Federalism and the Nigeria of our dreams (II)

(9) The above scenario played out in 1954 when the Oliver Lyttleton Constitution introduced more measures to domicile governance in the regions. This constitution, which is’ today regarded as a landmark precursor of federalism in Nigeria, reqionalised the civil and judicial services, tinkered with some areas of the national constitution to enhance the powers of regional executive councils and legislatures and spearheaded by a Secretary of State for the Colonies and a Colonial Governor. Important matters on the exclusive legislative list were either made concurrent or residual. For instance, the 1954 Constitution made provision for a division of power between the central and the three regional governments. Subjects that were exclusive to the central government included, external affairs, immigration, defence; atomic energy, copyright, census, currency, mining, patent, banking, custom, foreign exchange and defence. There seems to be no doubt that many of the regions had the opportunity to develop at their respective rates and to cater for the peculiar needs of their people. In the concurrent list were such subjects as education, health, public works, insurance, statistics and a few others. Both levels of government could make laws on these matters with a proviso that in resolving cases of conflict, the federal law would prevail. The residual list contained subjects over which the regions could make laws without reference to the central government. Regional governors ceased to be members of the Council of Ministers; the post of the Premier was created in the regions to preside over the regional executive councils. The constitution was also responsible for the modicum of sanity noticed in the management of the finances of the existing reqions as it curtailed, by some degree, the practice of using the resources of one.reqion to develop another. Maybe a major defect of the 1954 Constitution was its failure to create the office of the Prime Minister to preside over the central Council of Ministers. And in preparation for the independence of Nigeria, the constitution reverted to the use of the title Governor General for the on-the-spot representative of the power and prestige of the British Monarchy in Nigeria. In all of this, it is not too far-fetched to surmise that despite the efforts of the colonial government to cede power to the regions, the Northern Region remained protected and granted major concessions. It is said that the constitution deliberately did not create a bicameral central legislature out of the fear that the Northern region, with limited number of educated elite would be overwhelmed in such an arrangement. In the relationship between the British and Northern Nigeria, paternalism was still visible and pursued to screen the North from the fiery liberal disposition of the Southern regions.

(10)        The period 1954-1960 was remarkable for the progress and healthy competition among the three regions. While the West was using the resources available in the region to embark on important social-welfarist programmes, especially the huge investment in education, the East was also pursuing an agenda of enhancing its revenue base through agricultural production. Huge amount of capital was committed to developing agricultural establishments and that would encourage mass participation in production.

(11)        Between 1954, and 1959, two major issues received the greatest attention and interest of the nationalist leaders in Nigeria. These were, one, the date for the attainment of Independence. Mr Anthony Enahoro of the Action Group had earlier moved a motion in the House of Representatives in 1953 that Nigeria should achieve self-government in 1956.

(12)        The motion was opposed by the NPC representatives in the House replacing the date ‘1956’ with the phrase “as soon as practicable” After two conferences in 1957 and 1958, the Western and Eastern regions were granted internal self-government in 1957 while the Northern region became self-governed in 1959. As a prelude to independence, federal elections were held in December 1959. One hundred and forty-eight seats were won by the NPC, the NCNC and the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) won 89 seats while the AG and the United Middle BeltCongress (‘UMBC) won 75 seats. The NCNC teamed up with the NPC to form the central, government in December, 1959. The NPC became the senior partner in the coalition government and the Deputy Leader of the Party, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, became the first Prime Minister of Nigeria, while Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe of the NCNC gave up his premiership of Eastern Region and became the first indigenous Governor-General of independent Nigeria. Chief Awolowo of the A.G. equally relinquished his premiership in the Western region to become the Leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament. The period equally provided a missed opportunity to strengthen federalism which had emerged as the most suitable model of government for independent Nigeria. It was unfortunate that the political class failed miserably to manage the process of strengthening democracy and federalism in Nigeria even after independence in 1960. A good account of Nigeria’s constitutional history is presented in B.O. Nwabueze, A Constitutional History of Nigeria (U.S.A: Longman,1982).0Iuwole Odumosu’s The Nigerian Constitution: History and Development, published in London by Sweet & Maxwell, London in 1963, is equally a good material for the understanding of the evolution of Nigeria through her constitutions.

