When I concluded plans to visit London this week, it was for the
purpose of making a presentation on primary health care at Chatham
House... But about a week ago, I received a request to also speak here
about the restructuring debate in Nigeria. I accepted with reservations,
because I chair the APC’s Committee on True Federalism.
While I appreciate that the invitation to speak on the matter
reflects the international attention the Nigerian debate on
restructuring is attracting, I am keenly aware that whatever I say here
is liable to be misunderstood or misinterpreted by interested parties
back home as the position of the committee. So, a useful caveat early
on.
I will try to scope the debate around restructuring, place it in
the context of the history of Nigeria, highlight what the key issues
appear to be and conclude with how the All Progressives Congress
Committee on True Federalism is proceeding with its assignment. Where I
consider that outlining my personal views could contribute to the
discourse, I will not hesitate to do so, and make clear that such
opinions are mine alone.
Nigeria – A Federation without Federalism:
Over five years ago in April 2012, I wrote a widely published
article titled “A Federation without Federalism”. The article reflected
the broad consensus amongst Nigerians, then and now, that our federation
has been dysfunctional, more unitary than federal, and not delivering
public goods to the generality of our people.
Despite possessing significant natural resource endowments, being
Africa’s leading economy and most populous nation, Nigerians are neither
happy nor content with the current political structure, the 1999
Constitution, and virtually all the institutions of governance at the
federal, state and local levels. While this may be largely attributable
to our political culture and weird leadership selection process rather
than institutions and the constitution, many see the latter as the cause
and effect of our national discontent.
This state of national dissatisfaction for a variety of reasons and
motives has led to strident calls from virtually all segments of
Nigerian society for political, constitutional and fiscal reform using
various words and phrases – restructuring, true federalism, devolution,
resource control, regionalism, self-determination and so on. How do we
separate the signal from the noise?
How much of the debate is propelled by a desire for national
progress and how much is mere politics, opportunism and search for
sectional entitlement? Is the debate mostly driven by our fractious
politics and competing interests, or are there real grievances whose
resolution will create a critical juncture and opportunity for national
rebirth. I will attempt to explore these questions and end with some
thoughts on how the APC Committee I am privileged to be chairing is
hoping to address them.
In Search of Nationhood:
Everyone knows that Nigeria was founded by British fiat in 1914,
bringing together the diverse peoples and cultures of a vast land under
one polity. As the winds of change unleashed by the outcome of the
Second World War and the independence of India spurred agitations for
self-government, Nigerians debated, under British tutelage, the
political structure of a future, free Nigeria. Those who wanted
federalism won the argument, at the cost of being derided as
“Pakistanists” by a vocal minority that wanted a unitary Nigeria.
The 1950s saw the emergence of three regions, Northern, Eastern and
Western, with elected Nigerian leaders with limited powers of
self-rule.
In the pre-independence debates, the leaders of the Western and
Northern regions were especially insistent on a loose federation with
strong regions. This ultimately prevailed at independence in 1960, and
was reaffirmed by the republican Constitution of 1963. Historical
records indicate that the peoples of the smaller ethnic groups in the
North, West and East, largely accepted and supported the federalist
consensus, and they expected its logic to extend to the creation of new
regions for them, or special arrangements to accommodate their
interests.
A deal between the parties controlling the Northern and Eastern
Regions produced the governing coalition at independence in 1960. In
1963, the Mid-West was carved out of the Western region as the fourth
region. Each of these regions had a written constitution, emblem and an
official representation in London. They had significant powers, and were
authorised to raise the revenues needed to fund themselves and
contribute to the central government.
The political giants that led the old regions competed to do their
best for their respective peoples: the Western Region launched the first
public television service in Africa, a few years after adopting a free
education policy that consolidated its head start in western education
by extending universal access to the masses. Each of the three original
regions founded its own university, built industrial estates, and
developed hospitality businesses; and they tried to build the physical
infrastructure needed for a modern economy.
Some of the most enduring institutions in Nigeria were built by
these regional governments, hence the understandable nostalgia in some
quarters for the currently-dysfunctional federal structure of Nigeria to
revert to the regions of old.
