RESTRUCTURING means different things to different segments of the Nigerian polity. It has also become apparent that as the word oscillates from the nation’s geopolitical zones, shifting base from the core North to the Middle Belt, the South-West, South-East and South-South, it acquires one different meaning or the other. That, thus far, has made the restructuring debate a unique and interesting one. And that too is partly responsible for the long lifespan it has got so far.
The call for restructuring of the Nigerian polity became widespread in the wake of the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, believed to have been won by the late Chief MKO Abiola. The general belief then was that the military was able to perpetrate the injustice against Abiola because of the skewed nature of the Nigerian polity.
Ever since it took off with that campaign, the South-West has maintained a focused view of the idea, whether it was called restructuring, Sovereign National Conference or fiscal federalism.
While a number of northern leaders have set their minds in tune with the restructuring message along the line, it cannot be wished away that many out there are still confused at the intention of the calls for restructured polity. Some Nigerians, however, have shown that their priority is to keep playing politics with this key antidote prepared by experienced political stakeholders largely spearheaded by South-West leaders.
One of those who have remained unclear about the real intendment of restructuring is the Kaduna State governor, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai.
Last week, the governor expressed his sentiment against the calls for restructuring when he declared that proponents of the idea were opportunists and irresponsible.
el-Rufai, speaking on Channels Television breakfast show, Sunrise Daily, said “a lot of the talk about political restructuring is political opportunism and irresponsibility in my opinion.
“It is popular and people that have presidential aspirations think there is a platform upon which they will exploit. As I said, if you look at the APC manifesto, all the elements to devolve power to the state to change the balance in the federation are there and we are committed to that as a party.”
The governor went on to state that the government was already restructuring the polity through the monthly meeting of the National Economic Council (NEC), a statutory body of governors and economic managers of the country headed by the vice president.
His assertion in that line can easily be interpreted as a manifestation of the restructuring agenda. Reading the calls for restructuring over the years has presented clear directions for the debate. The call actually targeted key aspects of lopsidedness in the Nigerian polity, comprising the political, economic and social segments.
In further terms, talks about devolution of powers, interplay of power systems, fiscal federalism, questions of resource control and relationships between the government structure and religion as well as the mode of occupying public office at the federal and state levels, these are some of the issues packed into the restructuring debate at every instance.
Interestingly, the 2014 national conference, already seen as a veritable kickstart of the restructuring debate by the Senate, addressed a number of the components of the practical restructuring listed above. Its final report submitted to government contained recommendations on the need for political, economic and the social re-engineering of the polity.
To equate the regular talk shops at the NEC to restructuring is to trivialise the real issues entailed in the restructuring debate. In real terms, the NEC remains an advisory body to the government at the centre which does not have power to either amend the law or change the composition of any level of government for that matter.
Expectedly, the Kaduna governor’s comments immediately drew flaks. The reaction immediately drew harsh words from the pan-Yoruba sociopolitical organisation, Afenifere, which described el-Rufai as a dual faced personality who earlier in 2010 called for political restructuring in an interview published by Thisday newspaper.
Spokesman of Afenifere, Yinka Odumakin, in a reacting statement described the governor as appearing like an “area boy.”
He said: “el-Rufai should tell us his own idea to correct the imbalance in the country, because, as far as we are concerned, the 2014 confab report is about the closest to the democratic representation of Nigeria.
“The confab consisted of representatives of all segments of the societies in Nigeria. But for somebody, who occupies a responsible office of a governor, to be saying those who are talking about restructuring are irresponsible, it is very unfortunate.
“It is very sad for the governor to be talking like an area boy on the television. In Nigeria of today, we can now begin to take a census of those who are against restructuring – they are President Buhari, el-Rufai, Ango Abdullahi, Lai Mohammed and Tanko Yakassai.
“Aside from those people, everybody in Nigeria supports restructuring; that is the song everybody is playing all over the country as of today, whether we like it or not. Those who are against it are insignificant.”
According to Odumakin, the Kaduna governor must be an opportunist in 2010 when he called for political restructuring of the country.
“He must be an opportunist and an irresponsible citizen when he asked for restructuring in 2010 and I think people who occupy responsible positions should weigh their words before they talk like area boys in public.
“Restructuring is an idea which time has come. Every responsible person in Nigeria today, every well-meaning citizen is calling for the restructuring of Nigeria, because Nigeria is not working and it is only the few who are benefiting from the system that are opposed to restructuring,” Odumakin said.
Besides the outbursts by Odumakin, South-West leaders have remained consistent in the calls for restructuring and fiscal federalism all along. To the zone, the sharing formula currently in operation leaves the federating units at the mercy of the government at the centre.
