Gradually, like a noisy splash of water down the broken rocks, refreshing yet deafening, the national conference is winding up. Whoever thought it would happen in this manner! Or that it would even happen at all!
A few years ago, it was considered impossible. And, when President Goodluck Jonathan said he would convoke the conference, not a few had monstrous ideas of what would be the structure and the outcome. Many swore on their grandfathers’ tombstones that it would never see the light of day.
Some believed that if convoked at all, it would be to engineer a tenure extension for Jonathan, in the same manner it happened in 2005; or to serve as a distraction from burning issues threatening the very existence of the country.
Still, another group guessed it would be an avenue for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to redeem its mangled image and corner billions of naira for its 2015 campaigns. Yet, there was another group that said: well, this conference would be an assemblage of never-do-wells who would simply speak Jonathan’s mind and come up with nothing substantial.
The first shocker to all of us sceptics was when President Jonathan appointed Senator Femi Okurounmu, a known national conference advocate, as the John the Baptist of the conference. It was both a bold statement of resolve and an avoidable gamble with an extremist.
For those who know the former senator, he cannot be easily caged. The assumption was that Okurounmu’s fanatical leftist abstractions would rattle Jonathan to back out of the idea. We were wrong. Jonathan accepted his recommendations and went ahead to convoke the conference.
Next was the issue of delegates. Again, the president acted contrary to propagated negative perception. He personally picked the federal delegates and even went beyond the bounds of popular belief by asking interest groups nationwide to send in their nominees, unmindful of their ultra-ideological bent.
The nomination of certain irredeemable hardliners like Junaid Mohammed, Femi Falana, Buba Galadima, Mike Ozhekome, Auwalu Yadudu, Olu Falae, Ledum Mitee, Mohammed Gambo Jimeta, Tunde Bakare, Naseer Kura, among others was like raising a brickwall against any hidden agenda.
Members of different political parties, individuals and groups vehemently opposed to the present administration, were brought in, even at the risk of having the conference tainted with unpopular views and destabilising ideologies.
To worsen the situation, Jonathan announced that the delegates were free to discuss any issue under the sun, except the oneness of Nigeria. It sounded like an invitation to extremities. Another risk!
In the course of the conference, some delegates have tilted towards rather unthinkable, overzealous positions. Someone from the South West had the effrontery to propose a system of government with a proviso for secession. A traditional ruler said he was ever ready to move his throne from Nigeria to the Cameroun.
Jonathan’s speech at the inauguration of the conference remains his best ever. Somewhere in the speech, he said: “Our sole motivation for convening this conference is the patriotic desire for a better and greater nation. We are determined that things must be done in a way and manner that will positively advance that objective.”
Watching the conference from a close range has been an eye-opener. Bold, fantastic and hair-splitting ideas keep surfacing on the floor daily. What the president will do with them is my next concern.
Although people keep pretending they went to the conference to defend the interest of Nigeria, keen observers have not been left in doubt as to whose interest each delegate represent. Most times, arguments on a seemingly simple, straightforward issue continue for weeks without a compromise. At other times, issues that could further divide the country simply emanate from nowhere. This usually happens when emotions run high as each tribal group or region fight for a chunk of the national cake.
Some groups and individuals are at the conference not to advance the national, but tribal, interests. This keeps manifesting in every debate. While inaugurating the confab, Jonathan had expressed regret over “persons who believe that we cannot undertake any collective task in our country without the hindrance of ethnic rivalry….”
What would you make of a situation where, during the debate on Land Tenure Act, someone said openly on the floor that if the Act were to be expunged from the constitution, money bags from the South would invade the North to buy all the lands? That was confrontational!
A female delegate said the North would lose control of 80 per cent of Nigeria’s land mass which she claimed it presently controls if the Land Tenure Act loses its present power through any form of amendment. Another delegate proclaimed that without Land Tenure Act in place, no one would be able to manage crisis that would arise.
A female delegate from the South South has repeatedly said oil pipelines would burn again if 100 per cent resource control is not granted the Niger Delta region. Despite all these, the conference has made unpredictable progress.
However, it is still speculative what Jonathan would do with the conference report which may come in three parts: constitutional, legislative, and policy issues. Money, time and energy have been invested in this project. Nigerians deserve to know what the game plan is. Jonathan must match his courage in convoking the conference with the political will to implement its decisions.