However, after the “Five Majors” struck in 1966, and assassinated
virtually all the elected political leaders of the Northern and Western
Regions, a unitarist tendency gained influence in General Aguiyi
Ironsi’s government, and a unification decree was enacted in May 1966,
unifying the public service across the country, to much opposition,
especially from the Northern Region. Although a counter-coup in July
1966 sounded the death knell for the unification decree, the remnants of
unitarism remained, enabled without doubt by the centralised structure
of the military which inexorably further distorted our post-independence
federalism. The counter-coup was followed by widespread violence in the
North, the creation of 12 states out of the four defunct regions,
threats of secession and a civil war.
To raise the resources for prosecuting the civil war which started
in 1967, the taxation powers of the former regions were changed in
favour of the federal government, further strengthening the centre at
the expense of the twelve states. The military sat tight for 13 years in
their first coming. They ensured that the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
headed by a Supreme Commander, and ruled by the Federal Military
Government, became a strangely named, mainly unitary state.
The four years of civilian democratic rule between 1979 and 1983
saw some resurgence and reassertion of the federal spirit. Lagos State,
for instance, established a state university, a radio station and a
television service. Alhaji Lateef Jakande, the governor, even signed
contracts to build a metro system in Lagos even though railways are,
till today, on the Exclusive Legislative List in our Constitution,
making it a purely federal function.
The second coming of the military lasted until 1999. In those
sixteen years, the unitarist takeover was completed. A new generation of
citizens grew up knowing only the command-and-control system of the
soldiers. A psychological distortion made political deformation even
worse. More powers had been concentrated at the centre, the federal
bureaucracy had ballooned and there were now many states (from 12 to 36)
whose evident limitations proved insufficient to discourage the demand
for yet more states.
As states became many, smaller and less fiscally-independent, a
powerful centre, manifested in a Federal Government that assumed ever
more powers and responsibilities, took the biggest chunk of national
revenues (now about 53%) but did very little well. This is a brief
summary of our national journey to dysfunction!
Our national psyche has since then been focused on the distribution
of easy oil rents from the central government to the states. Thus,
after 57 years of independence, it is not unusual to see official
government forms that ask for state of origin, ethnicity and religion,
rather than state of residence, and what taxes one paid last year. These
unitarist and distributive impulses did not accelerate the evolution of
national unity and productive endeavour. Rather it created a rentier
economic structure and preserved the colonial stratagem of divide and
rule using ethnic, religious and geographic identities.
By the late military era, coinciding with the democratic wave
unleashed by the end of the Cold War, political groups and civic
organisations, mainly in the south, were agitating for a sovereign
national conference to negotiate the terms on which the component parts
of Nigeria will stay together. The military ruler of the time, President
Ibrahim Babangida resisted the call, but his successor, General Abacha,
convened a national conference that neither restored federalism nor
produced real democracy until he died in 1998.
Democratic rule was restored in May 1999, following the election of
former General Olusegun Obasanjo as president. In 1976, General
Obasanjo became the second military officer hailing from the south to
become Head of State. In 1999, he became the first from the south to
take office as an executive president. The calls for a sovereign
national conference became slightly muted in the period leading to the
2003 elections, but came alive again in 2005, as Obasanjo’s tenure was
coming to an end.
There have been two national conferences in the Fourth Republic,
convened by sitting presidents, but both were trailed by suspicions that
they were arranged to advance some kind of personal or sectional
political agenda. The conferences instituted by Presidents Obasanjo
(2005) and Goodluck Jonathan (2014) did not lead to the restoration of
federalism or advance democratic consolidation.
Where We Are as APC Administration:
As observed earlier, in recent months, there has been a resurgence
of the clamour for restructuring. Some of the advocates have not
bothered to define what restructuring means to them: is it devolution of
powers, resource-control, regionalism, or even self-determination, or
all of these? Restructuring is the new buzz word, and some of its
advocates demonize anyone not using the same registers as them, while
many a politician espies in it opportunities for media attention,
renewed relevance or career-enhancement. Perhaps I have only described
the variety of motivations that tend to surround great questions!
