I must confess that I have been following with keen
interest the raging national debate on the issue of restructuring the Nigerian
federation. For those who are conversant with the political history of this
country, the on-going discourse is nothing new or novel.
All the constitutional conferences that were held in
London and Ibadan in the 1950s in the run-up to independence in 1960 were meant
to work out an acceptable political structure for the emergent nation. At the
end of it all, the nationalist leaders including Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Alhaji
Ahmadu Bello and Chief Obafemi Awolowo settled for a federal system of
government.
It is not by sheer happenstance that these leaders agreed
on a federal structure for the country. In the light of reason and experience
arising from successful experiments elsewhere like the United States, Canada,
India, Switzerland, Malaysia, Brazil etc. it was agreed that federalism was
best suited for a diverse, heterogeneous, disaggregated and complex society
like Nigeria.
The federalist principle was adopted by our founding
fathers not because it was a perfect model of governance. Rather, the choice was
dictated by the need to promote unity in diversity. It is a system of governance
that permits a plural society to forge a nation from its diversity without stifling
or muzzling the interests of the co-habiting groups in the federation. Under
this model, the federating units have the powers to chart their independent
paths of development, moving at their own pace while subscribing to a common
central authority.
The system encourages healthy rivalries and competitive
development amongst the component units of the federation. This was evident in
the First Republic when the Northern, Western and Eastern Regions engaged each
other in a healthy competition for infrastructural provisions.
Federalism as it is known in the classical political
science parlance is the system of governance that ensures that power is shared
among the component units of a federation in a manner that guarantees the units
autonomy to pursue their political, economic and social aspirations at their
own pace. Under this arrangement, it is the federating units that sustain the
center from the resources generated from within their territories.
The agreed fiscal contributions to the centre are mainly
to maintain common services like national defence and security, foreign
affairs, immigration, customs, census, citizenship, currency etc. which are
under the exclusive control of the central government.
A former Vice Chancellor of the University of Ibadan and
respected historian, Professor Tekena Tamuno, in his work, Nigerian Federalism in Historical Perspective, defined federalism
as “that form of government where the component units of a political
organization participate in sharing powers and functions in a cooperative manner
though the combined forces of ethnic pluralism and cultural diversity, among
others, tend to pull their people apart”.
The incursion of the military into the political arena in
1966 and their subsequent prolonged domination of power led to a huge distortion
of the federal structure that was delicately woven by the nationalist
leaders. The command and control system
of the military which they transposed to the political arena effectively
ensured the stifling of the federating units; to the effect that they were turned
into almost vassal states and conquered territories.
The resources belonging to the Regions were forcefully
hijacked by the military with scant regard to the feelings of the people in
whose domains these resources reside. Within this period, States and Local
Government Areas (LGAs) were arbitrarily created with more in the North than in
the South, thereby creating and deepening the structural imbalance in the
federation.
The Regions which were supposed to hold the balance in
the federation became politically and fiscally emasculated to the extent that
they were no more than mere appendages of the centre with no powers and control
whatsoever over their God-given resources. This has led to a situation where
the federating units go to Abuja every month end with a begging bowl to collect
financial allocation. Nigeria appears to be the only known federation in the
whole universe where this kind of strange fiscal arrangement takes place.
This situation is further compounded by the fact that the
Federal Government overloads itself with too many responsibilities as evident
in the items contained in the Exclusive Legislative List of the 1999
Constitution (as amended). The list contains 68 items, many of which have no
business being under the control of the centre. For instance, we have the
following items like labour relations, drugs, mineral resources, insurance,
meteorology, railways, stamp duties, museums and monuments, marriages, weights
and measures etc. in the Exclusive Legislative List.
It is such tinkering by the military that has turned
Nigeria into a unitary system in reality. These actions, however, never went
unchallenged. Strong criticisms and pressures have always been mounted by some
sections of the populace who saw in all the actions of the military a wilful
subversion of the visions of the founding fathers of the Nigerian federation.
In response to these pressures, some half-hearted attempts were made by the
military through the engineering of constituent assemblies and constitutional
conferences which did little or nothing to return Nigeria to the path of true
federalism.
With the return to civil democratic rule in 1999, there
were heightened expectations among the populace that things might get better.
But this was a misplaced optimism as nothing has changed from the lopsided and
inequitable federal structure inherited from the military. The ensuing crisis
of expectations has resulted into social frustrations, mounting agitations and
complaints of ethnic marginalization.
It is against this background that the current national
clamour for restructuring and separatist campaigns can be understood and
greatly appreciated. Such agitations are not out of place in a federal arrangement
like ours. And as Kunle Amuwo and Georges Herault noted in their work, Federalism and Political Restructuring in
Nigeria, “political restructuring is intended to lay an institutional
foundation for a more just and a more equitable sharing of the political space
by multi-national groups cohabiting in a federal polity”.
Since the renewed national conversation on the
restructuring of the polity commenced a few months ago, a lot of people, groups
and civil society organizations have continued to make their
interventions. The views being canvassed
on the matter are as divergent as they can be depending on where the
propagators stand on the nation`s geo-political prism.
One thing that is clear, however, is the existence of
near unanimous national consensus on the need for the restructuring of the
federation to ensure political balance and fiscal equity.
As at the last count, four of the geo-political zones in
Nigeria, namely South East, South West, South South and Middle Belt have
affirmed support for restructuring. The streaks of opposition so far are coming
from some elements and groups in the North West and North East. This is
understandable!
It is, therefore, hardly surprising that someone like
Governor Nasir el-Rufai of Kaduna State is leading the opposition to restructuring,
and labeling the protagonists as opportunistic and irresponsible. With such
uncharitable and unguarded outbursts from the diminutive governor, I think he
deserves nothing but pity.
The truth of the matter is that the Nigerian federation
as presently structured is not working. What is in place is the over
centralization of governance and abdication of government in its
responsibilities to the people. A phenomenon which Professor Sam Oyovbaire
described as the “retrenchment of the Nigerian State”.
To avoid any impending implosion, deliberate efforts must
be taken now to work out amongst the various nationalities in Nigeria an
acceptable federal structure that will guarantee greater fiscal freedom and
regional autonomy to the federating units. Such divisive policies like quota
system, federal character and indigene-settler dichotomy which for years have
blighted our federal practice should be discarded in favour meritocracy.
Going forward, it behoves on the Buhari administration to
set up a Commission of Eminent Persons including constitutional and legal
experts and other professionals drawn from the six geo-political zones of the
country to study the reports and recommendations of previous constitutional
conferences with a view to coming up with a new draft constitution for the
consideration of an elected Peoples Assembly, equipped with constituent powers.
The reports to be considered should include but not
limited to the Willinks Commission on the Fears of the Minorities of 1957,
Aburi conference of 1967, Abacha`s 1994/95 National Conference, Clement David
Ebri Constitutional Reports of 2002, Obasanjo`s Political Reform Conference of
2005 and the 2014 National Confab of President Jonathan. These reports contain
far-reaching recommendations that can give us a balanced and equitable
federation.
The work of the Commission is to synthesize these reports
and work out a draft constitution which will be considered and approved by a Constituent
Assembly and finally subjected to a national referendum. It is believed that if
these measures are taken, the ghost of restructuring and episodic eruptions of
separatist agitations would be finally laid to rest.
The time to act is now.
Nwosu
is former Political Editor of the Daily Times
Tags
Columnists