By ADETOKUNBO PEARSE
A National Conference is a formal platform for dialogue by constituent units of the nation convened by the national government of a country to discuss issues or problems that inhibit national progress or challenge national cohesion (2014 Confab Report 1.1.3). In accordance with this definition, the Goodluck Jonathan administration organized a National dialogue to deliberate on, and recommend ways to resolve some of the challenges facing his government, many of which problems were rooted in the history of the nation.
The problems were multifaceted and seemed intractable. There was the Boko-Haram insurgency in the North and their demand for Nigerian sovereign territory.
President Jonathan was accused of being weak on corruption, as many of his top ministers were alleged to have amassed so much wealth for themselves that they were richer than the nation itself. Then, came the Chibok saga. When some High School girls were allegedly abducted from their school in Chibok, Borno State, by Boko Haram terrorists and government could not rescue them, some of Jonathan’s detractors, especially from the North, said the president did not care. They alleged that his lack of empathy was because the Chibok girls were not from his ethnic group. This allegation of ethnocentricism reinforced an earlier accusation that Jonathan was, infact, running an Igbo administration.
Opinion in the country was rapidly dividing along the lines of North against South. To be precise, the North-West, North–East geo-political zones against the South–East, South–South geo-political zones with the South West and the North-Central operating somewhere in between. Civil society groups noticed the trend and renewed their agitation for a sovereign conference. The civil society demanded a review of the 1999 Constitution, and insisted that the issue of the Union called Nigeria should be on the agenda. Pressure intensified from the political angle in about 2013, when the newly formed All Progressives Congress, (APC) mounted a propaganda campaign which created the impression that Jonathan’s administration had failed to the point that if Jonathan or his political party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was allowed to continue in office, Nigeria as an entity would suffer irreparable damage. Under Jonathan, the number of his party’s governors in the North-West and North-east dropped from 11 to 2. They had bought into the new party’s propaganda. Former PDP governors and PDP Chairmen as well as leaders at all levels left the party and took their people with them to join the All Progressives Congress. This northern desertion of the PDP; a party in which 61% of the national delegates were from the North can, be attributed to one major issue, the sentiment that President Goodluck Jonathan had hijacked the PDP from the north, and converted it into a South-South, South – East junta.
As if intended to counter the North’s allegation that Nigeria was fast turning into ‘Igbo Country’, the internationally acclaimed writer, Chinua Achebe, published his hard hitting memoir, There was a country. In this last known work by Achebe, the author accused Nigeria of marginalizing the people of the South-East geopolitical zone. According to the text, the Igbo have not been rehabilitated into Nigeria since the 1967-1970 Civil War. It asserted that the resentment of the Igbo was too deep for the Igbo to trust Nigeria to accommodate them as equal partners within the present system. Many opinions criticized Achebe for preaching Igbo nationalism and encouraging divisiveness. Despite the unfavorable critical reviews, the memoir was quite popular, particularly among young Igbo readers. The tone of There was a Country was dangerously similar to that of the school of thought which demanded a sovereign conference to determine the legitimacy of Nigeria as a nation.
The Jonathan administration reasoned that in order to temper the growing trend of sectionalism and country-wide mutual distrust, it would bring key stakeholders together for the purpose of seeking solutions to the national malaise. Jonathan made it clear, however, that the conference was to be a national dialogue, not a constitutional conference, and certainly not a sovereign conference. The authenticity of the Nigerian state was not to be discussed.
Whether the detractors of President Jonathan were right or wrong, the atmosphere was set for a Buhari victory in 2015. The ‘heavyweight’ cross overs from the PDP made sure of that. No doubt, the propaganda that brought Buhari victory worked partly because of the failings of the Jonathan government, and partly because of the public memory of Muhammadu Buhari of the 1983-1985 tenure as Head of State. His administration had the reputation of being tough on crime. It appeared to have no tolerance for indiscipline and graft. Nigerians were optimistic. They believed the APC campaign of ‘change’ to mean a change from political divisiveness to political unity. They believed that Buhari would end corruption as he had appeared to have done in the 1980s and who can blame the people for believing him when he claimed that as a soldier, he knew what to do to bring the Boko Haram insurgency to a halt within weeks. Buhari’s failure to perform is to a great extent the reason the clamour to implement the 2014 confab recommendation is gathering momentum by the day.
There is a correlation between the level of civil agitation, and the state of the nation, between the state of the nation, and the performance level of the government in power. Nigeria has witnessed several agitations for National Conference. From the sovereign conference relating to the 1914 amalgamation, to General Abacha’s 1995 Constitutional Conference and President Obasanjo’s National Political Conference of 2005, the issue has always been the need to dialogue on how to evolve a wealthier country with equity and fairness within a stronger union. None of these conferences have fully satisfied the agitators, but they have always deferred to government, usually with the hope that the next administration will come to the rescue. The problem this time is that it appears that there is no next time.
