Restructuring Nigeria's Federal system, with Confederal arrangement as an Option of Last Resort.
My personal position on the matter is very well known. Running For Dear Life (My Work in Exile) has made that clear in
several chapters. There is now no alternative to a Sovereign National Conference. Indeed, my "Author's brief comments" at the launching of the book on
23rd October, 2000 was designed to address the fears of those who feel threatened by a SNC. Please permit me to quote the relevant portion of that statement.
"Let me state clearly here and now that the sovereignty ascribed to the Conference of Nigerian Nationalities and other
interest groups refers only to the sovereignty of the Nigerian people through a national referendum, over the approval or rejection of whatever conclusions that
may be arrived at, at the end of the conference. That is to say that when the conference delegates have haggled, negotiated, given and taken, and produced a
document, essentially the product of patriotic and responsible agreements and compromises, the government of the day, be it the executive, legislative, or
judicial arm, shall have no power to alter or in anyway tamper with the document. Every Nigerian of voting age entitled and registered to vote shall participate
in a nation-wide referendum specifically organised to accept or reject the proposals. Sovereignty is of the people, not of conference delegates. Upon approval,
the relevant sections shall be codified into The New Nigerian Constitution and other administrative instruments.
"It is not proposed, nor would it be reasonable to expect that a National Conference convoked specifically to address and
determine critical issues concerning the survival of the federation would subsume, subvert or in any way interfere with the normal responsibilities of the
elected government at any tier".
I went on to say and here now re-emphasise that "the process of convoking the SNC in a democratic setting can only be
through legislation. But the legislative process at the National Assembly is bound to be long and tedious. There would be public hearings and a national debate
to determine, not only the issues to be tackled but also the mode of composition and of election or selection of delegates such that every Nigerian nationality
and agreed interest group shall be judiciously and equitably represented and all fears - real or merely perceived - duly addressed".
But there is now justifiable concern about the way that this matter is being dragged. You will remember that I saw the sarcasm
in the President's response at the presentation of the third interim report of the Presidential Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution on Thursday,
October 19, 2000. Let me quote him again:
"The beauty of democracy is that you are constantly dialoguing, you are constantly debating, you are constantly
interacting and we are constantly widening the frontiers of our inclusion of whatever we are to do".
As I had feared, I fear even more now, that we may widen and widen the scope of consultation but do nothing until we are
confronted with a fait accompli and have what we hope would be a four-year transition extended in the first instance perhaps, to an eight-year
interregnum. Whatever needs be done must be done to prevent this situation. If the conclusions of the Abuja Conference organised by the Traditional Rulers is
anything to go by, Nigerians are ready for the Conference and the legislative processes must begin at once. If the National Assembly is tuned in to the people
it represents, it can produce the necessary law within the next few weeks.
A Committee has been set up at the Abuja meeting, made up of three representatives of each of the six zones now informally
adopted for political purposes, to work out an agenda for the conference. Within that body, each interest group must seek accommodation for an effective input.
On attendance at the conference, some of us have always advocated for equitable representation of all the nations within
Nigeria, irrespective of size, as well as the accommodation of representatives of Civil Society, including Labour, the Security Services, Pro-democracy and
Human Rights Movements, a reflection of gender sensitivity and the recognition of vulnerable groups like women, youth and children. But I have heard strong
views expressed on this matter at the Abuja Conference, to the effect that Nigeria as a federation is of nationalities and members of every interest group who
consider themselves stakeholders must belong to one of the federating nations or groups through which their views can be presented. This is an issue that must
be carefully considered and speedily resolved. The mechanics of convoking a National Conference must be quickly settled.
Of course, papers and proposals can be presented by anybody. No one has opted for the dissolution of the Nigerian Federation.
Most people insist on a reduction of federal might without weakening the base of our union. Everyone agrees that injustices of the past must be addressed and
redressed while equality must be guaranteed and the possibility of domination of one nation or group of nations by another must be prevented. Democracy is about
addressing common concerns equitably, and federalism remains the best way of harnessing the positive aspects of ethnicity in order to reduce its negative
attributes in a multi-national state.
As a believer in true federalism, my discomfort can be imagined as I listened to the National Champion Newspaper's Better
Society Lecture 2000, delivered on Monday, 30th April, 2001 at the Nigerian Law School Auditorium. I was the chairman on that occasion while His Excellency
Prof. Jibril Aminu, FAS, FNAEd, was the lecturer. He spoke on WHO WANTS A TRUE FEDERATION? He proceeded, rather ill-informedly to my mind, to condemn the
concept of federalism as the system of government best suited for Nigerian. It is his view that Nigerians prefer the unitary system and that;
"The fertile debating ground of 'true federalism' is a convenient diversionary tactic in place of the daunting and
demanding task of development." WHO WANTS A TRUE FEDERATION? 30th April, 2001. Unfortunately, the book is not paginated.
Of course, we all know how the processes of meaningful development have been hindered by the consequences of progressive
erosion of the principles of federalism upon which Nigeria is established as a Sovereign Country. Indeed, the Middle Belt submitted, at the Abuja Conference:
"While we appreciate the creation of states with the attendant devolution of power to units of our populace, we now
discover that the states do not constitute viable units of the federation and do indeed have far less powers and developmental relevance than the provinces
within our old Regions. Of course, regional self-determination has long since become a thing of the past. Bureaucracies have been multiplied at the expense of
physical and economic development."