I have previously expressed my personal view, regretting the
opportunism of certain leaders who espouse restructuring now for
purposes of political and media attention, noting that they did nothing
to advance such goals when they were in power. And I pointed out that
the Federal Government needs to devolve more powers to the states, and
the states to the local governments. On live national television, I
asserted that this is already happening under the APC national
government by convention and pragmatic devolution, without any
legislation, national conference or constitutional amendment.
For instance, my colleagues and I in the Kaduna State Executive
Council requested that the Federal Government should re-designate two
major roads in Kaduna, our state capital, as state roads. The Federal
Executive Council granted our wishes, restoring the two roads to our
control and saving us the inconvenience of seeking permission from a
federal bureaucrat before we can install street lights on a major road
in our state capital. I also cited the fact that the Federal Government
no longer just issues mining titles in Abuja; rather it now works with
state governments that control the titles to land, unlike in our recent
non-collaborative past. In Kaduna State, we are trying to devolve
control of forests, management of fire services and other ‘state-level’
functions to our 23 local governments, in addition to many others.
As I argued at a recent event, I do not believe that a single,
centralised police force can deliver on the necessity to visibly project
state power and enforce the law in this vast country of ours with
nearly 200 million people. Neither is the exclusive control of
over-crowded prisons and an unmanageable number of federal trunk roads
and railways!
Amidst these renewed demands for restructuring, our national
parliament – the Senate and House of Representatives – had voted against
key restructuring provisions in the proposed constitutional amendment
bills. The APC has a majority in both chambers of the National Assembly,
and the public expected the party to provide leadership on the issue of
true federalism, which is one of our manifesto commitments.
APC Committee on True Federalism:
In response to these developments and due to the need to clearly
articulate our roadmap for political and constitutional reform, the APC
set up a Committee on True Federalism to help to give structure to the
debate, remove the bile and bitterness colouring the matter and
transform the discourse into a nation-building event.
Our party is particularly keen to hear the voices of young people
that account for over 80 percent of our population, not just the
eloquent assertions of the old politicians like me who are above the age
of 50.
The APC Committee on True Federalism, which I chair, has the following Terms of Reference:
1. Examine the Party constitution, manifesto and other publications
to ascertain the true intent and definition of the national structure
promised by the Party during the Presidential campaign.
2. Review all various ideas being promoted in the current public debate on national restructuring
3. Take a studied look at the report of the various national
conferences and in particular that of 2014, its recommendations to
identify areas of concurrence with the Party’s promise in (1) above.
4. Liaise with APC caucus in the National Assembly to deliberate
and recommend a legislative strategy for addressing the demand for
political restructuring and how to use the report of National Conference
in the best interest of the country.
5. Arising from (1-4) above, propose appropriate mechanism for
implementing the Party position within the confines of current
constitutional arrangement without prejudice to the continued unity and
shared prosperity of the nation.
6. Make any other recommendation which in the opinion of the
committee advances the unity national integration and collective
wellbeing of the country.
The Committee began by focusing its preliminary research and preparatory work in the following four broad areas:
• Balance in the federation – Devolution of powers to sub-nationals;
• Review of revenue allocation formula;
• Citizenship matters including federal character, and
• Review of key recommendations of the 2005 and 2014 national conferences.
The preponderance of opinion is that the Federal Government needs
to shed weight, and return powers and resources to the states where most
government functions can be more efficiently undertaken. For the states
to take on these powers, they need to access a greater share of the
nation’s resources. And we need to sort out the notion of citizenship so
that every Nigerian can enjoy the protection of the Constitution
wherever they choose to reside. In many communities, people still use
the notion of ‘indigene-ship’ to consign compatriots to a position of
‘settler’ and, by implication, perpetual exclusion from enjoying the
full political, social and economic opportunities guaranteed by the
Constitution to every citizen.
Key Issues for Debate:
After a careful review of history, literature and reports on the
four broad areas identified above, the APC Committee on True Federalism
has reduced the subject matter into the following twelve contentious
issues that have consistently featured in virtually all previous debates
on the issues around restructuring by whatever name or phrase:
1) Creation or merger of states and the framework and guidelines for achieving that;
2) Derivation principle, bordering on what percentage of federal
collectible revenues from mining should be given back to the
sub-nationals from which the commodities are extracted;
3) Devolution of powers: what items on the exclusive legislative
list should be transferred to the recurrent list, especially state and
community police, prisons, etc.;
4) Federating Units: Should Nigeria be based on regions or zones or retain the 36-state structure?
5) Fiscal federalism and revenue allocation;
6) Form of government – (parliamentary or presidential?);
7) Independent candidacy;
8) Land tenure system;
9) Local government autonomy;
10) Power sharing and rotation of political offices;
11) Resource control; and
12) Type of legislature – part-time or full-time, unicameral or bicameral?
We have since published calls for memoranda, created various social
media platforms to tap into the opinions of the younger generation, and
commenced public hearings in 12 locations across Nigeria. The final
public hearing will take place in the nation’s capital Abuja, targeting
National Assembly members and the general public living within the
federal capital territory.
The Secretary of our Committee, Senator Bunmi Adetunmbi articulated our position very clearly recently:
“The APC recognizes that the work of nation-building is an ongoing
process in which every stakeholder has a role to play, by making his own
contribution. In this case, the APC as a national political party is an
institution and a stakeholder that has a role to play in making its own
contribution. This exercise is our own way of making that contribution.
The APC leadership felt that it is not necessary to think alone
among ourselves, but to also ask members of the public what they think.
That is why everything this Committee is doing is not about its own
opinion, but harvesting the opinion of the ordinary people in order to
form an opinion. After all, no political party exists just by itself,
but by the mandate of people.
In this regard, we have put up an announcement calling on members
of the public to submit memoranda and meet us at designated venues of
the public hearings without any discrimination. So, it is an open
invitation to all Nigerians to attend and make their views and voices to
count.”
With this multi-pronged approach, we are confident we will feel the
pulse of ordinary Nigerians and submit a credible report that will
guide the leaders of our party, and governments. With this open-minded
approach to the question of restructuring, I have no doubt that we will
credibly fulfil our terms of reference.
Some Concluding Thoughts:
As I have argued since 2012, there is no doubt that the Nigerian
federation is unbalanced and in dire need of structural rebalancing.
This I think we all agree as Nigerians, but the devil is in the details.
While some advocates of wholesale abandonment of the existing political
structure are probably unrealistic in their expectations, I believe
most Nigerians appreciate and cherish our unity in diversity but seek
the enthronement of a fairer, meritocratic system that puts social
justice above everything else. It is not very hard to achieve this.
Under the current constitutional order, such a system can be
achieved peacefully either (i) gradually as shown by the Buhari
administration’s devolution of responsibilities and increasing
involvement of sub-nationals in national economic policymaking or (ii)
more rapidly through constitutional and legislative actions of the
National and State Assemblies well before the 2019 general elections.
Both options are already being pursued albeit in a haphazard manner,
hence the need for our Committee.
Our expectation as a governing party (and government in office) is
that the voice of Nigerians – particularly young people – ought to set
the agenda for what is desirable in creating a country where there are
equal opportunities for all, and where peace and justice reign. The
insistent din of the vocal political minority should not drown the new
voices of the majority, many of whom are young and apolitical.
Our Committee hopes our approach will enable our party to attain
the goal of getting to the very heart and soul of the restructuring
debate through the lens of the ordinary Nigerian. There is an
opportunity for Nigerians to advance, discuss and refine ideas for
adjusting the Exclusive List, Minerals and Mining Rights, the local
government system, choice of National VAT versus Sub-National Sales
Taxes, Population Census and re-Demarcation of Federal and State
Constituencies based on the 2006 Census – all matters that are long
overdue for deep reflection and reform.
This nation-building exercise could also encourage consensus for
introducing State Constitutions, State Police, Appeal and Supreme
Courts, creation or merger of states, reviewed tax powers, and
reinforcing state government control over land by vesting mineral rights
in the states, subject to federal royalties, export duties and taxes.
We intend to submit our Committee’s report to the Party by the end of October 2017 by God’s Grace.
I thank you for the opportunity. Thanks for listening and God Bless.
No comments: