THE call for the restructuring of Nigeria appears to be the most popular demand in the polity in recent times. As a senior lawyer, what do you make is wrong with the present structure?
Nigeria is proclaimed a federal republic and it is described in characteristics as a constitutional democracy, but in reality the country operates as a federal state only in name. It is unitary in reality. The 1999 constitution as amended is also not an instrument created by the people of Nigeria; it was created by the military during the Sani Abacha/Abdusalami Abubakar regimes and merely declared to be enacted by “we the people of Nigeria.” In reality, the state of affairs in the country is such that there is a Federal Government that is too large and too powerful to truly serve the citizens of the country effectively. We have a Federal Government that is today involved in local policing, primary and secondary school education and even agriculture. As such, the system became too large, corrupt and ineffective. So there are justifiable demands for devolution of powers to the federating units for effectiveness. The federating units should take responsibility for issues that directly affect the lives of their citizens, while the Federal Government should face issues that affect the country in common, such as defence, diplomacy, finance and currency, customs, immigration and others like it.
But how did things go this wrong?
It is not as if we didn’t start with a structure as a country; I referred to the 1953 crisis that would have broken this country into pieces. The Sardauna [Sir Ahmadu Bello] and the Northerners didn’t want any unitary system, so the colonial office called the political leaders of the three regions to London and as a result, there was the federal constitution of 1954. That was the only basis upon which the Sardauna and the North agreed to be part of Nigeria; that there would be autonomy and they would be free to develop whatever they have. If you have cotton, grow it; if you have groundnut, grow it and they will all pay a percentage of the regional earnings to the central government. That time, the regions were even allowed to handle some external affairs issues. The Western Region back then had a London representative office, so if it wanted to import machines or anything, it didn’t need to go through any Federal Government agency, it did it through its London office. There was a Western House owned by the Western Region.
Despite the fact that the regions were doing their things back then, Nigeria did not break. The North was on its own, the West was on its and the East was handling its affairs, but there was still a united Nigeria. But when the military came, the structure established under the 1954 constitution was destructured. That was when federalism was removed from Nigeria and replaced with a unitary system where all resources of the country go to the central government and it will disburse the resources, which belong to the regions, back to the regions. In fact, the reverse was the case before the 1966 coup; then, regions earned their incomes according to what they had and they kept their resources. We kept the proceeds of our cocoa and that was why all the achievements in the Western Region were possible. We didn’t need approval from the central government to build Cocoa House, the Liberty Stadium and so on. It was the region’s resources that it used to do these things. But it was no longer possible immediately the military took over, because all resources had to go the centre. It is like what is happening now, the Treasury Single Account, which says every single kobo that accrues to any government agency must first go to the TSA and then they all now go to the fund allocation committee to share. So, whether or not you allow smoking and drinking in your area, you share the Value Added Tax on cigarettes and alcoholic drinks together.
What restructuring postulates is that everybody should go to his region and let the regions develop at their pace. So, when we are saying let us restructure, it does not mean we want to break Nigeria.
But some people create the impression that those advocating restructuring have either lost out in the political game and are seeking relevance or they do not want a united Nigeria. Why does the country have to be restructured in the face of these misgivings?
There are people who do not really understand what structure is. When you are talking about structure, you are talking about constitutional law. How is a country governed? We say we are Federal Republic of Nigeria; the next question is what is federalism? These are the legitimate questions. So it is not about some people losing out or seeking relevance. Structural and constitutional issues have been raised. When you say Federal Republic of Nigeria, you have used a terminology that is legal and political. So, what is federalism? It is an arrangement where you have federating units; individual units that are cooperating for purposes of maintaining a central government for common good. For instance, you have a situation in which you want a common army: all the federating units do not want to maintain separate armies; they don’t want to conduct international diplomacy separately; they also do not want to maintain separate prisons. These are issues that can be handled centrally; they are issues that can be cooperated upon. But not secondary school education; there is no justification for the Federal Government setting up Federal Government Colleges. That is strictly an issue that local and state governments should be able to handle. In any situation in which we talk of federalism, we are talking about a constitutional arrangement that allows the federating units independence and devolution of powers, so they can handle their local affairs, generate their resources, decide how the resources will be deployed and contribute to the central government for purposes of maintaining common services.
