There is this worrying silence among Yoruba, in the South West. When this happens, it is a sign of reluctance to rock the boat, even when they disagree with the controversy. The last time there was such a remarkable silence was at the outbreak of Nigeria’s civil war in 1967. Chief Obafemi Awolowo, speaking for his group, publicly called on Yoruba to support the war, a bloody encounter, which was clearly an East-versus-North affair.
Substantially, among Yoruba, including those close to Awolowo, such support was muted but not publicly opposed. Indeed, they mostly maintained studied silence. Fifty years after the war, that controversy by Chief Awolowo has been impliedly re-opened by, ironically, his supporters with the agitation for Yoruba Nation; if that were so, why did they join the war to subdue Biafra? Do they realise that, in the demand for Yoruba Nation, they are exhibiting regret for their role in the prosecution of the war?There was not a single dissent against the call to support the war.
That mistake made in 1967 is being repeated today with the failure to speak out against the unwarranted claim by former President Olusegun Obasanjo that the oil in Niger Delta belongs to Nigeria. That in itself is an assault on the demand of South West for resource control. Therefor, on almost all grounds, Obasanjo is completely wrong. Accordingly, the first point to note is that Obasanjo’s bizarre theory on ownership of oil resource in Nigeria remains Obasanjo’s views against oil-producing parts in Nigeria, which on no account Yoruba will share.
On the introduction of federal form of government in Nigeria by the colonialists in 1953, fiscal/political arrangements were such that the main revenue earner in world market, cocoa, was produced only in the defunct western region, which at that time included Edo and Delta states. Accordingly, up to the outbreak of the civil war in 1967, cocoa provided abundant revenue for Western Region under the sharing formula of derivation and mere taxes paid to Tafawa Balewa’s federal government. If cocoa, as Nigeria’s main revenue earner, was considered property of Western Region, rather than Nigeria’s property, why, suddenly, should oil not remain property of oil-producing states?
By the way, two factors should be noted, which might have escaped the notice of the Nigerian modern-day oil grabbers. Niger Delta is not the only oil-rich part of Nigeria. There is, therefore, no special favour for Niger Delta. Bauchi and Chad Basin have also been described as oil-rich. Second, it is the right of Niger Delta and the defunct Western Region to enjoy the principle of derivation in sharing the oil revenue. It is the same fiscal setup in all oil-producing areas all over the world. Why must a lucky section of our country be made to foot the bill of Nigeria’s financial recklessness at both federal and state levels?
Even in unitary setups, principle of derivation operates, making the idea of assets belonging to the whole country a fallacy. It is also not tenable that Nigerian constitution provides for central usurpation of assets of states or regions. There was no such provision in Nigeria at independence in 1960 or on attainment of republican status in 1963, the resuscitation of which is currently a popular agitation. How then was the constitution manipulated to incorporate all these obnoxious sections? Misguided elite and inordinately ambitious politicians exploited the confusion of the civil war crisis, mixed with the ignorance or at least limited awareness of soldiers, on the eventual implications of their grandiose delusion of nationalisation, purported mobilisation of Nigerians, state creation turned into cake sharing, etc. All the ill-understood rhetorics of those days have turned out tobe empty jargons. Are soldiers, even in togas of today’s politicians, in any way nation-builders?
Otherwise, in propounding their economic/political theories, which only further deepen economic/political problems, they should have widened their limited, if any, knowledge of what obtains in standard constitutions over the centuries as distinct from the mentality of barracks regimention. For what purposes did Nigerian government take over Africa’s most formidable publishing house, the Daily Times Group, state and federal broadcasting houses, universities, teaching hospitals, private and missionary secondary schools? All these erstwhile institutions of repute forcefully taken over in 1976 at a time they were operating at world standard are today at the lowest of ebbs.
