By KENNY ASHAKA
POLITICIANS are at it again. Just like the struggle for a Sovereign National Conference by the defunct National Democratic Coalition, NADECO, they have taken the dispute over the need to restructure the Nigerian federation to the verge of conflict, hoping to force government to make concession. Since last month when former Vice President Atiku Abubakar fired the shot by calling on government to restructure the Nigerian federation to cater for the aspirations of its component units, it has been strategic risk-taking by politicians and academics.
Pressure groups are not left out in the brinkmanship over the need to restructure the nation. To speak on the issue is now like a rule sanctified by tradition and there is the division of groups into mutually antagonistic factions. The struggle, as it is, seems to be between the “moderates” and the “hardliners.” And over-reliance on the literal interpretations of the nation’s laws and the will to coerce others who think otherwise might be afoot. At the center of the controversy are the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference.
The pre-1999 struggle for restructuring
Before the recent and persistent demand for restructuring, however, there have been angry demands for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference, promoted by the defunct National Democratic Coalition, NADECO, headed by late Chief Anthony Enahoro. Enahoro, on his return to Nigeria from a four-year forced exile said the political dispensation then under late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha and the 1999 Constitution were foisted on the nation by past military regimes and that made it imperative for the country to start dialogue on some fundamental issues dividing it. “A country at the turbulent cross-roads of its existence such as ours has no viable option but to find radical, innovative solution to its problems. We must not fear radicalism or radical ideas,” Enahoro had stated in year 2000.
The foremost nationalist was not done. He gave more impetus to the call for a Sovereign National Conference which gained ground before his arrival because of the introduction of Sharia law in some parts of the North. He also made a case for a confederal system of government, insisting that the need to hold the conference to address issues concerning all ethnic nationalities across the country was ripe. “I intend to warn the nation that one of these days, it will dawn on us that we have got to answer the national question. I think we have just reached there now. I didn’t know it will be so soon, but we are there now. We can no longer run away from it,” the NADECO leader had said.
More than 15 years after, however, the restructuring of the Nigerian federation remains a fleeting illusion. But indeed, the recent voices on the need for restructuring appears to have vindicated the late sage. But then, some personalities like Tam David West, professor of virology and former minister of petroleum believed that holding a Sovereign National Conference was too serious a matter to be left in the hands of representatives. He preferred a National Conference which decisions could be put to the electorates in a referendum. That position was also canvassed by former President Olusegun Obasanjo following the political crisis over Sharia law in the North, which snowballed, into agitation for a confederation.
Obasanjo gave a tacit backing to the convocation of a national conference to examine pertinent issues confronting the nation when it was obvious that the agitation for a confederation was gaining momentum in the south. Like David-West, he was against the holding of a Sovereign National Conference. His argument was that the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference would mean the dissolution of elected governments as well as the legislature across the country with the Sovereign National Conference holding the supreme power. In spite of all the exciting showiness, it was just designed to be impressive.
The 2014 National Conference position on federalism
Former President Goodluck Jonathan inaugurated the 2014 National Conference on the 17th of March, 2014 in Abuja. About 492 delegates represented a cross-section of Nigerians, including the professional bodies. Headed by Chief Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, the conference lasted for weeks. It broke into 20 committees that included Public Finance, Political Restructuring and Forms of Government and Revenue, among others. After five months of national restructuring debate at the National Judicial Institute, NJI in Abuja, the National Conference produced its draft final report of the 20 committees set up during the conference.
In the conference report under political restructuring and forms of government, the conference agreed that “Federalism denotes a political arrangement in which a country is made up of component parts otherwise called federating units,” and that “in a Federation, political powers are constitutionally shared between the central government and the federating units.”
It took a look at the advantages inherent in a federal system of government in a heterogeneous society such as Nigeria and identified the sustenance of unity in diversity, expanded opportunities for various people, including minority groups, to participate in the governance of the country. The conference was also not unmindful of the minimization of the fears of marginalization among minority groups. What is more, the conference recognized the promotion of a broad-based development as one of the benefits of federalism.
Consequently, it recommended the retention of a federal system of government, the core element of which shall be a Federal (central) Government with states as federating units. The groundswell of the conference recommendation in the area of federalism is that “without prejudice to States constituting the federating units, States that wish to merge may do so in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), provided that:
(a) A two-third majority of all members in each of the Houses of Assembly of each of the States in which such merger is proposed, support by resolution the merger.
(b) A referendum is conducted in each of the State proposing to merge with 75 percent of eligible voters in each of those States approving the merger.
(c) The National Assembly by resolution, passed by a simple majority of membership, approves the merger and
(d) States that decide to merge shall also have the right to demerge following the same procedure and processes for merger.
The conference did not foreclose the issue of a Regional government, saying instead that each State that is regionally based should create a self-funding Zonal Commission to promote economic development, good governance, equity and security in accordance with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). It also did a test, determined by the forms and content of government fit for Nigeria, using the Presidential and parliamentary systems of government as indicators. To arrive at a fair assessment for the purpose of choosing which system that will best serve Nigeria and Nigerians, the conference assigned qualities to the entrenchment of the principle of separation of powers for the presidential system and the promotion of cooperation and harmony between the Executive and Legislature for the parliamentary system of government. The verdict is a homemade model of government that effectively combines the aforementioned qualities of the presidential and parliamentary systems of government, code-named Modified Presidential System.
The Modified Presidential system recommended is a new and inventive idea, which stipulates that the president shall select not more than 18 Ministers from the six geo-political zones and not more than 30 percent of his Ministers from outside the Legislature.
It also recommended the Nigerian Charter for National Reconciliation and Integration, aimed at encouraging inclusiveness and the need to build a fully integrated nation. The conference expressed concern that since the post-independence political upheavals, which ended the terms of nationhood entered into by the nation’s founding fathers, “the diverse ethnic nationalities of Nigeria have never had ample opportunities to formally express their consent to co-exist as one nation.” But while the conference resolved in their recommendation that “Nigerians will live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God,” it also suggested as worthy of being accepted “the right to self-determination by the States as federating units,” and that “such rights be extended to ethnic nationalities within the States.” “States shall have their respective Constitution,” and “there shall be revenue sharing formula established by law in every State.”
The fall-outs
Now, rather than reassure, these recommendations seem to have further stoked politicians and academics. The situation is now getting precarious, making the political choice of former President Jonathan more dangerous. It has become a high stake gamble for many, going by the different opinions on the nation’s sovereignty in recent times.
The issue of restructuring the nation seems to be overshadowing talks on the economic hardship Nigerians are going through, the anti-corruption fight and the plethora of problems confronting Nigerians. It is also causing distraught among those who participated in the conference and the expression of enthusiasm generated by the President during electioneering last year is fading. President Muhammadu Buhari perhaps believes that “double speak” is all that is to diplomacy or so it seems. Hear him: “I advised against the issue of the National Conference. Teachers were on strike then. I have not bothered to read it (conference report) or ask for briefing on it and I want it to go to the so-called archives,” he emphatically declared in interviews to mark his one-year in office. But it was the President, during electioneering who promised to look into the report and implement the good aspects of it that would help move the country forward. Last Wednesday, however, Buhari sent words to the militants in the Niger Delta region that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. The statement was seen as an indirect response to Prof. Wole Soyinka’s recent position on the sovereignty question. The APC also spoke in the same vein one week later when its Chairman, Chief John Odigie Oyegun stated that the party was not interested in the restructuring of the country for now because there were “more important priorities such as rebuilding the economy, creating jobs and ensuring the security of lives and properties.”
Soyinka stokes the debate
Early this month, Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka joined the fray by calling for the restructuring of the Nigerian federation. To Soyinka, the nation’s sovereignty is negotiable. Like Atiku, he said the decentralization of the nation would ensure healthy rivalry among the component units. He knocked past leaders for their non-negotiable stance and added that their stand is diametrically opposed to development. “I am on the side of those who say that we must do everything to avoid disintegration. That language I understand. I don’t understand Obasanjo’s language. I don’t understand Buhari’s language and all their predecessors saying the sovereignty of this nation is non-negotiable. It’s bloody well negotiable and we had better negotiate it. We better negotiate it, not even at meetings, not at conferences, but every day in our conduct towards one another,” Soyinka said.
Atiku’s teaser
Also last month, former Vice President and Chieftain of the All Progressives Congress, APC opened up vistas of expansion into the almost forgotten issue of the need for the restructuring of the Nigerian federation when he launched a blistering salvo that provided the spark of interest on the subject matter. According to him, the structure of the country is heavily defective, as it does not provide the enabling environment for growth and progress among the 36 component states of the federation.
The former vice president spoke against the backdrop of renewed agitations by militants in the oil-rich Niger Delta and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). He recalled how Nigeria once operated a federal system at independence that allowed the regions to retain their autonomy, raise and retain revenues, promote development, and conduct their affairs as they saw fit, while engaging in healthy competition with others. “Agitations by many right-thinking Nigerians call for a restructuring and renewal of our federation to make it less centralised, less suffocating and less dictatorial in the affairs of our country’s constituent units and localities. As some of you may know, I have for a long time advocated the need to restructure our federation. Our current structure and the practices it has encouraged have been a major impediment to the economic and political development of our country. In short, it has not served Nigeria well, and at the risk of reproach it has not served my part of the country, the North, well.
