By Uma Eleazu
In the first part of this discourse, I ended by suggesting that the only part of the Report of the 2014 National Conference that President Muhammadu Buhari needs to look at is the section entitled National Charter for Reconciliation and Integration. Until we, as Nigerians, look at ourselves critically and agree to forgive one another and adopt a national ethos which embraces: reconciliation, forgiveness, live-and-let-live, religious tolerance etc, no amount of tinkering with the constitution will guarantee peace or law and order in our national affairs.
Take any Nigerian newspaper, any day of the week and count the number of acts of crass indiscipline, intolerance, impunity of action by civilians upon civilians, law enforcement agents on civilians, and neighbours on one another, one finds so much intolerance which breeds a culture of violence. Whether it is religious fanatics, Fulani herdsmen, highway robbers or militant rebels with or without a cause, people do not act like those who want to live together in harmony in one country.
In the last few weeks, we have heard very strong voices calling for the restructuring of the country through the constitution. We have heard from two former Vice Presidents, from legal luminaries, from civil rights activists and from militants in the Niger Delta. Our elected President Buhari says the 2014 National Conference Report belongs to the archives. In effect, he is not going to do anything about it except to consign it to the archives. And as a citizen of Nigeria who voted in the last election, I ask: does the report belong to Buhari to do what he likes with it, or to the people who sent their representatives to the Confab? If the latter, as I believe, is, each ethnic nationality or social force that was represented at the conference is entitled to call for the report and decide what it wants to do with it. This is an occasion to exercise our democratic rights.
Every May 29, people troop out to celebrate “Democracy Day”. They march around and talk about “Dividend of Democracy”. Then, every June 12, another set of people celebrate “Abiola and Democracy”, and yet we hardly have imbibed the democratic ethos.
People confuse democracy with return to civilian rule. In 1999, ostensibly, we returned to civilian rule, but we knew who were calling the shots – the party of the retired Generals. While they were waiting for the Group of 34 to form a political party (the PDP), they perfected the 1999 Constitution and hijacked the party and installed their man.
That is why we are in this mess. Each time those in government and those in ‘politics’ mouth platitudes about democracy, “I laugh”.
So, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar says Nigeria needs to be restructured. Also, another former VP, Alex Ekwueme, wants Nigeria to be restructured. My National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) chieftains concur that we need true federalism. To get that, we must restructure the country. Resource control activists also want restructuring of the country. Are we all talking about the same thing?
Because people are calling on President Buhari to implement the 2014 report of the national dialogue, I decided to go deeper and see what the report has to say on restructuring just in case Buhari changes his mind.
Here is what I found:
1) On true federalism, they recommended that states should be considered as the federating units.
2) That one more state be created in the SE zone to bring it at par with other zones (six states per zone).
3) That 18 more states be created bringing the number of states to 48.
4) Curiously, they recommended that contiguous states may coalesce, but did not say whether that will be within a geo-political zone or across two or more zones.
5) States can create more LGAs since it will not affect their allocation from the Federation Account. In other words, the Federation Account stays. Each state is to set up its own Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) and share whatever they get from the Federation Account by the same formula as the federal RMAFC.
I did not see where they spelt out how and what kind of revenue should flow into the Federation Account. Presumably, the old centralised order changeth not. Instead, they postponed the evil day by recommending that a Technical Commission be set up to decide what percentages should be allocated vertically and horizontally.
In other words, the Report did not deal with the core issue of Fiscal Federalism.
Besides, they recommended that their amendments are to be incorporated into the faulty foundation of the 1999 Constitution. In my view, it will not work and it will not satisfy the yearnings of the people who want a change of, not a change in, the constitution.
Section II
As someone who, in the last 50 years, has studied, taught and seen how federalism and democracy work, in the next section, I will like to use our past experience to adumbrate what will work and the change Nigeria needs. I am sure people of my age grade can relate to it.
In 1951, under the MacPherson Constitution, there were three regions under three different administrations coordinated by the office of the chief secretary to the government. Each region had a lieutenant governor who reported to the Colonial Office through the governor in Lagos. Each region had its own constitution which suited its traditional political culture. For example, the North had a House of Assembly and a House of Chiefs where the Emirs were given an honorific role in the affairs of the North.
The Western Region also had two chambers – a House of Assembly and a House of Chiefs. But Eastern Region which prided itself in being republican had only a House of Assembly. Each region had its own electoral laws. Whereas the East had universal adult suffrage, the North had only male adult suffrage. The West had a tax-adult suffrage. Each region designed what suited them. Revenue for the governments came from various forms of tax (personal income, sales, corporate income, etc.), Customs and Excise duties, rent and royalties, etc.
When in 1954 it was agreed that in moving towards Independence from Britain, it was also agreed that it would be better to stay together as a federation, so that each component part (a.k.a. federating unit) can maintain its unique cultural features, including religion, but surrender certain of its powers to legislate and govern its people to the central government (now known as Federal Government), those areas of legislation given up became known as Exclusive Legislative List. Some grey areas were left as areas of concurrent powers to make laws, provided that any law made by a region that was in conflict with that of the Federal Government in the same area, the federal law would supersede.
It was also decided that along with powers ceded to the central government, portions of revenue collected were paid into a distributable pool. On that basis, the Eastern and Western Regions were granted self-governing status in 1956.
Between 1956 and 1966, we practised true federalism. Our elected representatives duly adopted and passed the British Order in Council 1960, which became the Independence (1960) Constitution and later enacted it as our Republican Constitution in 1963.
So, any restructuring must use the 1963 Constitution as a basis. It was this 1963 Constitution that the military abrogated in 1966 along with its fiscal arrangements.
Did I hear someone say: ‘Ah! A lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1963’? Yes, but also a lot has gone wrong with our federal structure. From four regions divided into 27 provinces governed by 237 English men (one Resident per province, supported by District Officers and Assistant District Officers) working with local clerks and interpreters; we now have 36 unviable states, divided into 774 local government areas, and governed by 36 governors and their special assistants; approximately 600 commissioners and their special assistants and as many transitional chairmen of LGAs as the governors may decide.
In addition, there are 36 state civil services, and a local government service in each state. Yet most of these states cannot deliver on law and order, nor provide even the basic services to their people such as schools, hospitals, refuse disposal and rural roads etc. These bloated bureaucracies in the states cannot extract any internally-generated revenue (IGR). They cannot collect taxes and account for it. Most states don’t even know the number of taxable adults and corporate citizens in their domain.
The major source of income is the aggregated Federation Account dished out to states monthly by the Federal Ministry of Finance. In one state I know, the executive meets once a month; the legislature also meets once a month. You guessed right; they meet to share what has come in from Abuja. In fact, the transitional chairman of one local government I know lives permanently in the Government House; his council meets whenever he visits the village.
Talk about corruption, it is embedded in the 1999 Constitution. For example, governors have immunity from prosecution. So, even when the citizens know their governor is stealing their money, he is above the law. So immunity becomes impunity to steal, kill and destroy. Only few states hold local government elections.
When we were creating these states and local government areas, it was rationalised as “bringing government nearer to the people”. We have only succeeded in bringing corruption and impunity nearer to the people. Most states’ legislatures are simply House of Drones. The lawmakers are in the pockets of the governors, and so cannot carry out any legislative oversight on the executive branch.
In one state that I know, the outgoing governor installed his son as Speaker of the House of Assembly to keep the incoming governor in check. When the Speaker sneezes, the governor catches cold. This is not what we bargained for. This is neither democracy nor federalism. We must restructure, such that good governance will be by the people, for the people.
The situation at the federal level is not much different. In the olden days, any bill, especially government bill, going to the National Assembly is promptly published in the government’s official gazette. Any member of the public can buy it and read, and if he is so disposed can appear before the relevant committee when the bill has gone into committee stage, to raise objections or make relevant input. In a democracy, citizens have the right to make input into the legislative process.
I once listened to an interview with a senator on Channels TV. When asked what they have achieved in the past year, he said they have about 635 bills before the Senate.
Question: How many have been passed into law?
He evaded the question and started lecturing the young lady on the process of passing a bill to give the impression that these things take some time.
Question: Okay, how many bills have been passed into law?
He started talking about the big burden of carrying out legislative oversight on all the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). And we know what happens during these so-called oversight functions. The ministry or department to be “over-sighted” has to provide the committee with transport and other goodies. This is in addition to the allowances paid officially to them for their jobs.
During Olusegun Obasanjo’s regime, it was so bad that a ministry that wanted its budget passed had to grease the palms of the members of the relevant committees until Obasanjo fired the minister who succumbed to the blackmail, but nothing happened to the senators who got the money. We have not forgotten the saga of $60,000 in a cap of a member of House of Representatives who made a nocturnal visit to an oil magnate his committee was investigating. Did the Ethics Committee of the House do anything to him?
