Notes to the Ndigbo Meeting of January 19, 2001
by
Mobolaji E. Aluko, PhD Burtonsville, MD, USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 2001, The Ndigbo from all nooks and crannies of the world
are expected to meet in Enugu under the aegis of the Ohaneze to discuss
their way forward in Nigeria.
There is likely to be a lot of talk of marginalization, both by the low
and the high, among other weightier issues. There is abundant evidence of
that marginalization, whether in historical revenue allocation figures
(see my http://www.ngex.com/personalities/voices/sm010601baluko.htm;
"SUNDAY MUSINGS: The Un-Federal Nature of Nigeria's Fiscal Federalism")
or in the Petroleum Trust Fund expenditures under Buhari that were once
provided at the beginning of the Obasanjo tenure.
The causes of such a state of marginalizatioin would be both INTERNAL to
the Igbo as well as EXTERNAL. Not being Igbo, I am not completely
competent to speculate about the INTERNAL political, social and cultural
dynamics. However, below, I speculate on some of what I call the
"institutional marginalization" of the South-East zone (which forms the
core of the Igbo nationality) based on its physical characteristics and an
EXTERNAL factors to the SE: the 1999 Constitution and its requirements for
revenue allocation.
In Nigeria at the moment, six political zones are recognized as follows (I
have included the States and the number of local governments of each zone
in brackets):
(i) South-West SW - Ekiti (16), Lagos (20), Ogun (20), Ondo (18),
Osun (30), and Oyo (33)
(ii) South-East SE - Abia(17), Anambra (21), Ebonyi (13), Enugu (17),
and Imo (27)
(iii) South-South SS - Akwa-Ibom (31), Bayelsa (8), Cross-River (18),
Delta (25), Edo (18), and Rivers (23)
(iv) North-West NW - Kaduna (23), Kano (44), Katsina (34), Kebbi (21),
Niger (25), Sokoto (23), and Zamfara (14)
(v) North-East NE - Adamawa (21), Bauchi (20), Borno (27), Gombe (11),
Jigawa (27), and Yobe (17)
(vi) North-Central NC - Benue (23), Kogi (21), Kwara (16),
Nassaraw (13), Plateau (17), and Taraba (16)
as well as the Federal Capital Territory FCT (Abuja).
How does the above information and others presented in Table 1 below
figure into the institutional marginalization? The reasons are as
follows: with respect to -
(1) the number of states, the SE has the least number.
(2) square area (land mass), SE has the least size.
(3) population, SE has the least population (according to 1991 census).
(4) the number of local governments, SE has the least number.
(5) population density, SE has the highest density.
(6) derivation - much of which is from oil in Nigeria at the moment.
(7) need - which in turn obviously relates to 1-5 above - SE has to
compete with others in the political arena.
(8) possibly malice due to suspicion, SE has the highest index, because
of the Biafra War of 1967/1970 following an attempt to secede by this
zone, and irredentist moves to recover that (deferred?) dream.
Now, the first seven indices are what goes DIRECLTY into revenue allocation
in Nigeria, and the disadvantage of the SE relative to most other
political zones in five of them leads to institutional "marginalization",
even if malicious marginalization (Factor 8) - which one believes is the
object of the real complaint about "marginalization" - were not in
existence.
All of these matter only because the Federal government presently acts
like Father Christmas to every other level of government, doling out money
that does not really belong to it to those to whom it belongs. The
solution is that the earlier each political zone determine its own NEEDS
and can act to LARGELY fulfil those themselves, AND the earlier our
Ndiigbo compatriots stop increasing the suspicion (Factor # 8), the
happier our SE friends are likely to be in a strong, united, secular and
truly Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The obvious solution is therefore to demand RESOURCE CONTROL, and even
after then to demand EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL ZONES FROM THE CENTER
irrespective of number of states and local governments. For example,
national censuses will then not have to be manipulated.
That is why one would hope that the Ndiigbo meeting of later this week
would build upon what the Southern Governors Forum (whose last meeting was
in Enugu last week) has been saying and doing is lately, and why the
Ndiigbo Forum should unequivocally demand a Sovereign National Conference
to correct these anomalies in a comprehensive and holistic manner. It is
my firm belief that talk about Confederations, etc. should be deferred to
such an SNC.
I rest my case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1: Comparative Zonal Analysis of Some Revenue Allocation Parameters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone Area Rank 1991 Rank Pop'n Rank No. of Rank No. Rank Avrg.
sq. km census Dens. States LGs Rank
SE 29,908 [6] 10,712,675 [6] 358 [1] 5 [6] 95 [6] [5]=6
SW 78,941 [5] 17,600,641 [2] 223 [2] 6 [2] 137 [2] [2.6]=2
SS 85,097 [4] 12,939,226 [3] 152 [3] 6 [2] 123 [3] [3]=3
NW 207,745 [3] 22,494,182 [1] 108 [4] 7 [1] 174 [1] [2]=1
NC 252,012 [2] 12,212,064 [4] 48 [5] 6 [2] 106 [5] [3.6]=5
NE 271,998 [1] 11,907,122 [5] 44 [6] 6 [2] 123 [3] [3.4]=4
FCT - 378,671 - - 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tot. 925,717 88,514,581 96 36 774
South 193,946(21%) 41,252,542(47%) 213 17 355
North 731,771(79%) 47,262,039(53%) 65 19 419
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writer is a Professor of chemical engineering at Howard University