“The call for restructuring is even more relevant today in the light of the governance and economic challenges facing us. And the rising tide of agitation of some militants requires a reset in our relationships as a united nation. Some may say that we are saddled with more urgent challenges, including rebuilding our battered economy, creating jobs, fighting corruption and securing our people from terrorism and other forms of serious crimes. I believe, however, that addressing the flaws in our federation will help us address some of those very economic and security challenges facing this country.
“Nigeria must remain a united country. Our potential is enormous. But I also believe that a united country, which I think most Nigerians desire, should never be taken for granted or taken as evidence that Nigerians are content with the current structure of the federation. Making that mistake might set us on the path of losing the country we love or, as Chido Onumah puts it, result in our ‘country sleepwalking to disaster. Let me quickly acknowledge that no federal system is set for all time. There are always tensions arising from matters relating to the sharing of power, resources and responsibilities. But established democracies have developed peaceful mechanisms for resolving such conflicts among the tiers of government. They recognise that negotiations and compromises are eternal,” the former Vice-President submitted at a book launch on “We are all Biafrans”, written by Chido Onumah in Abuja last month.
Mixed reactions trail sovereignty question
Nevertheless, the issue of restructuring of the nation is currently dominating public and private discussions. The issue is topical because it is perceived as holding the key to national development and integration.
Expectedly, not all Nigerians perceived the opinion of Soyinka as the correct position on Nigeria’s sovereignty. To many, it is a revision of the legacy of our heroes past. Former governor of old Kaduna State, Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa took the first shot at Soyinka, saying the sovereignty of Nigeria is non-negotiable, and that Nigerians who are calling for such divisive action have hidden ethnic agenda, and not the interest of the whole country at heart. “Anybody who wants to break Nigeria, let him take up arms against the rest of Nigeria. We have to say this because it has gone too far. It is political. It is not good to say it, but it has to be said. Anybody who is insisting on break up of Nigeria, let him take arms and fight Nigerians and get what he wants if he can because he is fighting against the whole interest of Nigeria for his own sake,” he submitted.
Notable Nigerians, including Second Republic Vice President, Alex Ekwueme, Yoruba leader, Ayo Adebanjo, former Minister of Information, Jerry Gana and former Governors of Anambra State, Chukwuemeka Ezeife and Peter Obi last month also asked President Buhari to commence the immediate implementation of the National Conference report. They argued analogously that the implementation will address the myriads of problems confronting the nation, noting that the current protests and demands for separation by various groups in the country and other socio-economic crisis could be reduced if the report is considered and implemented.
Specifically, Ekwueme said the six zones structure he recommended was the result of a deep reflection on how to solve Nigeria’s problems and that the zones have taken care of minorities in the south and north. Entitled “Still in search of true Federalism,” Ekwueme who spoke at the 17th Annual Convention of the Igbo Youth Movement headed by Evangelist Elliot Ukoh at the Nike Lake Hotel in Enugu said what Nigeria negotiated for and agreed with the colonial masters before independence was regional government where each had a constitution which were annexed to the Republican Constitution of 1963.
According to him, the Republican Constitution provided 50 percent revenue sharing formula for the regions, 30 percent to a distributable pool and 20 percent to the center. “There is need for us to return to the basics from what we inherited from our founding fathers,” he posited.
But it was Adebanjo who traced the origin of true federalism in Nigeria to the pre and post colonial constitutional conferences while insisting that Nigeria must be restricted to correcting the “humongous damage done to the nation’s constitution by the military.” He said the various acts of uprising like those of the Niger Delta Avengers, MASSOB and IPOB would cease if that is done. Gana agreed, adding that the founding fathers were right by agreeing to a federal structure which he described as the best structure to guarantee peace, equity and justice.
Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Most Rev. Mathew Hassan Kukah who spoke to journalists ahead of the Fixing Nigeria Initiative event in Abuja contended that the resolutions inherent in the Conference report were sacrosanct in engendering a sustainable and peaceful nation devoid of rancor and therefore could not be dismissed or thrown away to the garbage hip of history. Kukah who was the Co-Secretary of the National Conference took time to explain the imperatives of the 2014 National Conference, arguing that “the President cannot throw it away; archives are archives.”
Yet, Abubakar Tsav, former Lagos State Police Commissioner’s thought is that there is no need for restructuring. Rather, he advocated for the consolidation of our togetherness. To Tsav, restructuring the Nigerian federation would amount to balkanisation of the system. “Other nations of the world have always regarded Nigeria as the biggest black country in the world. The moment we start restructuring, it means we will give every component of this country autonomy and we will not be as united as we were before the restructuring. Not only that, the revelations coming out in this country shows that we are too corrupt, too selfish, too power-drunk that I don’t think restructuring will help us but will rather break us apart and that may also invite ethnic war in this country,” he pointed out.
The lack of prospects of a restructured Nigeria in the face of government’s dismissal of the conference recommendations has made some groups to become uncomfortable. Prominent among them is the Yoruba Unity Forum, YUF. The Forum is of the opinion that a return to the regional government such as it was in the pre-independence era and early post-independence era is the way forward for the country to move out of quagmire. The group believes that true federalism that many people have been clamouring for, might be a mirage if the country does not return to regional system of government. The system, they said, would reduce cost of governance, bring efficiency, allow each region to grow at its own pace and have distinctive characteristics.
Bishop Emmanuel Bolanle Gbonigi, Chairman and Leader of the Forum said Nigeria cannot continue to live on borrowed times, hence the need to restructure the country is even greater now. “We are dismayed that almost all the states are unable to pay salaries and pensions to civil servants as at when due. Worse still is the fact that the allocation coming to states are insufficient to pay just salaries and pension alone. These are indications that many of the states as currently constituted are unviable and may be failing. All revenues accruing to states cannot be dedicated solely to the payment of salaries and pensions, given that civil servants constitute less than five per cent of the population in the states.
“The bailout granted states by the Federal Government was meant to pay salary and pension arrears and has not fundamentally altered the revenue profile of the states. Certainly, we cannot continue to live on borrowed times. The need to restructure Nigeria is even greater now.” To Senator Mojisoluwa Akinfenwa, restructuring Nigeria is the final solution to the problems of the country. “If we all remember, during Chief Obafemi Awolowo as Premier of Western Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sarduanna Sokoto as Premier of Northern Region and Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, as Premier of Eastern Region, there were three regions and each region marched according to its own pace. That was the reason the Western Region embarked on pace setting projects in the country, which are first in Africa. We have Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), which is the first television in Africa. The Cocoa House is the first in Nigeria. The Liberty Stadium is also there. The projects were possible because we were progressing at our own pace,” he said.
At a meeting recently by Yoruba and Ijaw leaders, the issue was one of the topics. At the meeting were Chiefs Ayo Adebanjo and Albert Horsfall, who led the Yoruba and Ijaw delegations respectively, Chief Thompson Okorotie, Chairman, Bayelsa Elders Forum; Chief Francis Doakpola, Justice Tabai, Gen. Alani Akinrinade (retd), Comrade Joseph Evah, Mr. Wale Oshun, Mr. Yinka Odumakin and Prof. Banji Akintoye among others. They all thumped up for a restructuring of Nigeria.
However, former National Publicity Secretary of Arewa Consultative Forum ( ACF ), and spokesman of Northern Delegates for the 2014 National Confab, Anthony Sani said the clamour for a restructuring of the nation was uncalled for , saying the nation’s problem is not about restructuring, but the collapse of moral values among Nigerians. “There is nothing universally accepted as ‘true federalism.’ And that is why there are no two countries with federal systems that are self-same or clones of one another. All federal systems depend on circumstances of their emergence. For example, thirteen American colonies came together and formed U S A and evolved to be what America is today, while in the case of Nigeria the national government has created the federating units. But the common mantra in all federal systems is a national government that is strong enough to keep the country under one roof but not too strong as to tilt the country into unitary system.”
In his own intervention, outspoken ACF leader and APC chieftain, Senator JKN Waku said the latest proponents of restructuring were only being selfish. His words: “My own stand is that Nigeria’s sovereignty is not negotiable. These people that are just waking up calling for restructuring are not patriots. They are enemies of Nigeria. They are saboteurs. These people are hypocrites. Atiku Abubakar, the former Vice-President who started the renewed calls for restructuring is a political prostitute. He is a hypocrite. He started this agitation for restructuring not out of any patriotic love for Nigeria but in order to satisfy his political ambition. But before I come back to Atiku, let me state reasons why I declare that Nigeria’s sovereignty is not negotiable.
We have been staying together as one nation since over 100 years ago when amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates took place under Lord Lugard. Then as an independent country, Nigeria is now about 55 years old. What are we now talking about? Those calling for restructuring are indirectly calling for a break-up of the country or a return to the era of regionalism, but we have gone beyond those stages.
What we should be talking about now is those things that will unite us more, and preserve the bond that has existed over the years among the various groups. The call for restructuring is unnecessary. Those who have grievances can channel their discontentment, and protests to the authorities through their elected representatives that are in the National Assembly.”
For now, both sides of the arguments appear to have taken their firm positions. The picture of who wins surely lies in the belle of time.