation but it replaced it with the genuine article centuries ago after its experiment with the loose version collapsed.
Second, all three became federations by the coming together of its hitherto separate components. By contrast, our own genuine First Republic federation increased by division beginning with the first state creation on May 27, 1967 by our second military Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon.
Third, and related to the second, is historical revisionism, virtually all advocates of “true federalism,” which is the euphemism for confederation, are guilty of. The fact is that most of those asking us to return to the regionalism of the First Republic seem to have forgotten that they were either staunch advocates of breaking up the original three regions which became four in 1963 – so long, of course, as it was not their own region – or of the unification decree by our first military head of state, Maj-Gen. JTU Aguiyi-Ironsi, which abolished the regions.
Gen. Gowon’s creation of 12 states in May 1967 has its root in Decree 8, 1967 which he promulgated in March as his answer to demands by Lt-Col Odumegwu Ojukwu for the implementation of the Aburi Accord, named after the venue in Ghana of the meeting held on January 4 and 5, 1967, at the initiative of the country’s military authorities to stem the drift towards the country’s disintegration which began with the first coup in January 1966.
As a result of that decree, the title of the military head of state changed from Supreme Commander to Commander-in-Chief and his word seized to be law without the support of the regional governors on subjects like commerce, industry, transport, armed forces, police and higher education. In addition, military area commands were to be created as part of the accord.
Apparently as military governor of the most aggrieved Eastern Region at the time,Lt-Col. Ojukwu did not think these and other concessions were good enough. Not even when the secretary of his government, Mr. N. U. Akpan said the said decree in his view”faithfully implemented the Aburi decisions,” as Professor Jonas Elaigwu quoted in his 2009 “Gowon: A Scholarly Biography of a Soldier-Statesman.”
However, whereas Ojukwu did not accept Decree 8 ‘67 as good enough, virtually all the senior technocrats who were at theAburi talks condemned it as giving too much away against Nigeria’s interests. As the story is told by Mr. Eric Teniola, a Punch veteran, in his recent tribute to the late departed Oba of Benin, Omo N’oba N’Edo Uku Akpolokpolo Erediauwa (CFR), upon the return of the Nigerian team from Aburi, the Oba, then Prince Akenzua and Permanent Under –Secretary (Cabinet Office), discussed the accord with Gowon and told him that he and his colleagues objected to it as turning Nigeria into a confederation. These colleagues included Messrs. Yusuf Gobir, Phillip Asiodu, Eme Ebong, Allison Ayida and B. N. Okagbue.
Anyone interested in the resolution of the country’s political differences should read Teniola’s tribute to the Oba entitled “The memo of Akenzua on Aburi” published by, among other newspapers, Vanguard (May 3), The Guardian (May 4) and The Nation (May 5). For, it provided a useful historical insight into how Aburi came to be rejected by the Federal authorities and how eventually it lead to the first creation of states in the country.
According to Teniola, following the discussion between Gowon and Akenzua, the head of state asked him to write a memo on a way out of the Aburi predicament. That memo prompted Gowon to summon a meeting of secretaries of the military governments and other senior officials in Benin between February 16 and 18, 1967, chaired by Mr.H. A. Ejueyitchie, the secretary to the Federal Military Government.
The outcome of that meeting was the contentious Decree 8 ‘67 which the technocrats believed was a compromise between too much they said Gowon had given away at Aburi and the total implementation of accord which Ojukwu insisted he stood on.
In rejecting the decree, Ojukwu stood alone among his colleagues. And his rejection, along with other decisions he had taken like his seizure of some national assets in his region, led to the conclusion among the federal authorities that the man had made up his mind to crave his region into a sovereign nation.
Gowon’s state creation was partly his preemptive strike aimed at isolating Ojukwu. Contrary to the revisionism we have been subjected to all these decades, that move was widely acclaimed as wise. For, up until then giving minorities in each region their sub-regions was widely considered a solution to their agitations that had started even before Independence in 1960.
The North, in particular, was widely regarded as too big and too monolithic, vis-à-vis the other regions, for the country’s peace and stability. Its split into six states as against that of the West into two (Lagos and the rest of the West) and that of the East into Cross-River, Rivers and the rest of the East, leaving only Mid-West intact, was accepted as the answer to the long drawn agitation by minorities for their own sub-regions.
Everything has unintended consequences. Gowon’s 1967 creation of 12 states has led eventually to Nigeria becoming a federation of 36 states where the centre has been the one ceding power to its constituents rather than the other way round. This had led to the perception that the centre has become too powerful for the good of the country with its many nationalities and religions.This, in turn, has led to a widespread obsession with structure when we should be more concerned about the character of those we entrust with power.