The Senate has become a haven for ex-governors who don’t want to be probed on allegations about their stewardship as governors in their states. The body language of the legislators indicates that only a few know what the democratic process is all about. The most important bills passed are those that will benefit them as members; i.e., their remuneration, their constituency allowances etc.
The squander-mania that goes on in Abuja is all funded from The Federation Account. In all this, what should have been paid as rent or royalty to those who live and suffer the degradation and despoliation of the land and environment from where these incomes come are left behind. So they call for restructuring of the Federation Account, else…
Before Gen. Sani Abacha died, he had convoked a constitutional conference in which representations were made almost on the basis of ethnic nationalities. It was in that conference that former Alex Ekwueme made the input that became the so-called geo-political zones. It seems to me that if Abacha had not died the way he did, he would have enacted that his constitution and Nigeria would have been restructured into eight geo-political zones by decree. That draft also provided for increase in money allocated to oil-producing states. When Abacha died and Abdulsalami Abubakar took over, he set up this Constitutional Debate Coordinating Committee (CDCC) to go round the country with the Abacha-inspired draft and get people’s views on it, so that it can be amended and promulgated before handing over to civilians. Professor (later Justice) Niki Tobi was the chairman.
I led the team that went to what is now South South. We met in two centres, Port Harcourt and Benin. In Port Harcourt, many of the speakers spoke on resource control. But the most impressive was the late Harold Dappa Biriye. He quoted from letters between his family and Queen Victoria over the ownership of the littoral up to 10 miles. He gave us his definition of mineral rights, rents, royalties and profits. He told us that anything less than 50 per cent to the host communities would be injustice. Later that evening, he gave me a message for the chairman.
In Benin City, the issue of resource control re-echoed. Here the star presenter was Solomon Asemota (now a Senior Advocate of Nigeria). He too was impressive. He took us through the Hicks Fiscal Commission, the Aboyade Fiscal Commission (which he said did the most injustice to the oil-producing areas, and finally the Okigbo Commission which merely reviewed the basis for sharing, rather than the quantum that will accrue to the federation. He showed how systematically the oil-producing areas had gone from 67 per cent in 1960 to less than 3.5 per cent in 1996. The Abacha draft had recommended 10 per cent, but our sub-committee recommenced 25 per cent to the CDCC. When the constitution came out, it was down to 13 per cent on derivation.
In 2005, President Obasanjo’s abortive National Political Reform Conference (NPRC) also struggled with the issue of resource control. At each point, our compatriots from the North would oppose any increase. In fact, some canvassed the abolition of that section of the constitution.
Between the Obasanjo – Yar’Adua – Jonathan presidencies, institutions have been created – Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Ministry of Niger Delta, Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC) etc. – but because of lack of executive capacity, the venality of those appointed to be in charge, monies pumped into the area seem not to have produced the desired results nor assuaged the demand for resource control. Therefore, any talk of restructuring must squarely address the issue of fiscal federalism.
Section III
So, what is to be done?
How do we restructure the federation and who should do it? Buhari is not going to do it, unless he changes his mind about consigning the report to the archives. So what is to be done?
Here, we need to go back to the Pro-National Conference (PRONACO) idea. Nigeria is made up of ethnic nationalities that were grouped together by Britain to form Nigeria. These ethnic nationalities fall into one or more present day states and/or LGAs.
(1) Each ethnic nationality should define its geographical area; its unique identity (e.g. language), its boundaries and population. Such a unit should hold its “nationality” conference where the members will agree or disagree on forming a political unit within a restructured future Nigeria Federation or Confederation.
(2) They will decide on how they want to govern themselves within the context of Nigeria. That is to say that they will also be required to develop and adopt a constitution.
(3) (NB) Small ethnic groups, like those along the Cross River, can decide to coalesce into a unit of government within Nigeria. It is the resultant ethnic nationalities that will be invited to a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) to negotiate the conditions for the continued existence of Nigeria and in what form.
(4) (NB2) Each ethnic nationality is to send its “Best Eleven”. The whole process if adopted will provide a learning curve on the democratic process of constitution-making. There will be no imposition. Those who have fears of joining can express it and it will be for the bigger units to convince them on the advantages of belonging to a Big Nigeria.
(5) Let us debate the issues.
We have always shied away from conducting or having an open debate on the nationality question. I think we need that kind of frank conversation across the country and at various levels. It can be an educative process for all sides and persuasions on the issue. Canada had such an open debate when recently those who love Quebec wanted to opt out of the Canadian Federation after over 100 years of union. They debated, they voted in a referendum and the bid failed. Similarly, Scotland, which had been part of Great Britain for over 300 years, wanted to opt out of Great Britain. They had an open debate on the issue. The Prime Minister went to Scotland to hold town hall meetings. He did not bring down the whole military might of the United Kingdom on Scottish people. No Scot who was occupying a post in the British Armed Forces or Civil Service was victimised because some Scottish MPs wanted free Scotland.
Eventually, they voted in a referendum, and the bid failed. That is what democracy is about.
The BREXIT (Referendum of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union) debate has just ended. Some ultra-right politicians wanted Britain out of the EU. So they opened the debate and let people be educated on the issues, listen to the pros and cons before a referendum on ‘To stay or to quit’ the EU. At the end, 17,410,742 people (51.9 per cent) voted to ‘quit’ while 16,141,241 (48.1 per cent) voted to stay. The result of the referendum has shown the UK the exit door from EU. And David Cameron’s resignation PM followed. He will step down in October.
I will like to see a robust, open debate in the area that was Biafra (originally known as Lower Niger Protectorate, then Eastern Nigeria) on the pros and cons of self-determination or continuing as part of Nigeria. This can be linked to a debate on the National Charter suggested by the 2014 Confab.
Part B
During the Nigeria/Biafra war, the Eastern Region was divided into three states: Rivers and South Eastern states were carved out, leaving the Igbo heartland in what was called East Central State. No doubt, this was a war strategy on the part of the federal army to try and encircle and isolate part of the population of the Eastern Region from core Igbo land. In doing so, large chunks of Igbo land and their population became “non-Igbo”.
South Eastern State was later divided into Cross River and Akwa Ibom states, and Rivers State yielded Bayelsa State. East Central State was later divided into Imo and Anambra states and further state creation exercise brought Anambra, Enugu, Ebonyi. Imo and Abia states. In a large portion of Rivers are Igbo-speaking peoples and also in Bayelsa and Delta states. So, also, the Igbo nation really spreads from Oturkpo (Benue) in the North, to Agbor (Delta) in the west; Ohafia-Unwana-Afikpo along the Cross River to the Niger Delta in the south, and eastwards to Abakaliki in what used to be Ogoja Province.
The South East Zone now has five states carved out of the original East Central State and endowed with 95 local government areas. We now have five governors, 96 commissioners, numerous special assistants of various grades and five civil services etc. Yet the land area of the old East Central State has not increased, the number of schools in most cases has not increased. Maybe, the number of pupils have increased. The road network is still the same since colonial times. A few kilometres have been tarred.
In the first year of the Buhari administration, the five Igbo states got a total allocation of N302.4 billion which averages to N3.18 billion per local government. The sad fact is that a lot of that money goes into unproductive administrative overheads, leaving teachers, doctors and other staff without salaries. Anambra is probably the only exception.
How should we restructure our zone to make governance more democratic and meaningful to the average citizen of Alaigbo?
Because of vested interest of those who feed fat on the present arrangement, it will be difficult to take the drastic measure that will be required to restructure the politics of Alaigbo, but we can do something with its administration.
This is what I would suggest:
1. Create a new Governing Council made up of all elected senators and House of Representatives members. That will give us a Deliberative Assembly of 60 (15 senators and 45 Reps). Abolish all the Houses of Assembly. The Deliberative Assembly takes over the functions of the state legislature.
2. Constitute an Executive Council of 10. (In the transition period, this will be made up of the sitting governors and their deputies.) Each person will head a major Functional Department.
3. Review and restructure the local governments to about 100 or 120 localities. Also create the following cities and/or municipalities:
Nsukka, Enugu, Abakaliki, Afikpo, Aba, Abiriba, Ohafia, Umuahia, Owerri, Okigwe, Orlu/Ndizuogu, Onitsha, Awka and Nnewi. Each of these to have an elected Town Council or City Council and a Chief Executive – Mayor, Chairman or any other nomenclature depending on its charter.
4. Create a South East Development Corporation along the lines of the defunct ENDC to handle all infrastructural development across the zone, while each Local Authority will take care of social and cultural development in its area. There will be a lean Administrative Service at the top to handle some staff functions for the Governing Council and the Deliberative Assembly. Each City, municipality or Rural District council is to employ its own staff to execute the functions that will be assigned to it.
Funding: Pending the outcome of what other parts of Nigeria do, the allocations for the present five states will be pooled together and one budget will be created for the region. The regional government will then ensure development of IGR to supplement whatever comes from the Federation Account.
Of course, this can be refined as we go along.
