The clamour for the
restructuring of the country deepened yesterday when a panel of professionals
and leaders of thought cutting across the Northern and Southern parts of the
country participated in a lively debate organised by the THISDAY Newspaper Group
on the restructuring question.
Appearing on the ARISE
News Network, the broadcast arm of THISDAY Newspapers in Abuja, the panellists
were evidently divided on whether Nigeria should be restructured or not and the
various interpretations of what restructuring should entail, with some of them
arguing that what the country needs is better governance and a departure from
the leadership of the past, while others contended that there is a structural
defect in the polity which if not fixed, could lead to Nigeria’s
disintegration.
However, there was a
consensus that the agitation for restructuring was a fall out of the absence of
good governance, equity, justice and fairness in the country.
The panel comprised
the former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku;
constitutional lawyer and a member of the Northern think-tank group, Auwalu
Yadudu; Afenifere chieftain, Chief Supo Shonibare; and President General,
Ohaneze Ndigbo, Chief Nnia Nwodo.
Other included the
Managing Director of THISDAY Newspapers, Mr. Eniola Bello; a former Director
General of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Chief Albert Horsfall;
former Cross River State Attorney General, Mrs. Nella Andem Rabana (SAN);
former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM), Bashir
Yusuf; and Mr. Luqman Edu, representing the youths.
Kicking off the
discussion, the Managing Director of THISDAY concurred that restructuring means
different thing to different people.
According to him, some
people view restructuring as the introduction of state police, devolution of
powers, resource control and return to regionalism, but argued that some of the
initial steps taken by President Muhammdu Buhari fuelled the current agitation
in the country.
“President (Goodluck)
Jonathan was voted out of power because the people wanted change. But the first
step taken by Buhari on the issue of 97 per cent and five per cent project
execution, made him to isolate two zones in the country. When the herdsmen
attacked, nothing was done and the response by the government created the separatist
agitations,” he explained.
In his contribution,
Anyaoku whose contribution to the discussion was pre-recorded, as he could not
join the debate live, said restructuring would ensure greater national
cohesion, development and stability.
He was of the view
that the concentration of powers at the centre had provoked a do-or-die
agitation for the control of the centre, arguing further that the country
needed to restructure the governance architecture.
He
said: “Nigeria at the moment is far more divided than it has ever been.
“I remember that the
golden age of Nigerian nationality and patriotism was the immediate years after
independence in 1960, when we had a true federal system of government and our
founding fathers – Sir Ahmadu Bello, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Chief Obafemi
Awolowo – after many conferences, agreed that the best form of government to
serve the multi-ethnic, multi-religious Nigeria was true federalism.
“And I believe that
since we departed from that following the military intervention in governance,
we have been moving backwards.”
According to him, the
structure of governance was not what caused the civil war but the killing of
southerners in Northern Nigeria.
Anyaoku insisted that
since the military intervened in governance, the Constitution of Nigeria, which
was truly federal, has continued to be eroded to reflect the military command
structure in the army “with the result that we now have a very powerful
centre”.
“A powerful centre
provokes very-very do-or-die attitude, as they say, political competition for
that centre and this sort of competition exacerbates the divisive tendencies in
the country, whether religious or ethnic and so on.
“I believe that we
must return to true federalism, which will enable each section of the
country, each federating unit to develop at its own pace and look forward to
dealing with the centre which would have far diminished responsibility than it
currently has,” he explained.
In his opinion,
restructuring would revive the national spirit that existed when the country
was a true federation.
“There are many
strands (to restructuring) but on the economic side, I think that virtually
everyone recognises that the 36 states structure is unsustainable. We have a
situation where 27 of the 36 states are no longer able to pay the salaries of
their civil servants.
“To start with, if you
devolve, if you created far few federating units; in my view, six federating
units you will have a basis that lends itself more readily to accountability,”
he said.
When asked on the
agitation by the Niger Delta region for the control of the oil resources in the
region, Anyaoku said that could be addressed by retaining the existing states
as development zones within the larger federating units.
“If within the larger
federating unit, the existing states are to become development zones, they
would continue to look after their development and after their various
sectional aspirations, and if there is to be another pressure arising within
the federating unit, the federating units should be free to create new
development zones to cater for the aspirations for sectional ambitions within
the federating units.