(13)        When Nigeria became independent in 1960, it appeared that the Northernisation agenda of the NPC of ensure that “Northerners gain control of everything in the country” had materialised. This statement is that of Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto and the Premier of Northern Region. He is quoted in Olawale Albert, “Federalism, Inter-Ethnic Conflicts and the Nothernization Policy of the 1950s and 1960s” in Kunle Amuwo, et aI., (eds.), Federalism and Political Restructurinq in Nigeria (Ibadan: Spectrum, 1998) p.72.

(14)        As noted earlier, the 1960 Independence Constitution made provision for a ruling government and an alternative government in position: Government must rule according to the constitution while the opposition was meant to check government excesses. The dispositions of the two toward each other were to determine the future or the way forward for the country. As would be expected, the NPC which formed the central government with the NCNC saw the AG’s opposition as a confrontational and must be silenced at all costs. Before long, the NPC sought and found an agent in the Premier of Western “region, Chief S. L. Akintola, who was also the Deputy Leader of the AG Chief Awolowo and Chief Akintola had disagreed on the approach and course of actions to adopt in AG’s relationships and dealings with the N.P.C/N/C/N.C Federal government. While Awolowo preferred a radical solution to Nigerian problems by strong opposition to the NPC and called for the ‘creation of more states, Akintola favoured a conservative approach and fraternal working arrangement with the NPC dominated central government. The ideological differences between Awolowo and Akintola led to the existence of factions in the AG It is a foregone conclusion that the breakdown of relations between the two factions of the Action Group was responsible for the sad developments in the Western Region, which, coupled with other factors, eventually led to the collapse of the First Republic.

(15)        As rightly submitted by Olanihun Ajayi, in his monumental work, Nigeria: Africa’s Failed Asset? The programmed transition from colonialism to independence ensured that the North acceded to political power, even when it was obvious that it did not possess the wherewithal to ‘hold the country together for transforrnatlve social political and economic development. Indeed, what transpired among the political gladiators during the final buildup to independence would confirm Obasanjo’s indictment of these leaders. According to him. “For a newly independent country, our weak political fabric, diverse and highly differentiated socio-cultural milieu, required a leadership with effective national mobilising capacity, ability to weave together the different ethnic groups, inspire them and provide a broad-minded leadership. Unfortunately, Nigeria did not enjoy such leadership at independence and that leadership deficit and weakness of structure militated against Nigeria on independence.”

(16)        Successive administrations have made efforts to address the national question, but in spite of their best efforts which in most cases were pedestrian and unimaginative, none has been able to rise above the morass of lacklustre leadership. Nigeria is blessed in every sense and in all parameters except one, focused leaders in power. It would seem that the failure of leadership is a function of the operating system. The Nigerian operating system is not only defective in design but equally plagued with the virus of corruption to the extent that the motherboard is presently threatened and could crash anytime soon. There is ample evidence that the system of producing leaders at every of government is deficient. A careful consideration of the report submitted by the Justice Mohammed Uwais panel would confirm the fact of Nigeria’ gross inability to emerge from the cesspool into which it was dropped by the British in 1960. All the three regional leaders operated within the mindsets of their regions in which they drew enormous support and following. A revised version of our national history will reveal failed attempts to impose these leaders on the national psyche in the bid to create national icons as the rallying points of nation-building consciousness or patriotism. Sir Ahmadu Bello lived and died as the Sadauna of Sokoto, Chief Obafemi Awolowo as leaders of the Yoruba and Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe as the Owelle of Onitsha.