The United States of America whose constitutional model we are following has a federal government structure. California makes its own budget. In fact, it has its own constitution, generate its own resources that are different from what the Federal Government generates. The economy of California is the eighth largest in the world; if it were a country, it will be a bigger economy than France. That is because they are free, because people developed intellect. California is virtually a desert but that is where you have Hollywood and Silicon Valley. As a state, it identified its area of strength and built on it.
You talked about what federalism entails citing the example of the US. But the agitation, for restructuring has many variations with some people saying it is about return to regionalism while others call for Oduduwa Republic, Biafra and so on. Yet, some others reduce restructuring to the system of government, saying the country should return to parliamentary system. All these developments seem to suggest dissonance even among those advocating restructuring. So, which variation do you support?
That is precisely the point I am making; you cannot give a dog a bad name in order to hang it. The meaning of federalism is not subject to variations. If you check the political science dictionary or constitutional law dictionary, there is an objective concept that is called federalism; it does not mean breaking away and forming Oduduwa or whatever republic. That is not anticipated by those who defined federalism. Federalism has a clear and constitutional and political definition. So if you want to do IPOB or form Oduduwa Republic, you have to define it in other terms and not the terms of federalism. The constitution that we operate says we are a federal republic and that is exactly the point, so no one can use restructuring to justify their own personal divisive agenda. Federalism is a clear concept and when people are talking about breaking away to create new countries, that is completely out of what restructuring is all about. What restructuring is all about is that we should get a clear idea of what our constitution says. It says we operate a federal but Nigeria operates as a federal state only in name; our system is unitary in operation. The constitution that Nigerians only voted and agreed upon was the 1954 constitution and it was negotiated. Nobody quarreled about it; all the sections of the country agreed that that was the way to go until soldiers disrupted it. If we want to be a federal republic, then we must be seen as a federation; it must be different component units of the country federating together.
These days when agitators of restructuring speak, they give the impression that restructuring can solve all the problems confronting the country. There is the problem of corruption, hunger, hardship and poverty facing the people, inability to pay workers’ salary and all that, so just how many problems do you think restructuring can solve?
If you look at the earlier part of our conversation, I said that Nigeria operates dysfunctionally and sub-optimally and given the age of the country, we are not where our peers, Malaysia, South Korea and India are today. There are many issues responsible for that development: corruption, lack of personal and collective discipline and the dysfunctional constitutional framework upon which the country operates. Nobody is giving the impression that Nigeria’s problem is only that of restructuring. There are other layers of problems. But what makes that of restructuring more fundamental is that it is the framework that promotes or hinders the other factors. Unless we have an appropriate constitutional framework, the issue of corruption and poverty will be difficult to deal with, because it is the dysfunctional structure that is encouraging, fuelling the poverty you talked about.
The President Muhammadu Buhari government seems to be unfazed by the agitations for restructuring and the growing clamour…
It has nothing to do with a particular government. The agitations have been there before the Buhari government…
But do you like the Buhari government?
I sure do, but with regards to certain things we know the government is doing. There are certain things that we know that the Buhari government has as a mantra, which I believe in. It is just that they do not have the structural means of carrying them out. For instance, corruption is a very serious problem that is affecting the country. But the instrumentalities of government that are meant to deal with corruption are weak under Buhari. I have just told you that the EFCC as a federal agency cannot deal with the whole of issue of corruption from the Federal Government to the local governments. The EFCC is not that equipped. How many personnel do they have? How can they cope? How many lawyers can they send to handle a case? If EFCC has a case against someone, they probably can only send one or two lawyers to prosecute, whereas the accused person can hire fire to six Senior Advocates of Nigeria. Will it not have been better to allow states to also have the capacity to deal with economic and financial crimes or issues of corruption with their jurisdiction? The Buhari administration is stretching itself too thin and that is why people don’t see the effect of many of his policies. But I think the policies are good if we have the means of putting them into effect, which is what I don’t think the government has presently.
You CV says you have been a lawyer to banks, telecommunications outfits as well as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, so you can be said to be comfortable. Why do you want to discomfort yourself by seeking to be the governor of Oyo State at a time like this?
Well, one of the key mantras of my personal life is contentment and service to the society. I have learnt that for true happiness and fulfillment in life, contentment is a key factor and therefore, whether as teacher, or as corporate worker in the bank or a corporate worker in the telecommunications industry or as a lawyer, what underpins what I do is not the volume of money I get but a settled determination to be satisfied with what God has given me. But the reality around me is that there are too many people that are finding it difficult to get by in life; some of these people are my relations, my colleagues, my former classmates. They are people I cannot discountenance. I understand that many times, that is how it is in every society, so it depends on the structure of governance to assist these people. When I was growing up, I also missed going to secondary school. It was the policy of Kwara State where my parents were living that time that made it possible for me to go to school. If the education policy in that state was not what it was then, I probably would not have gone to secondary school. That is what makes governance and who governs very critical. Governance is about ensuring that the resources of the state are used in such a way that people who otherwise would not have had the opportunity are brought into the opportunity net.
So, it is not about whether or not I am comfortable as an individual, some people were comfortable when I was to go to secondary school and I could not, but they were makers of the policies that ensured that though I was from a family that was not comfortable, I was brought into the opportunity net. That is the challenge. That is what I see, which drives my desire to be governor.
But you are coming out to be governor at a time that almost all the 36 states are insolvent at a time that the state governments owed workers’ salaries and are struggling. Is it that you have ready-made answers to the challenges on the ground or you are being pushed by your desire to add “His Excellency” to your already fat CV?
Moses, the whole idea of the experiences that I have garnered over the time must tell people certain things about the kind of mental cultivation that I have. I have worked in a bank where I have seen organisations that were deep in debts, almost hopeless and because some people worked hard and got some parametres right, because some people did a proper risk management analysis, those organisations became vibrant all over again. The state of Oyo State is not hopeless. We were not always insolvent or always a debtor state that is incapable of paying salaries; it was certain steps or missteps of government over the years that brought us to this state and it can be reversed if we have the government that understands the processes and we have the population that is ready to make the required sacrifice. We are by no means no more a viable state; Oyo State is still very viable and it is not about having a magic wand.
One of the countries that excite me in modern political history is Rwanda. A couple of years ago, its situation was hopeless; it was rated a failed state as a result of genocide and all that. It had no economy until Kigame came in and by sheer dedication, by sheer example of his character and sheer illustration that you can govern without accumulating everything belonging to the state for yourself, Rwanda has become one of the most vibrant countries in Africa. Investments are flowing into Rwanda; its people are a proud people again and happy to carry its passport. So, our situation in Oyo State is not irreversible, provided that we have the quality of leadership that has the understanding, the dedication and is ready to make the sacrifices that are required to lead the people. That does not mean it depends only on the leader, the people must decide in their minds that they want a change.
But you are seeking to govern the state on platform of the AD, which is considered to be dead in Oyo State?
Dead to indiscipline; AD is a party that does not allow the kind of indiscipline in the other parties. It is dead to bribery and the selling of tickets to candidates; it is dead to using thuggery as an instrument of the political process. It is dead to all the vices that characterise the so-called big parties. Their problem is that they are unable to manage their successes; they became too big for their boots and that is why we think that the AD, which does not carry the baggage, the indiscipline that characterise the other parties, will be a better alternative and option to the people. Today, people cannot make a difference between the APC and the PDP; it is like trying to make a distinction between six and half a dozen. APC today is populated today by people who migrated from PDP. But we are presenting the AD, a party where young people who have no political liabilities, where people who have no EFCC cases to answer to can come to make their contributions to national development. We are talking about a political party where it is not a moneybag that owns it; it is a party that is co-owned by the people.
and then