“The point is that the
36 states we have at the moment means 36 administrative structures, 36 state
assemblies, civil services, judiciaries and the result of all that.
“If you take Nigeria
as a whole, the country is spending about 80 per cent of its revenue on
administration, leaving 20 per cent or less for capital development. And no
country has developed with that degree of allocation of its revenue to
governance.
“The thing is that if
you retain the structures that have enabled them to achieve their sectional
agitations within the larger federating units, we will have a situation where
the resources that will be available to the larger federating unit will be a
more viable basis of planning development.
“You will have the
opportunity to address the sectional feelings and sectional interests of these
less viable units,” he said.
Anyaoku added that the
most important thing was to agree on the structure of governance, “to agree
that instead of the 36 largely unviable states you will have six federating
units and thereafter whether it is a presidential system or parliamentary
system of government”.
He added: “You could
tailor a presidential system that would be less expensive than what we have
today. What we have today is mimicking the United States, because the Nigerians
parliamentarians are far-far more remunerated than the US congress men and
women and you can have a presidential system with much more reduced cost of
governance.”
On how to go about it,
Anyaoku advocated for a combination of an idea to enable the executive prepare
a bill which would go to the National Assembly since it is already dealing with
constitutional review.
“Since the National
Assembly is dealing with the constitutional review, it will take that into
account and the new constitution that will emerge, will then be put to a
national referendum so that for the first time, we will have a constitution
that can truly be described as ‘we the people of Nigeria’ are responsible for
the constitution,” he stated.
In his contribution,
Nwodo said the 1999 Constitution, as crafted, was unacceptable. According to
him, the constitution failed to reflect the wishes of Nigerians.
He argued that the
effectiveness of any constitution is measured by its acceptance, adding that
“Nigeria is the only country in the world answering a federation but without
any characteristic of a federation”.
Nwodo argued that the
concept of the 1999 Constitution was sharing the wealth and not production and
wealth creation.
“When we had a
regional structure, there was production and competition. The clamour for
restructuring today is aimed at changing our constitution, because what we have
does not promote competition and production,” he added.
Nwodo gave instances
of progress made by nations which practice true federalism to buttress his
point that Nigeria needed to imbibe true fiscal federalism as a way forward.
He also said that it
was an irony that while some people recognised a constitution foisted on
Nigerians by a group of military men, they rejected the decisions reached by
prominent and well-meaning leaders at the 2014 National Conference.
Concurring, Chief
Horsefall stated that restructuring would ensure that “everybody goes back to
work.”
He said: “Everybody
stopped working when we discovered oil. There is no more groundnut, cocoa and
palm oil because everybody has stopped work. “We should run the country
according to the independence constitution. What we are seeing today is the
same expression of sectional interests. For us to achieve a Nigeria of our
dreams, this expression of sectional interests has to disappear. We must find a
way of accommodating one another. “We should have a system that promotes
justice and fairness for all. It does not matter who is in charge.”
He disagreed with what
he said was the attempt by two of the panel members, Yadudu and Yusuf, to label
those pushing for restructuring as opportunists and political office seekers.
According to him,
notable personalities like the former military president, General Ibrahim
Babangida (rtd.) and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar could not be seen as
merely being selfish in their expression of support for restructuring.
“I would like to
apologise to those who have been supporting the restructuring and who have been
described as opportunists by some of the panellists. I totally disassociate
myself from that view,” he said.
He blamed the military
for distorting the federal system of governance in Nigeria following many years
of holding on to power.
Shonibare also
restated the support of the Yourba ethno-cultural group for the restructuring
of the country, stressing that no multi-ethnic country like Nigeria could run a
unitary constitution.
“The basis for
starting Nigeria was to operate as a federation. The First Republic
Constitution was a Federal Constitution. There were no issues of ethnicity in
the First Republic.
“The issue was a
ruling party trying to dominate the opposition party in the Western Region,” he
said.
Shonibare warned that
if power was not devolved so that people can take their destiny in their hands
in terms of taking decisions on their affairs, the country would not work.