There was once a country named Sudan, with oil in the south as the main source of revenue. Even when the country broke into two, did the new country in the north lay claim to joint ownership of the vast oil deposit in the new country in the south? Never. Instead, the oil in South Sudan remains the property of the new country in southern Sudan. Who told Obasanjo that taking over the oil industry in Niger Delta (or in the entire country) would enhance unity in Nigeria? All the idea of artificial unity will not work.
With its huge responsibilities to the outside world, a country like Britain, which operates a unitary system, has not laid claim to sole ownership of the oil in Scotland. The oil belongs to Scotland, which merely pays tax to England. Indeed, buoyed by the oil revenue, Scotland is demanding a second revenue to formalize its breakaway from the United Kingdom. Why should oil ownership culture be different in Nigeria, which Obasanjo claims, owns the oil?
In the United States, the states of Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado and Alaska are the oil-producing areas and no American president, incumbent or retired, would ever lay claim to the country’s ownership of the oil or his party would, henceforth, never govern the country. In contrast, Nigerian ruling class treat the citizens like voiceless slaves. In Nigeria, residents of oil-producing areas are victims of environmental degradation, unlike Americans in all oil-producing areas. Nigeria, therefore, is the only country where the ruling class arrogantly dictate who owns what in terms of living like human beings.
Russia was at the head of the other 15 republics in the Soviet Union when that country disintegrated in 1991. Thirteen of the newly emerging 15 republics were oil-producing and they all held on to their respective oil wealth. Even as members of the defunct Soviet Union, Russia never insisted on oil asset sharing all along. Autonomy of the autonomous states was the main strength of the union. If, in all these other federations, oil wealth belonged strictly to the component states, why should it be different in Nigeria? For far too long, Nigerians have been almost suffocated with centralisation, or even over-centralisation, of anything lucrative efficiently run by states in parts of the country. The fraud that every federalism has its peculiarities is no longer tolerable. No law obliges a state to pick up my state even if we collapse. Obasanjo should, therefore, be challenged to name any other oil-producing federation anywhere in the world where such asset is confiscated by or for the central authorities.
Oil-producing states in Nigeria should, therefore, stand firm and must not be intimidated neither should non-oil-producing states in Nigeria be unconcerned in this matter. Nigerian constitution is moribund and nobody should think discarding the document will be peaceful. When northern governors join their southern colleagues to demand state police, the message is that our constitution is now worthless. When all Nigerian governors clamour for huge increase in revenue allocation to the states, it is neither anti-North nor anti-South agitation. It is a national rejection of constitutional arrangements of this period.
Preferred choice and all the jazz
One thing that has emerged is that President Muhammadu Buhari’s political hiccup in office is largely self-induced. Not the least was his claim in his television interview that, if he disclosed his preferred candidate in the 2023 presidential election, the poor chap (that is, the favoured candidate), might be eliminated. Not from the primaries, but that the candidate might be frustrated by any means. Buhari must be disappointing for getting into this business of backing or even sponsoring a particular candidate to succeed him. It is undemocratic and arrogant. The candidate concerned will also take it on himself in four or eight years’ time to pick and install his own successor. The musical chairs will then continue.
The disgraceful practice was started in 1979 by outgoing General Olusegun Obasanjo. Where is it done in any genuinely democratic society where one candidate is deliberately given the edge (over the others) by an outgoing leader? The very idea instantly undermines the efforts/ambition of rival candidates in that, whatever their aims, the outgoing leader would push through his favourite. Even if the successful candidate won on personal merit, much would have been instantly taken from him since he is already tainted with the impression that he was imposed.
It might even be understandable if Obasanjo’s notorious underhand move had ended as a once-for-all intrusion. Instead, the arrogance is now widespread, with every outgoing governor not only handpicking his successor and imposing him as duly elected, the otherwise hallowed public offices at national and state levels have now been turned into personal property, willed by one man for his favourite, usually, disappointing fellows.
It is a matter for regret that President Buhari was ever attracted to that obnoxious and disgraceful venture. This has nothing to do with the candidate involved, who, at any rate, is not even known to the public yet. Buhari’s right is not beyond going into the kiosk to cast his vote.