Structures and systems, of course, do matter, as I’ve said last week on these pages. However, that the characters of leaders matter more should be obvious from the fact that the same long running dictatorships that produced prosperity in Malaysia and even more prosperity in neighbouring Singapore, produced only unimaginable poverty in many an African country. The difference was that one set of leaders was corrupt while the other possessed personal integrity.
Certainly a structure of autonomous regions like the putative six we have presently looks healthier than 36 states whose overheads alone leave little for development. But regions created by fiat rather than through evolution are unlikely to endure. In any case, talking about collapsing our states into six regions when demands for even more states have hardly abated is more or less wishful thinking.
Aare Babalola’s confederation has never worked anywhere. But even if Nigeria was to become the “true federalism” Nigeria’s self-styled “progressives’ talk so much about, it would take leaders with character to turn the country into Malaysia, never mind a United States.
This should be the main lesson of recent events in the country since the end of Peoples Democratic Party’s 16-year misrule of this country in May last year.
-
Will national conference restore true federalism?
Nigeria is at crossroads. It is beset with crises of nation-building and development, triggered by its refusal to confront the national question germane to its survival as a plural country. Will the national conference make a difference and restore true federalism? Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU examines the challenges before the 492 wise men.
Sixty seven years ago, the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, raised the national question. Which form of government would be suitable for the emerging country of heterogeneous peoples? he asked. The same fundamental question, which successive administrations have evaded, would confront the 492 delegates at the national conference, which is being inaugurated today by President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
There are indications that the conference will become a platform for the ventilation of political grievances. The conflicts of agenda and divergent views underscores the gravity of complaints, disaffection and dissatisfaction among the unequal and competing tribes under the lopsided federal arrangement. The agitations are two-fold: the scramble for federal power and disagreement over the sharing of the national revenue. Analysts have suggested that the non-resolution of these issues have led to identity crisis, dissention, feeling of marginalisation and fear of domination and cries of despondency among the reluctant component units that have failed to develop national outlook.
The agenda of the delegates underscores the gravity of the national question. Although they represents the states, they will mostly canvass regional viewpoints. Many contentious issues on the front burner at the conference are fiscal federalism, indigene/settler relationship, devolution of powers, regionalism and autonomy, security and state police, status of local government, state creation and boundary adjustment. Others are resource control and revenue allocation, zoning and rotation of the Presidency, single term tenure, and land use act, federal character, federal/state/local government relations.
In his book, ‘Path to Nigeria’s Freedom’, Awo, who reflected on the amalgam of incompatible, in-cohesive and antagonistic tribes forcefully lumped together by the first colonial governor, Lord Fredrick Lugard. “Nigeria is not a nation”, he wrote, stressing that “it is a mere geographical expression”. He observed that “all these incompatibilities among the various peoples in the country militate against unification”.
The book was published 13 years before the flag independence of 1960. In the view of the foremost nationalist, federalism was the answer. “A federal constitution is the only thing suitable for Nigeria. And for the sake of smooth and speedy progress, steps must be taken now to develop the various ethnical groups in the country along this line”, he said. Awo explained that only federalism could give birth to a situation whereby the diverse elements could progress at varying speeds towards a more closely integrated economic, social and political unity without sacrificing the principles and ideas inherent in their divergent ways of life. He also emphasised the importance of autonomy for the preservation of racial group identity and promotion of peculiar social, cultural and political interests.
“Experts can propound learned theories as to why people having different languages and cultural backgrounds are unable to live together under a democratic unitary constitution. But, the empirical facts of history are enough to guide us. It has been shown beyond all doubt that the best constitution for such diverse people is the federal constitution. This is exemplified by the constitution of Switzerland, which is acclaimed to be the best and most democratic in the world, since it gives complete autonomy to every racial group within the framework. The amended constitution of the USSR, wherein each republic becomes autonomous, is also an instance in point,” Awo stressed.
Many historians have pointed out that the practice of federalism has not been adequately explored. Although it did not adequately moderate the tempestuous relationship among the big three-Hausa/Fulani of the North, Yoruba of Southwest and Igbo of the Southeast-there was hope in the First Republic. Acrimonies and inter-tribal intrigues generally shaped the quest and competition among the tribal leaders for federal power, but the three, later four regions had a measure of autonomy in local matters. In that atmosphere of regionalism, there was healthy competition among the diverse nations cohabiting together in the larger nation-state.
A political scientist, Boniface Ayodele, noted that the “federal beat” stopped abruptly, following the displacement of legitimate authorities by soldiers. The military ruler foisted the unitary system on the supposedly federal country, igniting sporadic agitations for decentralisation and devolution of power. “What we now have and which is difficult for the leadership to reverse is the legacy of the military. This id the defective federal structure”, said Ayodele, who teaches political science at the Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti.
Almost 54 years after independence, federalism is still on trial in Nigeria. It has remained an elusive target, especially in post-military period. Efforts by the military to redesign the map and boundaries of the ethnic groups through state creation have led to more problems. The distribution of the states and local governments have generated anger because it is skewed, making the South to complain that it was aimed at confirming the dubious numerical claim by the North. In 1947, Awo had warned against creating new states without regard to ethnological factors. “The Yoruba of Ilorin, Offa and Kabba are included with the Hausas in the Northern Region. There is no justification for whatsoever for this arbitrary grouping. Certainly, these minority groups are at a considerate disadvantage when they are forced to be in the midst of other peoples who differ from them in language, culture and historical background,” he pointed out.
Former Afenifere Secretary Ayo Opadokun, who hails from Offa, is bitter at the creation of the state by the military without taking into consideration the linguistic parameters. “That is why the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi are asking for the adjustment of the boundaries so that they can join their kith and kin in the Southwest, especially in Osun and Ekiti states”, he said. Opadokun maintained that when diverse tribes are lumped together in a state, it will breed friction. “The Gwari people are now in Kaduna and Niger states. Some of them are also visible in Kaduna and the Federal Capital Territory. The Nupe People are in Niger and Kwara states. Why? The Igbominas are in Kwara. Their traditional headquater is Ila-Orangun. The Ekitis are in Kwara. Look at Ijaw people. They are found in Ondo, Delta, Bayelsa and Rivers states. They are minority in several states. It is an unkind and ungodly decision made by the military”, he added.
In 2005, one of the controversial issues that created tension at the Abuja Political Reforms Conference, apart from the third term, was resource control. Apparently, there is no controversy over revenue generation. The bulk of the national revenue is from oil from the Niger Delta. The bone of contention is the distribution of the wealth, which is typically referred to as the national cake. In 1999, the vertical allocation formula inherited by the civilian regime sparked off an agitations for review. Then, the distant Federal Government had 48.5 per cent, 36 state governments; 24 percent, 774 local governments; 20 per cent, ecology; two percent, stabilisation; 0.5 per cent, derivation; one per cent and oil minerals producing development company; three per cent.
The Pro-National Conference Organisation (PRONACO), which held an alternative conference in Lagos, kicked against the arrangement. The group proposed a new fiscal formula as follows: 50 per cent to the region of derivation, 15 per cent to the Federal Government, 35 per cent to be shared by all regions, 85 per cent Valued Added Tax (VAT) to be retained by the regions and 15 percent should go to the first-line charge account. Other stakeholders called for a drastic reduction in the proceeds accruable to the government. Since the economy is not diversified, the region producing oil, the main source of income, intensified its struggle for more earnings. The Abuja conference proposed 21 percent earning for the oil-producing states. But, the report did not see the light of the day. The existing distribution formula is still being contested by stakeholders. Their grievance is premised on the fear that the federal government has financially emasculated the 36 states and 774 councils. The formula, they maintained, is anti-federal in nature.
Many believe that the neglect of the core federal principle has contributed to the fragility of the nation-state. No doubt, the enlarged national question, which involves the division of the public sector functions and finances among the two tiers, has underscored the renewed debate on fiscal federalism and devolution powers. The All Progressives Congress (APC) Interim Chairman, Chief Bisi Akande, who dissected the federal structure, lamented that all is not well. “The peculiarities of the Nigerian landscape demand a creative search for answers to Nigeria’s unique challenges through federalism, “ he said.
Echoing him, a legal scholar, Prof. Itsey Sagay (SAN), said that only true federalism can avert the collapse of the country. He observed that the foundation of the country was faulty, adding that the mistake of amalgamation was responsible. Sagay pointed out that the basis for co-existence was neither defined nor mutually agreed upon by the natives. “Nigeria represents a classic condition for the operation of a very loose federation, “ he added. But, he contented that, since the Nigeria may not embrace conferalism, “true federalism is a condition precedent for the survival of the country as a voluntary union of nationalities and autonomous communities”. The late nationalist, Chief Anthony Enahoro, aptly shared this view. He posited that any form of unitary system harboured the danger of not giving maximum expression to the peculiarities that differentiate the groupings co-habiting involuntarily and without basic, unifying agreement on the terms of co-existence.
A political scientist, Prof. Dipo Kolawole, also studied some heterogeneous countries across the globe, including the United State, submitted that they are doing well because they are practicing federalism. In addition, he pointed out that two factors also accounted for their survival. “They are federal in nature. Apart from promoting participatory democracy, partici-pation in the federal arrangement is voluntary,” he added.
Kolawole, the former Vice Chancellor of Ekiti State University, observed that, the lopsided federal arrangement has driven Nigeria to monumental crises, which its weak foundation cannot withstand. “If the Nigerian project was perceived as unworkable from the onset, the form of government to sustain it had no foundation to rest on and therefore, was bound to be a still birth. The argument is that the mode of emergence of the Nigerian federalism constitutes an albatross on its effective workability as an instrument of good governance”, he stressed.
What is worrisome to many stakeholders is that the the agitation for restructuring has often been resisted by the government. Frontline lawyer and politician Chief Ayo Adebanjo, who lamented the resistance, said Nigeria has become a struggling unitary state retarded by its colonial heritage and havoc wrecked by long years of military rule. In fact, the activist cleric, Pastor Tunde Bakare, warned that the “fake union” risks disintegration, He said that Nigeria should return to the initial agreement at the constitutional formative stage in the fifties. “Government that is centralised is satanic and evil,” he said.
A delegate, Gen. Alani Akinrinade, who fought in the three-year civil war to keep Nigeria together, said that the agitation for self-determination by the ethnic groups, are not misplaced. He explained that they emanated from long years of disillusionment, anxiety, injustice, and rejection of the existing flawed system. A retired university don, Prof, Ropo Sekoni, said that federalism collapsed when the central government hijacked the responsibilities of the states and local governments, adding that the massive inflow of petrol-dollar also made the federal government to acquire more money and responsibilities which it has poorly or improperly performed at the expense of the coordinate units.
At a lecture in Lagos, former Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Prof. Adebayo Adedeji, warned that, when true federalism, which is the strength and consolation in a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic country is axed, the result is disaster. The consequence is that, “unity in diversity”, which is the consoling slogan of federalism, is unattainable. The climax of the abuse of power by the centre, as pointed out by Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), manifested in the overriding power of declaration of state of emergency, in accordance with the whims and caprices of the powerful head of government. “When Obasanjo, a military man became the civilian President, he conducted the affairs of the state as a soldier in utter insensitivity to the core principles of democracy and federalism, which should guide his steps”, he said. Flaying the military for the ‘nationalisation policy’, Sekoni, who observed that a virulent attack against the federal structure was consistent with Obasanjo’s antecedents, blamed the former military ruler for starting off the process of “deferating” Nigeria.
In his book: ‘How President Obasanjo subverted Nigeria’s federal system’, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN) stated that “the former President exercised supreme, absolute and all-encompassing power”, adding that he related to the governor as if they were his agents and subject to his direction. “His attitude towards the state governors as his subordinates, rather than as heads of autonomous governments; a carry-over from the days of his tenure as the Head of the Federal Military Government from 1976-79; is reflected in his insistence that governors must inform him, perhaps, even obtain his permission, before travelling abroad, implying a relationship of subordination, the subjection of the governors to his authority.”
He also objected to the attempt to make the states beggars by the federal government. Nwabueze said: “The mechanism for the disbursement to the state governments of the share of money due to them from the common pool of revenue, the Federation Account, as it is called, is so contrived by him as to force the governors and their officials to leave their various capitals and go physically, cap in hand, to the federal government at Abuja and hassle for it every month, a situation which creates in them an understandable docility towards the federal government as pay-master”.
Kolawole, who frowned at this, said: “Today, Nigeria is a federation of an excessively strong Central Government, supposedly partnered by ridiculously weak 36 states, with a Federal Capital Territory, supported by obviously ineffective 774 local governments. All the other 801 governments combined in Nigeria are weaker than the Central Government.
“In Nigerian Federation, Abuja dictates the pace and other governments slavishly acquiesced, thereby making a mockery of the purpose, essence and utility value of federalism as a vehicle of good governance for effective service delivery to the country.”.
A Southsouth leader, Chief Fred Agbeyegbe, condemned the federal/states power relations. “The tail (federal or centre) now wags the body (federating units or states). Even, where the states exercise legislative power, they have no enforcement machinery of their own, since the central police belongs to the federal government”, he said. The APC leader, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, shared this opinion. He said the centralised policing system is counter-productive. “It is useless giving governors the appellation of Chief Security Officers of the states when they lack the powers to ask the police command to rise to the challenge of maintaining law and order”.
Also lending his voice to the clamour for state police, a legal luminary, Kola Awodein (SAN), said: “A united central police organisation is still in place, making serious and effective policing difficult and almost impossible. The chain of control in the Nigeria Police Force today is too long and remote from the centre of operation, weakening discipline and resulting in an ineffective law enforcement process.
“The force is still poorly supported and poorly trained and motivated. Centralisation and unification have also resulted in significant delay in the administration of criminal justice. The Nigerian Police Force today is over-burdened as it is responsible for enforcing all federal, state and local government laws and regulations. This is in addition to its responsibility to investigate cases, prosecute offenders, control traffic and do other welfare activities. Little wonder that the Nigeria Police Force is more ineffective, insufficient and corrupt that it was more than 30 years ago.”
The analysis of the distributions of powers between the centre and regions at independence and later, between the federal and state governments in post-1966 showed that federalism has derailed in Nigeria. Sekoni pointed out that, in 1960, there were 45 items on the Exclusive List, while there were 29 on the Concurrent List. In 1979, federalism had already shown sign of strains. While the items on the Exclusive List had jumped from 45 to 66, those on the Concurrent List had only increased from 29to 30. Also, Agbeyegbe observed that, in the 1999 Constitution, which came into effect following the promulgation of Decree No. 24 of 1999, the Exclusive List, which the federal government could legislate upon, had increased to 68. “That means that the subject matter, which fell within the competence of the regions or states, have been hijacked. Even, the 30-item Concurrent List in that constitution gives unqualified precedence to the centre over the federating units. We are now ‘federal’ only in name”, he said.
But, is hope lost for true federalism in Nigeria? Sagay said: “Any constitution review should make the restoration of true federalism a cardinal objective”. Adebanjo said the contentious issues would be debated at the national conference. But, will the report see the light of the day? Will the conference restore true federalism?
-
Anyaoku calls for true federalism
Former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, yesterday called for the return to true federalism to achieve development.
Anyanko spoke at a lecture organised by the Torchbearer Society at the Archbishop Vining Memorial Church Cathedral, Ikeja, stressed the need to return the country to regional government.
The topic of the lecture was: God In My Life.
He said: “Our leaders have largely been responsible for the problems facing the country, by not embracing the call to foster true federalism, which should become a federation of six units, with each unit developing at its pace.”
Anyaoku said the present structure, which divides Nigeria into 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), is too expensive to maintain.
“Honestly, the resources at the disposal of the country will be overstretched in view of the fact that we have 36 states’ assemblies, 36 Judiciary, 36 police formations across the country, among others,” he said.
The former Commonwealth Secretary-General explained that when Nigeria practised true federalism in the 1960s, the country witnessed remarkable progress.
He said: “That was the period people like Chief Obafemi Awolowo gave us commerce and industry in the West; Sadauna of Sokoto developed the North with the money realised from groundnuts. The competition really assisted Nigeria to grow.”
Reflecting on where the problems of the country started, Anyaoku noted that the first military coup in 1966, put a wedge in the progress the country was making.
The subsequent military leaders, who took over governance, plundered the wealth of the country with impunity, Anyaoku said.
He added: “The origin of corruption in Nigeria started with the first military coup, which began the age of impunity; corruption thrives under successive military leadership that held the country down. Since then, the situation has not changed, as corruption has permeated all our national life with parents buying examination answers for their children.”
Explaining his role in fostering democracy in Africa, the former Commonwealth Secretary-General said he was instrumental to some multi-party democracies in several African countries.
Anyaoku said: “I approached many Heads of State and sold the idea of multi-party democracy. Some of them initially did not buy it, but having made them see the benefits of such exercise, they agreed.
“When I approached Kenneth Kauda of Zambia, he said the country would only embrace the idea, if the referendum supported it. This was done. In the election that later took place, the opposition, led by Federick Chiluba, won.”
He explained that his efforts in the current democratic dispensation in Nigeria took him several diplomatic moves.
Anyaoku said when the late General Sani Abacha staged a coup and the late Moshood Abiola was kept in detention, he persuaded the Head of State to return the mandate to Abiola, but the man was unyielding.