“The justification for
restructuring is that Nigeria is just not working. The 2014 National Conference
Report cannot provide all the solutions but it is a template that can solve
some of the issues fuelling the agitations. Our problem is operating a unitary
constitution,” Shonibare added.
Mrs. Rabana, in her
comments, stated that restructuring should be carried out to adjust the current
system, adding that the element of fiscal federalism aggravated the current
agitations.
She said Nigerians
were tired of the shortcomings of the present system of government, which had
failed to guarantee good governance, equity and justice.
She said the ordinary
man on the street clearly does not want a continuation of the present
situation.
“In my opinion, the
agitation is a manifestation of governance. The amendment of the various
changes is to make us better. Fiscal federalism is a philosophy of development.
Nigeria has been going through restructuring since 1960 and all of them are
aimed at promoting development.
“If the structure of
governance is not yielding results, there is need for restructuring. What was
intended was a federal system. However, the issue of character and values are
very important.”
However, other
panellists insisted that there was nothing wrong with the country’s present
structure, holding the view that the problem was the absence of good
governance.
In his contribution,
Edu, argued that the country has a leadership problem and stressed the need for
competition and strong institutions that could eliminate bad people from the
system.
According to him, even
if the country was restructured and bad people not removed, the challenges
would continue.
“There is a
fundamental issue that is not working in Nigeria. I don’t think we are in a
democracy. The level of poverty and unemployment is high. People take sides,
depending on tribes. Restructuring has to consider all these things.
“That Jonathan brought
many Igbos into his government did not translate into development in the
South-east. That Buhari gave most of the appointments to the North is not
bringing development to the North.
“I think that
restructuring has to create more competition, we need to bring more young
people to help push for the cause. I believe that there is also a leadership
problem in all of this. We need to build institutions that will not enable bad
people to assume leadership positions.
“The solution is a
generational shift in leadership to allow new ideas and thinking drive
governance in the country,” he said.
Yusuf, on his part,
described those agitating for restructuring as the disgruntled elite and
politicians who have lost out in the political scheme of things in the country.
He said restructuring
cannot work in a country where there are no moral values, which he described as
a key element that is missing in the country.
“Nigeria is not
working because we have no values, which is the basis for national unity. What
the agitators for restructuring are doing is for the sharing of the spoils of
office. The overwhelming majority of people agitating for restructuring are
agitating for jobs and resources.
“A powerful politician
in Anambra State abducted a governor and both of them are from the same
locality and share the same culture. So, the problem is not the structure.
“For me, that Nigeria
is not working is not because of the structure but because Nigeria does not
stand for any values,” Yusuf said.
Yusuf’s position was
shared by Prof. Yadudu, who stressed that the call for restructuring was what
the elite do when they have been left out the power equation.
“There was no
consensus on the 2014 National Conference Report. My view is that it cannot
solve the problems because it is undemocratic,” he stated.
Yadudu who said he was
not one of the drafters of the 1999 Constitution, added he did not see anything
wrong with the constitution but that if it must be changed, due process must be
followed.
He said if anyone had
a problem with the constitution, he or she should bring it up through an
amendment at the legislature and called on people to stop disparaging the
entire document.
Speaking on the report
of the 2014 National Conference, he said the report was not arrived at through
consensus and as such could not form the basis for restructuring the
federation.
“If you are going to
change anything in the constitution, it must be on the basis of Section 35 and
a referendum cannot be used since it is not recognised by the constitution,” he
said.
On how to tackle the
menace of herdsmen-farmers’ clashes, he agreed that local policing, vigilante,
and community relations would assist greatly in checking the menace.
Yadudu also expressed
the view that the current outcry for restructuring was an elitist idea being
forced into the Nigerian political firmament, particularly by those left out of
the scheme of things.
He said: “This whole
discussion is an idea of the elite. It is not something new. It is what the
elite do when they feel they are left out of power. Once it was the National
Conference, power shift, or power rotation.
“For the
secessionists, if you don’t allow Biafra to go, you have not restructured. If
you ask Afenifere, if you don’t implement the 2014 National Conference, you
have not restructured,” he said.
Source:
- Tobi, Soniyi, Ejiofor Oyeyipo Sola James, Shola Oyeyipo | Lagos | Onyebuchi
Ezigbo | Abuja | This Day | July 17, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment