The debate on restructuring

The general public will never understand the reasons for the debate behind restructuring —the mode of our governance-—unless they know the history behind the creation of Nigeria i.e. the unification of the South and North in 1914. It was never put together for the benefit of the development of Nigeria itself. Rather, it was for the promotion and development of the Industrial Revolution in Britain i.e. production of materials for the use of companies in Britain. However, the constitution of 1952-1960-1963 which the Army Suspended in 1966, was for the development of the Regions created by 1914 unification of South and North, when tremendous progress which are still visible in South- West are the only development, in this area of the country.

The Army however took over the government of the whole country and governed it under unitary system of government i.e. Central Government, under which no development of any kind took place since then. The constitutions of 1979 and 1999 which claimed to be Federal in nature is not, but its central nature operates over the states created from the Regions. The reason for all these is the fact that states were created from the Regions without the clause which governed the Regional Governments from 1952-1966, which is that, each region must be viable to exist. The states were created by the Army at will, not based on what existed before they came-in in 1966. That clause was removed from the Constitution to enable them govern the country centrally as the Army system is centrally controlled. Until that clause is brought into the creation of states; we shall continue to remain on the same spot without any development. What all these means, is that any state which has been created from the States/Regions that are not viable must unite with States from which they were created.

Therefore, most of the powers that the Federal Government is now wielding must go back to the states. The power of the Federal Government must be solely restricted to foreign or external matters, but limited to things that make Federal Government to exist or sustain itself.

Until we restructure our constitution under this kind of constitution, stated here in, there will be no solution to our present problems, e.g. agitation for separate states, will continue unabated. The Federal Government has no duty for local governments. it is the duty of states that are viable to manage local governments under them. That is what will bring the corruption we are talking about today to the smallest minimal, what we need to do concerning corruption is to put an end to what brings corruption to existence. No state must depend on the Federal Government to develop or to depend on Federal Government for funds for its services and no Federal Government will tell the state governments how to spend the resources that belongs to them. So also, no Federal Government can set up any organ to investigate any services of state government, like what the EFCC is doing now.

The development of one state will not depend on the development of any other state, which was what the 1960-1963 Constitution was all about, which the Army put aside. Why are we then afraid to go back to 1963 Constitution and improve on any defect that is inherent in it? It is only those people that are profiting from the present state of affairs that are afraid of restructuring. How can anybody understand how a manager under the Ministry of Petroleum be functioning under a minister answerable to the National Assembly without reference to or behind the minister? The Ministry of Petroleum is the citadel of corruption. These are situations calling for restructuring, which those people benefiting from the present situation are not willing to take place, wanting their performances to be shrouded in obscurity.

How can a state government not have its own police to function but only to depend on federal police, not under its pay-roll before it can function? All these ills are what true federalism and viability of states can remedy. That is the reason for calling for restructuring and the debate on it should be left in the hands of the political parties to handle as they are the people that are calling for the support of the general public for their policies and this should be done by referendum. Since we all agree that all these things exist in our present system of governance, how to end these practices is what we should be discussing and not the fact that they exist, which is what restructuring is all about.