Another leader of Afenifere and former chairman of Afenifere in Europe, Kole Omololu, told the Nigerian Tribune that the statement credited to the governor was not just a misnomer but also a result of “bad politics.” He added that the governor was only playing to the gallery, having earlier endorsed restructuring as a private citizen.
“We all have to be concerned about the future of Nigeria. It is not about whether someone has attained position of authority today or not. It has to be for the future. The current system in the polity is not sustainable.
“The South-West zone has never lost sight of the great feats recorded by the sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, when he ran the region with proceeds of cocoa money and farm produce. The South-West wants a return of the golden days once again,” he said.
The Afenifere chieftain said the misrepresentation of restructuring by el-Rufai and a few northern leaders amounted to a clear misunderstanding of what is good for Nigeria.
“Everybody is complaining that Nigerian structure is not working. So why would anyone reject the call to better the structure and make things work for Nigeria. People like Nasir el-Rufai need to have a change of mind,” Omololu said.
The United Kingdom chapter of Afenifere has also decried the classification of champions of restructuring as “opportunists” by el-Rufai, while declaring the statement as a sad development.
Chairman of the chapter, Mr Tunde Shiaba, in a chat on Sunday, said the comments credited to the governor was unpatriotic and uncalled for.
“We were all witnesses to the governor’s position in 2010 when he declared for restructuring. Now he is saying a different thing, despite the fact that the same issue is on the manifesto of the party. If he is a patriot, he should be concerned about the future of this country.
“It is the height of political subterfuge. We all should be clear about the kind of country that we want to run. Such are the statements that fuel separatists’ agenda. We will not be helping the development of this country if one section is seeking development while others are only interested in maintaining the status quo that guarantees standstill and failure,” he said.
The Ohanaeze-Ndigbo has also joined forces with the Afenifere to discountenance el-Rufai’s position.
President of Ohanaeze, Chief John Nwodo, said he was disappointed at el-Rufai’s position during the television interview.
According to him, “I am truly disappointed at the man. He is a man to whom I had very high respect for his intellectual capacity.
“I have said goodbye to government and I didn’t forget anything in government. I have served out my fair contribution. He has avoided the argument, our governmental structure is a pity. This is the only country in the world that is called a federation that does not have respect for the definition of a federation.
“The federating units are not independent, they don’t control their resources. Are we a conquered territory? Why on earth will the Federal Government be responsible for the majority of our resources? Why should a state not be responsible for the resources in the state?”
He said the situation was clearly different in the First Republic when every region had control over its resources and only paid part of its resources to the centre, a situation that allowed the regions developed at their pace.
Also last week, elders in Rivers State, under the auspices of the Rivers Elders and Leaders’ Council, led by Chief Albert Horsfall, justified the call for restructuring when they called for a return to
the 1963 Constitution.
The elders said only a return to the 1963 Constitution can assure Nigeria of proper restructuring, unity and peaceful co-existence.
“Our position is 1963 Nigeria. In 1960, we had Independence Constitution. In 1963, it was turned into law, as a Republican Constitution. We want a return to that situation,” they said.
Besides condemning the calls for restructuring, el-Rufai also castigated the 2014 national conference, describing it as having excluded a number of stakeholders. He said many segments of the country cried for marginalisation by the conference.
But then, close watchers of the Nigerian polity would found it difficult to agree with the governor on this. The conference, which featured 492 members, only missed a few delegates that were allotted to the then opposition party, the APC.
All the states of the federation, including those controlled by the APC, fielded delegates, while the representation was based on ethnic nationalities, diaspora and other segments of interests.
Though Nigeria had wished away and seen to the failure of several constitutional and political conferences, including the 1986 Political Bureau of the Ibrahim Babangida era, which midwifed the failed 1986 to
1993 transition, the 1994 Constituent Assembly of the General Sani Abacha era, which produced the basis for the unpromulgated 1995 Constitution, the 2005 political reforms conference of the President Olusegun Obasanjo administration and the 2014 conference, the fact that the 2014 effort took into consideration, reasons for the failure of the previous efforts should get it a chance of implementation.
In its final report, the 2014 conference recommended key restructuring, including a cessation of government funding of religion; a change in the revenue allocation formula to favour the states and local governments; a reduction in the powers of the Federal Government as contained in the Exclusive legislative list; devolution of powers from the federal to the states and power rotation among the regions of the country and within the states of the federation.
Other key recommendations of the conference included the amendment being sought to the Land Use Act; the quest for special courts to handle corruption cases in the light of prolonged period in the regular courts and the recommendation that a non-conviction-based asset forfeiture law be enacted to deal with issues of proceeds of crimes by the anti-graft agencies and the courts.
Another key recommendation of the conference is the call for independent candidates in all elections. The conference had recommended that every Nigerian who fulfils the conditions specified by the law should be free to contest elections as an independent candidate.
One of the major concerns among lawyers and political activists is the immunity granted by the 1999 Constitution. The Constitution precludes the president, vice president, governor and the deputy governor from criminal prosecution while in office. But the 2014 national conference recommended that the immunity clause should be removed to encourage accountability by holders of public offices.
In fairness to the 2014 conference, it did not see itself as the reservoir of all answers to national problems. Having recommended a change of the revenue formula in favour of the states to give the Federal Government 42.5 per cent, state governments, 35 per cent and the local governments, 22.5 per cent, it also recommended that a technical committee be set up by government to address the percentage allocations in respect of resource control.
Another important recommendation of the national conference was the recognition of two tiers of governments – federal and states. But it equally recommended the recognition of local governments as a sharing partner in the federation account. The report, however, recommended that state electoral commissions and the joint state and local governments accounts are to be scrapped.
The conference also recommended a part-time legislature, even when it retained the current bicameral legislature.
As a way of furthering Nigeria’s search for governance identity, the report recommended a home-grown modified presidential system which combines the presidential and parliamentary systems of government.
In that system, the president is expected to pick the vice president from the legislature. He is also expected to pick not more than 18 ministers from the six geopolitical zones and not more than 30 per cent of the ministers from outside the legislature. The conference believed that such a measure would drastically reduce the cost of governance.
A key and controversial recommendation of the conference was the approval of 18 new states for creation. The states are to be created at three from each of the existing states, while one state extra will be created from the South-East, to bring it level with four other geopolitical zones which have six states.
The conference was of the view that this will address the challenge of ethnic tension and misgivings in the states. Yes, there are concerns of non-viability of the states, the conference believed that with proper management of the resources, viability can be overcome. Even at that, it provided for options of merger by states willing to do so.
And to confirm that the call for restructuring is not just a preserve of southern political establishment, opinions expressed by key leaders from the North in recent years have also justified the implementation of the confab report.
A late entrant, so to say, is the former military president, General Ibrahim Babangida. IBB, as he is generally called, released a Sallah day message where he declared that the time to restructure Nigeria is now.
He further broke down the components of restructuring, perhaps for the likes of el-Rufai thus: “Restructuring has become a national appeal as we speak, whose time has come. I will strongly advocate devolution of powers to the extent that more responsibilities be given to the states while the Federal Government is vested with the responsibility to oversee our foreign policy, defence, and economy.
“Even the idea of having federal roads in towns and cities has become outdated and urgently needs revisiting. That means we need to tinker with our constitution to accommodate new thoughts that will strengthen our nationality.
“Restructuring and devolution of powers will certainly not provide all the answers to our developmental challenges; it will help to reposition our mindset as we generate new ideas and initiatives that would make our union worthwhile.”
Unlike Babangida, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has been a consistent proponent of the restructuring campaign for years now. At every opportunity he has to deliver a lecture on national issues, Atiku had drummed it to the hearing of his compatriots that the structure of the country, as currently constituted, cannot endure.
In 2012, at a function organised by Leadership newspapers, Atiku had said: “There is indeed too much concentration of power and resources at the centre. 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 the need, therefore, to review the structure of the Nigerian federation, preferably along the basis of the current six geopolitical zones as regions and the states as provinces. The existing states structure may not suffice, as the states are too weak materially and politically to provide what is needed for good governance.”
He further broke down the components of a restructured polity to include the removal of segments like education, health, agriculture and sports from the purview of the Federal Government.
“Why should we be talking of federal roads and federal secondary schools? National unity should not continue to be confused with unitarism and concentration of power and resources at the federal level,” Atiku had submitted.
He further provided other ingredients of restructuring thus: “There is no doubt that many of our states are not viable, and were not viable from the start, once you take away the federation allocations from Abuja. We have to find creative ways to make them viable in a changed federal system.
“We can constitute a body of non-partisan experts to suggest other ideas. But in all, we must devolve more powers and resources from the Federal Government and de-emphasise federal allocations as the source of sustenance of states.
“We need to start producing again and collecting taxes to run our governments in a more sustainable way with greater transparency and accountability.”
The confab report might not be a one-spot shop for resolution of all the challenges facing the Nigerian nation. But in practical terms, it has proffered solutions that could be interrogated in fashioning an equitable, peaceful and orderly country.
Reading through the recommendations would easily give the impression that it has provided the platform for Nigeria to kickstart the process of addressing the growing concerns and rising ethnic tension in the polity.
and then