President Buhari’s image makers portrayed him as the symbol of progressive change, and his party, the All Progressives Congress, as the last hope for the redemption of Nigeria. But from the beginning of his tenure, hope began to wane. Buhari’s first set of major appointments were obviously ethnocentric: 13 from his own North-West, 7 from neighbouring North-East, 7 from North-Central, only 4 from South-South, only 3 from South-West, and 0 from South–East. This disturbed everyone in the south, and alarmed the South-East. Within days of this uneven appointments, the cry for Biafra became louder than ever, the Avengers declared their intention to defend the Niger Delta against Buhari and the Fulani herdsmen, believing that one of their own was now president of the nation, became emboldened. Subsequent appointment of security chiefs, heads of key parastatals have all followed this ethnocentric pattern. The man who was supposed to lead our march to unity had become the country’s main divisive force.
Apart from blatant tribalism and nepotism, Buhari’s administration’s level of inefficiency is monumental. Its first budget was riddled with errors, miscalculations and padding. In trying to doctor it up, the document disappeared, and not even the president had an idea of its whereabouts. For almost six months into his administration, Buhari did not appoint ministers. As a result of this lapse, the country’s economy was neglected at a time when the administration needed to set a tone and map out its strategy for the nation’s growth. Similar lack of focus led to confusion for the president and the nation at the National Assembly. While the president was napping, his political rivals took over the leadership of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Now, the National Assembly is a veritable war zone where diatribe is the only type of dialogue, and fisticuffs used to determine policy.
Dr. Pearse is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of English University of Lagos and a Public Affairs analyst.
The Presidents’ appeal to lawyers to refrain from defending criminals, and his refusal to recognize the order of the court to release detained persons, indicate that he has little respect for the rule of law.
Every sector of the society has been impacted adversely in the last two years. Direct foreign investment is down. The stock market is down. The naira is at the lowest level it has been in history. Our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the lowest it has been in 25 years. Unemployment level is growing by the day. The cost of essential commodities such as food stuff has tripled under this Buhari administration, causing hunger and unheard of levels of poverty in the land. With Boko Haram here, Fulani herdsmen there, no one is safe. And the political climate has never been this convoluted and gloomy in peace time Nigeria. There is no real party in the country to speak of. There is no PDP, and no APC, all we have are factions such as Modu Sheriff – PDP, or Makarfi – PDP, and Buhari – Oyegun – APC, Bola Tinubu – APC, or Saraki – APC. It is the profundity of the failure of the Buhari administration that is driving the universal demand for a redesign of our polity. This demand has found a voice in the 2014 confab recommendation.
Despite President Buhari’s ridicule of the authors of the 2014 conference, and his bitter denunciation of the national conference, opposition to the idea of reorganizing the system of government as we have it now does not appear to have a large following. Nonetheless, the concern of some important personalities about the value of the idea deserves mediation. One of such people is former President Olusegun Obasanjo who in his memoir, My Watch, and at the recent funeral observances for Alhaji Maitama Sule, equated the call for restructuring with the dissolution of the Republic. Mr. Former President, nothing can be further from the truth. To reorganize is not the same as to disorganize. The purpose of restructuring is to rearrange the way government business is run in order to make the parts and foundation of our union stronger and not to destroy them or make them weaker. To suggest, as Obasanjo has done, that restructurists want to break Nigeria up into 36 countries is preposterous! No one can question Obasanjo’s patriotic credentials, but we can certainly assert that he is not Nigeria’s only patriot. Surely former president Obasanjo does not think that accomplished Nigerians such as former President Ibrahim Babangida, former Vice President Abubakar Atiku, former Chief of Defence Staff, Lt. General Alani Akinrinade, former Finance Minister and presidential candidate, Chief Olu Falaie, Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, Cardinal Anthony Okojie, Emir of Kano, Lamido Sanusi, Former Commonwealth Secretary General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, and former Information Minister, Prof. Jerry Gana, who have all endorsed the restructuring model love Nigeria less than he does!
Another outspoken critic, former member of the House of Representatives, Dr. Junaid Mohammed,was a delegate to the 2014 National Conference. According to Dr. Junaid, the Pan-Northern Delegate Forum of which he was a member at the conference rejected every facet of the conference. As he put it in his Saturday Sun interview of 22nd April, 2017, “we didn’t agree with the confab, we didn’t agree with the idea behind it, we didn’t agree with the composition of the delegates and how they were chosen, and the manner Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi conducted the affairs of the conference. We rejected the outcome of the confab long before the conference made its submission to the government”. When asked by the interviewer why the Northern delegation did not walk out of the conference and instead enjoyed the emoluments and contributed to the discussions if it had that much objection to the entire exercise, Dr. Junaid retorted that the northern delegates did not form a quorum that could decide on such action.
Dr. Junaid’s comments are quite troubling, therefore a number of interrogations are pertinent here. Does he not realize that the very notion of a Pan-Northern Delegates Forum to a national dialogue on how to improve federal government performance negates the spirit of oneness? For example, Chief Olabode George, who is from Lagos State, went to the Conference, not as a Southwest leader, or a Southern delegate, but as a Chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). And since everybody from the Southwest is not a member of Afenifere, Yinka Odunmakin, the secretary of the Yoruba socio-political organization, was not representing a ‘Pan Southwest Forum’, but his ‘Pan-Yoruba organization’. Similarly, Barrister Uwazurike was presenting his organization; Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), not Nnamdi Kanu’s Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), or Biafra Independent Movement (BIM), nor other pro-Biafra groups, or civil society groups from the Southeast area. Neither, did all the delegates from the South-south geo-political zone constitute themselves into a lobby group. Consequently one of the most prominent citizens from the zone Chief Edwin Clark, attended the confab as leader of the Ijaw nation, not as a member of some ‘Pan South-South Forum’. One can deduce from Dr. Junaid’s and the ‘Pan Northern Delegates Forum’s declaration that since they did not agree with ‘the idea behind it’ (the confab), that they went to the confab as spoilers. Why else would they have attended a three-month long assembly which, as Junaid Mohammed informs us, they dismissed from inception as a waste of time, and a waste of tax payers money?
Dr Junaid Mohammed’s revelation that he and his ‘Pan Northern Delegates forum’ would have walked out of the conference deliberations if they formed a quorum provides another indication that they were disingenuous in their dealings with the National Conference. The excuse that the Pan Northern Delegates Forum did not form a quorum at the conference is a subterfuge. There were 492 member in total, at the convention. And by Mohammad’s own admission 189 of them were from the North. It is common knowledge that in the internationally accepted Roberts Rule of law, 1/3rd of the whole forms a quorum. And since 1/3rd of 492 is 164, the Northern delegation with 189 members had a quorum and could have staged a legitimate boycott. Perhaps, the real reason Junaid Mohammed and the ‘Pan Northern Delegates Forum’s did not walk out of the 2014 Confab was because they recognized that the event was popular throughout the country. They knew it had intrinsic legitimacy, and that the issues discussed were of monumental significance to the heart and soul of the nation. They realized that to walk out on such an August gathering would have been tantamount to issuing a notice of the north’s intention to quit the federation.
Were the comments not coming from a man with the enormous powers of a state governor, one would have simply dismissed the rash condemnation of restructuring attributed to Governor Nasir El-Rufai in the Daily Sun of 30th June, 2017 as idle chatter. The governor’s objection to the idea of are-configuration of the country runs in three parts. Firstly, he argues that the Buhari administration, and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), are already taking practical steps towards restructuring by “inclusion of state governors in economic policy-making at the national level”. Secondly, he posits that because the composition of delegates to the 2014 was flawed, the APC, “took a position as a party; not to participate, but to encourage our state governors to be there at the table”. He, therefore, rejects the confab report recommendations entirely, stating, “we do not believe that the 2014 National Conference report is a sensible basis to even begin”. The governor’s third point is that many of the proponents of restructuring are political opportunists. As he puts it, “People who have presidential aspirations think there is a platform upon which they will exploit this”. Based on these three comments, one has to say that virtually all aspects of Governor El-Rufai’s objection to the notion of restructuring demonstrate that his knowledge of the restructure movement is hazy, as his vision for Nigeria’s future is myopic.
Mr Governor, Sir, the involvement of governors in ‘the investigations of finances of the Excess Crude Account’ is not the type of fiscal empowerment the advocates of restructuring talk about. What we need is fiscal devolution whereby the Federal Government transfers its powers to control mineral resources found in states to the states under the leadership of the governor. Profits generated from investment of those resources will generate federal tax from economic activities in the state. In this way, the states will be richer, and the federal government also will be fiscally stronger because it will be collecting tax on multiple businesses, and from 36 states instead of the current dependence on oil, and revenue from only two or three financially viable states. Instead of investigating an ‘Excess’ account they have not contributed to, governors will be supervising the ‘Excess’ account of their own state.
The purpose of putting the National Conference together by the Goodluck Jonathan administration in 2014 (as has been the case with the 8 or 9 National Conferences before Jonathan) was to brainstorm on the ways and means to make Nigeria a more prosperous, safer, more peaceful, and more united country. The confab report contains the recommendations for achieving those noble goals. How any right thinking person could regard such a document as subversive in any way boggles the imagination. Consider some of the cardinal points of the confab recommendations: In order to address the agitation of the people of the South-east, and the North-central in particular, and any group in general who feel they are being marginalized – create additional states in each of the 6 geopolitical zones. And in order to achieve parity, every zone shall have the same number of 9 states per geo-political zone. As things stand now the division of states is uneven, therefore unfair (7, N.W), (6, N.E), (6, N.C), (6, S.W), (6, S.S), and (5, S.E).
In order to enhance the wealth of the nation – move away from a single product economy. Diversify into other minerals, and invest heavily in agriculture as this sector has the greatest potential of creating jobs and reducing poverty. Additionally, allow the states to control their own mineral resources. In order to bring peace, allow for State Police to conduct day to day law enforcement. Federal Police should serve in times of crisis only, (Section 5.12, sub-section 8) of the summary of the main Report of the 2014 National Conference recommends the “adoption of the principle of zoning and Rotation of elective offices at the federal and state levels ….” Consider, if you will, what this policy will do to alleviate the fears of some who believe that Nigeria will never allow a person from certain ethnic groups to become president, and tame the self-destructive arrogance of those who proclaim that their tribe is born to rule.
Allegations by Governor El-Rufai that some people are using the call for restructuring to propel their presidential ambition appears to be a not so veiled reference to former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar. If that is the case, El-Rufai has picked a wrong target, because Atiku cannot be labeled an opportunist when speaking on the topic of restructuring. An opportunist is a person who stumbles upon a favourable situation and seizes it to achieve a particular purpose. Atiku has been committed to, and has expressed his opinion publicly on the principle of decentralization and devolution of federal powers for almost a decade. This is long before now that the idea has become popular nation–wide. When as far back as August, 2009, he suggested to ‘the Public Hearings Committee on Electoral Reform’ that “the appointment of the chairman and Board of INEC must be insulated from the government of the day”, and that ‘funding for the INEC must be a first line charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund”, he was expressing the notion of reduced federal authority, which is a hallmark of the restructure ideology,
And, this is what he said five years ago in his opening remarks as Chairman of the 2012 Leadership Conference and Awards Ceremony: “There is, indeed, too much concentration of power and resources at the center. And, it is stifling our march to true greatness as a nation and threatening our unity because of all the abuses, inefficiencies, corruption and reactive tensions that it has been generating. There is need, therefore, to review the structure of the Nigerian Federation, preferably along the basis of the current six geo-political zones as regions, and the states as provinces” Evidently, Atiku had clear and practical ideas on how to reshape the country into a stronger and more equitable union even before the confab meeting of 2014.
If I were Abubakar Atiku, I will wear this label of restructionist from El-Rufai like a badge of honour, because it will stand him in good stead in the south-east, the South-South, the South-West, and among the different groups which feel put upon in the North-East, the North-West, as well as the North-Central. A good leader listens to the people and their concerns. Nigerians today are clearly concerned about reshaping the country into a better entity. Most leaders in the south can see the benefit of restructuring for their people so they embrace the idea. Those in positions of leadership in the north like former President Ibrahim Babangida, former vice president Atiku Abubakar, the Waziri of Adamawa, and former Central Bank governor, Lamido Sanusi, the Emir of Kano who understand the principle of restructuring should let people like the governor of Kaduna realize that by rejecting fiscal restructuring, they are rejecting control over their own natural resources.
In El-Rufai’s case, his objection to this fiscal rearrangement implies that he does not need the serpentine, the asbestos, the clay, the graphite and the gold that the good Lord God, planted in the soil of Kaduna. He does not need to utilize his states’ mineral resources to develop the state. Opposing the Confab recommendation for State Police implies that the governor is not interested in having his own state security agencies to help him maintain peace between local settlers and marauding herdsmen.
At various forums, former President Ibrahim Babangida, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, and former Central Bank Governor, Lamido Sanusi amongst others have expressed the sentiment that the whole country including the North, will benefit from restructuring. One could add that in fact, the North stands to gain far more than the South because the paradox of poverty is deepest in the North than in the South. Consider these startling facts: There are more minerals in the north than in the South (Borno State even has uranium). Every state in the north can sustain itself with its cash crops alone. Now the paradox: Illiteracy rate is highest in the north. Unemployment is highest in the North. Poverty level is highest in the north. And, levels of security and peace and order are the lowest in the North. It is Nigerians in the North who are suffering more than those in the South in the midst of plenty. Although we all are victims, they are the worst victims of our inefficient and defective system which the advocates of restructuring wish to re-configure.