But it is Prof. Aminu's view that: "No one is complaining of the creation of states even though the exercises broke up
ancient kingdoms, like Borno, Kano, Oyo, Sokoto, which long outdated the British. They also know that, with each new state, the Federal Government becomes
proportionately stronger heading towards a Unitary System which I personally think is the answer and which is where we are heading eventually."
I am sure you know why I said at the beginning of this lecture that in spite of all that has been said over the years, some
people are listening but not hearing. Given the circumstances in which States and Local Governments were created and the imposed system of revenue allocation,
who would not want more States and Local Governments? But it is in spite or perhaps because of the bastardisation of the political system through these
inequalities and unscientific states and local government creation exercises that people clamour for a return to fiscal federalism or "true
federation", as we knew it with necessary adjustments to take care of long standing demands, which predated our independence. Even General Obasanjo
asserted, as quoted at page 197 of my book that:
"With the atomisation of Nigeria by means of state creation almost to the point of rendering the constituent units
prostrate, I find the concept of zones as the basis of our federation worth examining. At this stage of our development, we cannot abandon the federal system
but perhaps the federal units should be zones rather than the existing states. Each zone should be large enough to be viable... The time has come when as a mark
of true federalism, revenue resources and responsibility of each constituent component, should determine wages and salary scales of each constituent unit".
General Obasanjo has, of course, since reversed this sensible idea in one of his earliest presidential pronouncements in which
he unilaterally and I must say illegally decreed uniform national wage.
We were examining Jubril Aminu's treatise on federalism. People have asked me why, I, as Chairman of the occasion, did not use
my position to give something back. I would have needed as much time as he had to respond to his provocative, at best naive but often downright insolent and
insensitive views. He spoke often, with the arrogance of the conquistador with a passion for the pacification of a downright primitive people. It took his
current posting in America to understand the call for State Police-
"...I now live in a country with Federal State and even county police. But that is a country electing police chiefs and
even some judges. No politician there can misuse the police."
What stops us from applying here those checks and balances that make the Federal system of policing work there? Is there any
federation in the world where policing is the exclusive responsibility of the government a the centre?
As a matter of fact, as far as true federalism is concerned, the only discordant note today is from the Arewa Consultative
Forum, which insists on seeing the old North as indivisible in spite of stringent cries from the Middle Belt for a distinct identity, citing the Delta/Edo
situation in relation to Yoruba land with which they made up the old Western Region. The Middle Belt is gone. The only issue in contention really, is the
settlement of internal boundaries between what is left of the North with the excision of the Middle Belt. One hopes that the Ambassador can take time off, and
return home to be part of the final settlement of this important issue, particularly as regards the settlement of "his people", the Fulbe. It is as
illusory to talk now of One North as it is to refer to one West without recognising the "freedom" of the Union of Niger Delta.
When he made a case for social mobilisation, Prof. Aminu put his finger on a crucial issue. He was right in his condemnation of
past fire-brigade mobilisation effort, but he was putting the cart before the horse when he said:
"If ever a National Conference is required, it is how to embark on social mobilisation, to take the people along as
partners in national development. It will be a glorious revolution if the masses rise up as genuinely convinced partners with the leaders and the
governments".
What an idea! A National Conference on how to embark on mobilisation? This very occasion is one of the continuing processes in
the mobilisation of the people of Nigeria for the National Conference! The people have risen up. They are up - standing and loudly demanding to be heard by the
government. The future of Nigeria, if it must survive as one country under democratic rule, must be determined by the people themselves; the many nations that
make up the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The people are mobilised and ready and government must respond or risk the break up of one of the most promising
countries in the world.
Finally, there is yet another option which I gave before but to which people have not responded. In an address captioned, Making
Things Work in Nigeria: Challenges, Strategies and Opportunities, presented in St. Louis Missouri on Saturday, July 17, 1999 and beginning at page 262 of RUNNING...,
I said (P. 273):
"I am (however), willing to concede that if any nation or peoples within the Nigerian Federation opt out of the principle
of sovereignty, provision should be made for direct Federal control of such a territory in the way that Westminster directly controls the affairs of England,
since, as we have just seen, Westminster's direct control of England does not affect power devolution to other nations within Great Britain. The Colony of Lagos
was run the same way by the Colonial Government after the rest of Nigeria gained self-government. Independent Nigeria's Federal Government similarly ran Lagos
as Federal Capital before states were created by the military. Abuja is today governed in the same way. In the words of Dr. Mahmud Tukur, in an interview with Weekly
Trust quoted in TELL Magazine, No. 28, July 12, 1999":
"The idea of Federation for Nigeria should be to make it possible for the various groups to have as much say and control
of those matters which concern them alone and which do not touch on the rights and interests of other communities. Why should anyone quarrel with that
idea?"
Text of a lecture delivered by the former civilian governor of old Kwara State, at a rally organised by the Campaign
for Democracy (CD) in honour of slain pro-democracy activist, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola.