CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK
HENCE the annual pilgrimage, by many who can afford it, to London, Paris, Tokyo, Madrid, Monte Carlo and Las Palmas, to mention a few cities where these things exist in bounteous plentitude.
For almost a century. Lagos has developed this pull. And in the future, because of its position as a major port, and of the concentration of industries, commerce, and comparatively affluent population in and around it, its socio-gravitational pull will increase rather than diminish.
There are only two ways of reducing this pull: to canalise the Atlantic Ocean to the new capital wherever it is situated, and to move the industries, Night Clubs, the entire population of prostitutes, etc., to the new site; or as an alternative to the latter, to create new brands of these factors in the new capital. The one is impossible; the other would be almost insuperably obstructed by all the known factors of immobility of human beings and of industries and commerce. ln any event, it will take many years to develop new brands, especially in the face of the constant pull of Lagos.
The result, therefore, will be that, when we move our capital to the new site, the majority of our Ministers, civil servants in the senior and intermediate categories, and top employees of businesses and services established in the new Capital, will see to it that they spend their weekends and holidays in Lagos. Those in the junior categories will be unhappy because they cannot afford the expense of imitating their more prosperous fellow-workers.
There is a further complication. Ecologically, it will take some years for all those, other than the natives of the area, who arc moved to the new site, to settle down and adjust themselves to their new environment.
The net result of all these is that, during the first few years in the new capital, general efficiency would decline.
Thirdly, moving the entire government personnel from the old to the new capital would involve logistics problems of tremendous and complex magnitude which would take months to surmount. The longer the distance of the new capital from the old, the greater the magnitude. Conversely, the shorter the distance, the less. In addition, the transfer to the new site is sure to involve extensive dislocation of governmental activities.
Chief Kola Balogun has suggested nearness to a port as one of the factors to be considered in locating a new site. [ agree with him; .’ and merely want to add that, having regard to all the factors which I have discussed above, and, in particular, in order to minimise dislocation of governmental business, the new capital should be as near to the Lagos port as possible.
Fourthly, the conclusion to which my reasoning leads me is that Lagos should be allowed to continue to be the Federal capital. I conjecture, and insist on being proved wrong, that the cost of removing the alleged deficiencies of Lagos – clearing the slums and widening the roads – will be far less than the cost of building a new capital and overcoming the concomitant problems. In this connection, it is suggested that the Lagos State Government should move its capital out of Lagos to Ikorodu and seek to establish a greater Lagos there.
Alternatively, the new capital should be located as near to Lagos as possible. A maximum distance of25 miles will be ideal. And in order to facilitate response to the socio-gravitational pull of Lagos, and minimise the logistics problem of moving to the new site, the new capital should be linked with Lagos by a first-class express highway of not less than SIX LANES.
The site I have in mind is between Agege and Ifo. Those who advocate Kafanchan or Kaduna should remember that there are many areas between Lagos and Kafanchan or Kaduna which are equally suitable, and which, because they are nearer to Lagos present less intractable problems.
———————————————–
Separation of powers among the three arms of government
From the address delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the Unity Party of Nigeria to the Second Annual Conference of the Oyo State Branch of the UPN on Saturday, 8th November, 1980.
SINCE 1st October, 1979, an unsavoury situation has emerged. The relationship between the Legislature and the Executive, at the Federal level and in most states has, at the worst, been embittered, and, at the very least, not as cordial as it should be.
Under our Constitution the three organs of government are separate and distinct both in respect of the functions which they perform, and of the functionaries who are entrusted with the performance of those functions. In other words, under our Constitution, no government functionary belongs to more than one organ, and none performs the functions of more than one organ.
This is one of the three well-known forms of separation of powers, and, functionally, the neatest of them all.
The other two may be mentioned in passing. Though a set of public functionaries are members both of the Legislature and the Executive, yet there is separation of powers, as long as neither the legislature nor the executive performs the functions of the other.
This is the form of separation of powers under the so-called parliamentary system of government. There is also separation of powers in the solitary British instance of one functionary (the Lord Chancellor) belonging to all the three organs of government, and at the same time remaining independent and separate in the exercise of each of his triunal functions. Ironically enough, Montesquieu, the first political philosopher to propound the principle of separation of powers, and to classify governmental powers into legislative, executive, an judicial, drew inspiration for his famous theory from Britain’s unique parliamentary system.
Our own form of separation of powers is fashioned after the American system. The ideal of this system is the provision of effective checks and balances in the governmental structure itself.
CONTINUES NEXT WEEK
and then