Restructuring Nigeria: To be or not to be

Restructuring Nigeria: To be or not to be

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.

"There is only one road that I can safely recommend for us to tread, and it is the road to self-determination" - Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe (Zik) 's 1949 address to the Ibo Assembly

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.

Caliphate agenda and ideology: Caliphate Colonialism-The taproot of the trouble with Nigeria (Part 2)

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.

-KENNY ASHAKA (Sun)