At Theophilus Akinyele memorial lecture, Falola decries Nigeria’s state of threatening collapse

Celebrated professor of African history, Toyin Falola has decried the current state of Nigerian’s existence, saying that the needful must be done if the imminent collapse of the country is to be averted. 

The distinguished teaching professor of African Studies and the Jacob and Francis Sanger Mossiker Chair in the Humanities at the University of Texas at Austin, U.S.A, gave this warning while delivering a lecture titled: ‘Is Nigeria on the brink” during a symposium held in honour of the late Chief Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele.

Professor Falola stated that “Nigeria did not suddenly happen upon this state of disarray and threatening collapse. The Nigerian condition is a condition with history and extensive roots. Nigeria is what it is today because some things were never right from the outset and are still not right. Therefore, it is tantamount to moving in circles if we seek to get out of the Nigerian condition without thoughtfully reminiscing and examining where the problem started. If we do not visit our past, we will continually make the mistakes of our predecessors, thereby meeting the waterloo they met. I have often said that the problems of Nigeria are made in Nigeria, patented by Nigerians, and manufactured in our cities. 

“Corruption in the Nigerian government did not start three or five years ago. Kidnapping and banditry are not matters of a few years ago; only that they have grown beyond the capacity of the state to stop them. Agitations for disengagement from the Nigerian entity did not start twenty years ago—all ethnic groups had threatened to secede. Neither is it true that agitators are only just recently meeting their waterloo—Isaac Boro and Odumegwu Ojukwu were visited by state violence. All these things have been playing out from the onset, and they keep doing so in an endless loop, in a seemingly wash, rinse, and repeat manner.”

The event which was held at Theophilus and Elizabeth Akinyele Library, New Bodija, Ibadan, on Tuesday, had family members, dignitaries and well-wishers of the honoree in attendance. The event also witnessed the launch of the Theophilus and Elizabeth Akinyele Endowment Scholarship Fund in aid of the indigent but brilliant students of Ibadanland.   

However, the revered professor argued that if Nigeria were to come out of its present predicament, certain models for restructuring must be entrenched.

“A regional model shifts the bulk of the responsibility from an over-endowed seat in Abuja to half a dozen units across the country. The regions will control their resources and bear the developmental burden using the proceeds. They will also furnish the central coffers with a fraction of these proceeds. Hence, the prevalent state of marginalization is dropped, and people can finally manage their economies.

“However, the problem with this lies in a historical record of failure. It also negates the essential value of recognition that the present structure allows. In the past, regional administrations were known to focus solely on their seats of power. Development occurred mainly in political centres such as Ibadan, Kaduna, and Lagos, excluding large swathes of the regions. Therefore, the question is, if the system that should foster intraregional development once failed in doing so, why should it be implemented again?

“Also, subsuming states into regions leaves out the fundamental reason for creating those states in the first place. It contradicts the idea of representation which birthed the whole issue of restructuring. In places where states with a voting population no longer exist, and the administrators of those provinces are chosen, not elected, there is the possibility that minorities who once had a modest recognition will melt into the supervening idea of a region.

“Devolution brings governance to the people at the grassroots levels. It promotes engagement between the ruling class and the ruled. Also, there is better access to the benefits of a government than a system where the leadership exists only on screen.

“On paper, devolution creates room for states to control resources and manage these resources to develop localities because it cedes power. However, the question of capabilities still presides. Even with a steady stream of federal income in the past, some state administrations have been known for poor management practices. This connotes that while the structure itself may change, the management techniques remain the same. Thus, the problem continues in federating units.

“The Nigerian security structure is essentially a federal-driven one. Internal security lies within the precincts of federal administrators, and external forces mainly handle concerns within states. In recent years, the national military has acquired more police responsibilities. Codenames like Operation Crocodile Smile, Python Dance, Hadarin Daji, Harbin Kunama, and a seemingly endless tally of others now occupy the mainstream.

“Even non-combatant departments like the fire service are controlled by the Federal Government, depriving states of power over minor issues. This creates a delay in administering the security apparatus and, in many cases, a deterioration before an adequate response is received. For needs such as logistics and funding for the police and sister departments to be met, a long wait must first be endured. 

“In the context of restructuring, therefore, the creation of state-owned police formations is crucial. Under this model, Nigerian states similarly administer their security to what obtains in the United States. The state police structure does not give inalienable powers to the state but provides exceptional instances where the federal government may interfere in internal security. All of these are provided under statutory dictates; yet, there is a likely problem. Governments in Nigeria are not precisely famous for administrative sanctity. The potential for the abuse of police powers remains an ever-present threat, and this is a kink in the whole arena.”