(17)       The greatest disservice of military regimes in Nigeria was the mindless and criminal centralization of government by the government led by General Aguiyi Ironsi. On assumption of power in January 1966, the military junta killed the soul of a virile, stable and progressive Nigerian nation by abolishing federalism and instituting a system of government that was meant to promote sectional interest. The promulgation of Decree No. 34 of 1966, the military arrested the country’s progress towards unity in diversity. It has been said that General Ironsi was pursuing an Igbo agenda when he failed to respond appropriately to the putsch that disproportionally massacred top politicians from the Northern and Western regions, when he proscribed all ethnic and cultural associations, dissolved representative assemblies, ignored the moratorium on promotion in the military and surrounded himself, exclusively, with advisers from his own Igbo ethnic group. The coup d’etat that ousted him was justified as a revenge strike to compensate for the human tragedies of the January coup.

(18)        Despite the attempts to restore federalism in Nigeria by the succeeding regime led by General Yakubu Gowon, the deadly blows left on Nigeria’s national consciousness and identity by the coups, the pogrom against the Igbo in the Northern region and the needless civil war which lasted about 30 months were difficult to heal or remove. The introduction of constitutional and institutional modalities to heal the would were grossly inadequate and often times misapplied. The return to federalism and subsequent creation of states from twelve to thirty-six, introduction of military inspired constitutions and conduct of popular general elections created their own contradictions and challenges which were decisive enough to frustrate every effort to develop Nigeria into a flourishing nation state.

(19)        Some policies that were put in place to address the problem of alienation of sections of the country and inequitable distribution of national resources miscarried and became counterproductive. For instance, the pursuit of federalism through atomization of constituent parts has produced insatiable demand for state creation even when they were frivolous and non-sustainable. The systems of federal character and quota system when they were introduced were meant to ensure national spread in the distribution of national resources. Unfortunately, these affirmative attentions were poorly conceived and they have turned out to be major sources of injustice in the allocation of resources. They have been interpreted as attempts to hold a section of the country down for the other to catch up and even surpass them. This allegation is most evident in admission policies into federal government institutions which have sacrificed merit and fairness on the platter of sectional consideration. The system of revenue allocation is equally a major source of friction among the constituent units of the Nigerian Federation. The principle of derivation which was adopted during the first republic federal system has since been abandoned as the present system is fraught with lapsed and slippages that question the good intention of government.

(20)        In all progressive federal systems, equity, fairness and justice form the bedrock of relations among the constituent units. The electoral system in Nigeria is already compromised as the political class is more involved in the manipulation of the selection process and the prevention of the emergence of credible candidates. On 28th August, 2007, the President set-up a 22-member Electoral Reform Committee to “examine the entire electoral process with a view to ensuring that we raise the quality and standard of our general elections and thereby deepen our democracy”. After exhaustive and comprehensive review of the electoral history of Nigeria spanning about 85 years, the panel observed a progressive degeneration of outcomes of sections conducted in the country, with the 2007 elections coming up at the worst since the first elections held in 1922. It further observed that elections conducted by the military tended to be more credible than those conducted by civilian authorities because of the political practice of winner takes all and therefore the need by politicians to perpetuate their hold on power at all cost. Over the years, the politicians have become more desperate and daring in taking and retaining political power; more reckless and greedy in their use and abuse of power; and more intolerant of opposition, criticism and efforts at replacing them. The electorate, seeing their hopes dashes with each set of elections, have come to believe that politicians lack the will to use state power to transform the lives of ordinary citizens. This loss of confidence in governments by the electorate constitutes a major threat to the democratic project in Nigeria.

(21)        Another study on the electoral process and democratic consolidation in Nigeria found that defective electoral processes have resulted in the impositions of corrupt and illegitimate leaders who have no regard for the principles of democracy, good governance, rule of law, constitutionalism and fundamental human rights. It is however painful that in spite of the promise contained in the recommendations of the Uwais Panel on Electoral Reform, the 2010 Electoral Act with its amendments fell short of reasonable expectations. The gross inability of the Act to redress the imperfections and inadequacies of earlier electoral laws would confirm its uselessness as a tool for the transformation of Nigeria. Arguably, the average Nigeria is not only smart, but enterprising, making it ‘possible for him to justify self-help and impunity. The electoral process must therefore be designed to produce readers who will be a couple of times smarter than the average Nigerian. A more secure future lies in an electoral system that could ensure the emergence of leaders who possess requisite intellectual and democratic credentials to rule. Products of this process must be allowed to accede to power irrespective of social, religious, ethnic or gender background.

(22)        Leadership should not be determined on the basis of zoning, quota system or federal character, formulae that have all outlived their usefulness as power sharing paradigms. Such dubious affirmative actions have had the undeserved consequences of frustrating prospective and potential state and nation builders; making it totally impossible for persons of character and virtue to aspire to political offices. The obnoxious zoning formula smacks of unfairness in its application and would forever perpetuate unequal of differing access-to power within the context of politics in Nigeria.

(23)        What is obvious and cannot be denied is the fact of mass frustration, if not despondency, at the nature, character and direction of the Nigerian Sate. The strident call for a discussion of the terms and conditions of Nigeria’s federalism can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet as there are strong indications of general restiveness of the constituent units of the federal system. It is equally true that given the state of leadership and lts helplessness in the face of threats to the corporate existence of the country, the times are not auspicious for the convocation of a sovereign ‘national conference with wide powers to re-position the country for development and progress.

(24)        It would however seem that the proponents of a sovereign national conference might have lost sight of the calculations and interests of international capitalism. With a history of one whole century of being together as a country, the average Nigerians have established inter penetrating social, cultural religious and economic relations that the balkanization of the country would be as unprogressive as unrealistic. Nigeria’s high selling point or bargaining strength at the international level is its enormous human and material resources which are globally recognized.

(25)        What is needed is a leadership that will maximize these potentials and add value for the transformation of the country. It may not be too farfetched to suggest an international gang up against Nigeria in all previous efforts at producing a leader with national-clout and impeccable credentials for leadership. We have alluded to one such instance above on the authority of Harold Smith who was a key actor in the unfortunate scheme. In 1975, International capitalism conspired to rob Nigeria of pragmatic leadership of General Muritala Mohammed and in 1998 Chief MKO Abiola the’ winner of the freest election in Nigeria was served tea and died at the hour of victory in the cold hands of agents of international conspiracy against the unity and progress of Nigeria.

(26)        The Nigerian’ emancipation project that will deliver a more secure future should be anchored on a sovereign national conference that will have just one agenda; the formulation of a transformative electoral process. If elected or nominated representatives of all the ethnic nations in Nigeria will converge at a conference at which a new electoral process will be developed and a referendum in carried out for its adoption as the basis for all elections, the contentious issue of how leaders emerge would have been addressed. In recapturing Archimedes’ ‘give me a place to stand and I will move the whole earth’, Robert F. Kennedy said.

A young monk began the Protestant Reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the new World, and the thirty-two-year-old

Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.”

Kennedy then stated:

These (persons) moved the world, and so can we all.

Today and louder than Endsars, young Nigerians should cry out; ‘give us’ a credible and transparent electoral reform produced by a sovereign national conference and we will have the Nigeria of our dreams’. Herein is our collective destiny, where our collective aspirations could be safely delivered and when we can begin to aspire to global reckoning.

Considering the nature, character and historical trajectory of the Nigerian state and inter-ethnic relationships, federalism remains the most viable model for the emancipation and rapid transformation of Nigeria from a mere agglomeration of states to a prosperous peaceful; and united nation state.

You would hear from me again

IKU BABAYEYE

OBA (DR.) LAMIDI OLAYIWOLA ADEYEMI III, JP, CFR, LL.D, SAP, D.LLTS, DPA

The Alaafin of Oyo and Permanent Chairman Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs

Chancellor University of Maiduguri, Borno State

Chancellor Crescent University, Abeokuta, Ogun State

Pro-Chancellor Keisie International University South Korea Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone.

ALSO READ FROM  NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

• Suspense As APC, PDP Governors Meet In Lagos
• I Had Sex With Sofiat Before We Cut Off Her Head, Removed Flesh From Her Thigh For Money Ritual —Lover Boy
• Marburg Virus: What You Need To Know About Disease Recently Detected In West Africa
• FACT CHECK: US Did Not Give Nigeria 48 Hours Ultimatum To Detain Abba Kyari