Thursday, 28th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

The 2014 National Conference:Looking back, looking forward

By EDITOR
02 April 2015   |   11:29 pm
LET me note at this point that there have been very strong opinions expressed by strong-voiced Nigerians about how prepared the President and the country was for such a conference. Even if it is very much conceded that the President had problems personal and national that he had to contend with, there is good testimony to the fact that he was meticulous and highly skilled in preparing for it.
OFEIMUM

OFEIMUM

Being the Third Annual Dr. Abel Guobadia Memorial Lecture delivered by ODIA OFEIMUN on 5th February, 2015 at the auditorium of the Women’s Health and Action Research Centre, Benin City.

LET me note at this point that there have been very strong opinions expressed by strong-voiced Nigerians about how prepared the President and the country was for such a conference. Even if it is very much conceded that the President had problems personal and national that he had to contend with, there is good testimony to the fact that he was meticulous and highly skilled in preparing for it.

The authoritative voice on this as I have argued in This Conference must be different is Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the leader of opposition who has been most categorical about his misgivings and who must be thanked for unwittingly rousing a virtual national movement behind the idea of the conference.

The former Governor of Lagos State and national leader of the All-Progressive Congress, has acknowledged in a backhanded sort of way that he was indeed following the steps being taken by the President although he never expected those steps to be well-meant or pursued to logical conclusions.

In the statement that he made on his return from recuperating abroad, he averred that the President opted for the “wiser and more cost-effective line of action when, in November 2011, he inaugurated the Justice Belgore Presidential committee on the Review of Outstanding Issues from Recent Constitutional conferences”.

The President, according to him, appointed many eminent personalities to the Committee. After the Committee’s report on July 11, 2012, the President constituted a Cabinet committee, with the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke, as the Chairman, to report within three weeks. Then: “Under the President’s watch and directive, a presidential retreat was held for civil society organizations and professional groups at the Banquet Hall, of the State House, Abuja”.

The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Emeka Ihedioha, the Chairman of the House Committee on constitution Review, stressed the fact, at that retreat, and in the presence of President Goodluck Jonathan, “that the target of the legislature was to complete the constitution amendment process by June 2013.” When that process was actually completed, all the principal drivers in the National Assembly began to deliver reports to the public in a way that was, agreeably, parliamentary.

This means that even while so many were talking about the cluelessness of the President, so much was actually happening that was being kept at arms length by those who should have been most enthused by, even if critical of, the process. Although the public has been kept in the dark about the Belgore Report, the minders of the amendment process in the Senate and in the House of Representatives kept faith with the public.

So much work they have done to enable any concerned citizen to follow the pattern of the reconstruction of a new constitution in the light of the old! The usually unbowed and proactive media across the country have performed admirably, in my view, and have enabled all who are genuinely interested in the process to know how different is the work that has been done by the sitting National Assembly.

Because of the kind of education I have received from their reports I owe a special deal of gratitude to my favourite reporters: and I want to acknowledge my indebtedness to the journalists who have done interviews and features on the basis of which I have garnered pictures of the various conferences and their reports.

In particular, A Tale of Two constitution amendment Reports, written by Vincent Obia, for ThisDay, the Sunday Newspaper on July 24, 2013; the PRONACO REPORT: Can Okunrounmu committee learn from the past written by Musa Odoshimokhe for the NATION on October 24, 2013; Where is Abuja conference’s Report by NATION political editor, Emmanuel Oladesu, published on October 30, 2013: and Sunday Vanguard interview with Emeka Ihedioha, Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the Ad-Hoc committee on Constitution Review on March 9, 2014.

It is true that no one has followed with much diligence the reports of either the National Conference itself or the job of synchronizing the reports of the Senate and the House of Representatives which has been done and to which the Houses of Assembly have responded in a conjoint report. But I am for now simply interested in the work done by the National Conference. Now to the discourse.

I might seem to be getting personal, if I return to my earlier revelation that I had an agenda of my own which made me write a number of articles, a few published in the newspapers, which anticipated the outcome of the National Conference. If I wasn’t going to be there at the Conference, it was no reason not to let myself be felt or heard.

I sent an advance copy of the two books, Taking Nigeria Seriously, and This conference must be different to the Secretariat of the conference and watched and ticked off what I considered the touchstone of the whole exercise.

There was nothing brilliantly original in what I had written. I made no claim to special knowledge. As I saw it, a “constitution that will outlast its makers must derive its rationale from collective ambitions that are not driven by immediate, or merely alimentary, concerns! Unity is not enough. Nor welfare. A good constitution must seek a shared future, based on justice and a common, benign morality…. as a syllabus of ideals into the next Nigerian Century. And beyond”. And, there was no reason in my view to try re-inventing the wheel.

I merely relied on the “good work” that had been done in the last century which required us to take our country very seriously. Hence, in asserting that this conference must be different, I had no reason to engage in far-fetching.

The cumulative goodness of preceding creativity and hardwork from various constitutional conference reports, civil society soirees and special commissions already had empowering visions from tapping into the best that the Nigerian mind had framed in pursuit of a handle for our collective aspirations.

I merely extracted what I called asterisked items many of which I had argued for in Taking Nigeria seriously and When does a Civil War come to An End in the form of one citizen’s plea to fellow citizens: to appreciate the necessity for a National dialogue, the insolvency of a sovereign national conference; and the imperative of facing up to the challenges of the national question with creativity.

Whether or not the Secretariat of the National Conference bothered with my submissions, I decided to line up the asterisked items which I believed could be consensually agreed upon by Nigerians who had given some good thought to them.

There is a personal statement I wish to make here about the faith I began to have in my fellow countrymen and women when I discovered that many of the resolutions of the National Conference chimed with what I had proposed as asterisks. If you hear the timbre of a brag in my voice as I reel out the asterisked items which coincided with the resolutions of the National Conference, it is because, as I have argued, there is really no reason to re-invent the wheel.

The good work already done by preceding searchers for answers came handy. Nor is it a matter of raising one conference over another in a partisan pursuit of kudos. I arrived at the asterisked items by simply comparing the reports of the various national conferences to the positions taken by many constitutional experts whose arguments merely needed to be cleaned up, from sentimental dredges in order to be making them serviceable for lasting purposes.

My asterisks were the items that, I thought, a fair and proper constitution, able to deal with the problems of our times could not afford to occlude. “In my well-considered view, we are, as Nigerians, inheritors of great debates, marvelous precepts, and well-honed constitutional provisions – loaded asterisks – that are answers to our much-vaunted National Question.

In over one hundred years of trying, we have arrived at principles that are true to our needs and ought now to be harnessed with the integrity of self-motivated people.

In no particular order, the principles cover but are not limited to the following: – A Presidential system with a four year, renewable, term for chief executives who shall be elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage by the whole constituency over which they seek governance. – A bicameral legislature based on universal adult suffrage

A judiciary entitled to a first line draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund – A post-office pension for past chief executives and officers of the legislature so long as they were not impeached. – The withdrawal of immunity from criminal liabilities for Chief Executives – Special courts for the prosecution, with despatch, of cases emanating from corrupt practices.

States courts of appeal to be established in six geo-political zones – A mayoral administration for the Federal capital territory – Transfer of basic education, maternal health care, and housing from Chapter two, on Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State policy to chapter Four under Fundamental human Rights; therefore justiciable – Creation and re-creation of states strictly to ensure that, as much as possible, all people of the same ethnic or language group in contiguous territorial formation are together in one state

The creation of a Gbagyi state, Ekiti state, Ijebu state, Nupe state, Anioma state, Kanuri state etc with common welfare policies as guaranteed across all the states of the Federation. – Removal of pensions, prisons, railways, stamp duties, and wages from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent list; – Addition of Road Safety, healthcare, public complaints, arbitration, aviation, and environment, health, housing and electricity to the Concurrent list.

A shared and federated defence and security system with a directorate of each of the forces under each level of government; every tier of government entitled to a police system in the format of the judicial service. – Secularity of the Nigerian state guaranteed; no state religion – All political parties to enjoy subvention commensurate with votes scored in local government elections. All incumbents who change their political parties in midstream shall return to the electorate for their mandates to be re-determined in a bye-election.

Every language to be a national language taught at school in the domicile of each language; a multi-language choice at higher levels, with Universities in each catchment area empowered to research into the history, folklore, literature and culture of the areas. – The autonomy of the local government system to be guaranteed: no joint LG/state account; but a Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission for the state – Local governments and states to be involved through equity and management, in resources found in their areas.

Derivation principle to be applicable to all revenues, including Value Added Tax (VAT)”. – A revenue allocation formula that takes cognizance of items on first line draw; and shift of items on the Exclusive and Residual list to the Concurrent list. – Drastic reduction in cost of governance through downsizing of ministries, commissions, parastatals, offices of special advisers and special assistants.

A half-yearly report of actual cost of government to be undertaken by specially created Code of Conduct/Public protector’s office answerable to parliament. – “No expenditures without proper appropriation.” All budgets of such entities as the CBN, NNPC, NIMASA, Customs and Excise etc to be laid before the National Assembly – A separate office of the Attorney General of the Federation; distinct from the office of the Minister of Justice The office of the Accountant General of the Federation to be distinguished from the office of the Accountant General of the Federal Government.

All who are convicted for electoral malpractice shall be banned from running for any office for nine years. My immediate misses pertain to the following that – All political parties to enjoy subvention commensurate with votes scored in local government elections.

All incumbents who change their political parties in midstream shall return to the electorate for their mandates to be re-determined in a bye-election. – Every language to be a national language taught at school in the domicile of each language; a multi-language choice at higher levels, with Universities in each catchment area empowered to research into the history, folklore, literature and culture of the areas.

A half-yearly report of actual cost of government to be undertaken by specially created Code of Conduct/Public protector’s office answerable to parliament. As I see it, the resolutions of the National conference pertaining to these three items have a special significance for the defence of democracy and cultural freedom across the country. I think that they bear re-presentation.

Dr. Abel Guobadia

Dr. Abel Guobadia

But beyond the need to represent rejected asterisks is the necessity to look at some critical items which simply should never have been given the latitude they have enjoyed as outcomes of the proceedings. Since this is not meant to be an exhaustive analysis of the resolutions of the conference, I wish to limit myself to items I would have wished that the conference de-asterisked before the report was sent to the National Assembly. Among the resolutions that I would wish de-asterisked is the National Council of chiefs which some people may consider a way of bringing Nigerians together but actually constitutes a danger to the spirit of the whole body of resolutions.

This is not just because this is supposed to be a republican constitution, but because there are better ways of protecting valued institutions than denaturing them. Chiefs who want to mind their people’s interests in a governmental manner, beyond their localities and provinces, should be advised to run for elections and go into the Senate or House of Representatives.

At a time when some Nigerians are demanding that one chamber is enough to do the job of law-making, why encumber the nation with a third chamber? If Nigerian senators do not have the skills to work out how to build a country of cultural freedoms, the other resolutions in the Constitution provides a wide berth for accessing a common, shared, future. At any rate the House of Representatives already in its proceedings already considered the idea of a National House of Chiefs too outmoded to delay proceedings.

That the National Conference has re-invoked it is a matter that should raise eyebrows as it posits a lack of attention to the demands of the future. A shared future of genuine interactions, cannot be created by superficial agglomerations of ethnic fellowship which emphasize birth and indigeneship outside the areas of proper ethnic domicile.

A National House of chiefs, no matter how instituted is bound to have a pecking order, multiplying areas of ethnic competition, and revamping parochial philosophies of zoning which down-grade and wound ethnic egos in ways that must be avoided in a Nigeria of free peoples, Peoples who must not behave like slaves in search of overlords.

All traditional rulers have individual turfs that must grant them places of pride not to be sucked into supposed national projects, and yielding to unnecessary ethnic ranking. We need to learn that it is not by an arithmetic of ethnic cultures that we build a common nationality for Nigerians. It is by giving such confidence and freedom to all communities that they know they must get their due irrespective of where they are or who they are. Those who enter the zones of any particular ethnic cultures must learn to live within that culture without requiring the indigenes to bow to another town within the town.

It is called respect. Every citizen ought to have it for those amongst whom they live or wish to live to give it back in return. Of course there are cultural forms that no longer fit into the modern rating of civilized conduct. It is a matter that properly made laws define within the ambit of the customary laws that the UN Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights represents for every society. Another related resolution that needs to be de-asterisked is the requirement that there should be zoning of political offices between geo-cultural sections of society. One of the capital ingredients of this resolution is that states are to be treated as federating units.

It is not a bad idea if, first of all, it is properly understood that a state must be made up of people of as similar a language and culture as possible. The practice of allowing minorities of one ethnic group to be in another state or local government is an open sourcing of trouble. It is attempted ethnocide if people, kinsmen, speaking the same language, and contiguous, are forced into different states, local governments, and autonomous communities.

It amounts to trying to kill off people who should belong to the same community. Whether at local government or state levels, wherever it exists in Nigeria, it ought to be corrected. It does not follow that people of the same tongue, who have served too many different masters may not have differences but it can safely be assumed that they are less likely to be reconciled to themselves at the level of culture or natal pre-conceptions. To require that offices must be zoned between them for there to be peace is partly a way of preparing the ground for and inducing divisions that can become so entrenched that they become unnatural obstacles to coalescence.

Let political parties that wish to live on it put zoning on their manifestoes or even their constitutions as a way of gaining or proving communal access better than some other party. But not in the national constitution. Zoning is a bane that must be rooted out, as it actually stands in the way of allowing Nigerians to outgrow the divisive logic of treating people as strangers even where it has no meaning or significance.

By the same token, on the question of indigeneship, and consistent with the Senate’s admirably sharp rejection of a National House of Chiefs which may advise on religion, culture, resolution of boundary disputes, maintenance of peace, corporate unity and development of the country, there is a need to bring some tougher resolution to its existing stand on indigeneship in a country of minorities and majority ethnic groups where the former have always sought protected geographies through the creation of states against being overwhelmed and neutered.

To deny or be indifferent to the issues that ethnic differences have wrought in the Nigerian firmament is to wish away the humanity of so many that are discriminated against on grounds of ethnicity. The problems of indigeneship, although resolvable by granting citizenship across the board to all Nigerians, runs into a sharp contradiction in the idea of a National House of Chiefs which emphasizes membership on the basis of birth, sex and religion. These are truly against the republican spirit of the constitution.

To take the republican spirit off consideration is to leave many Nigerians exposed and unprotected at a time when the structures have not been put in place that could remove issues of internal colonialism which have a nuance that allows people of different ethnic stock to rule over long-repressed minorities and disadvantaged majority ethnic groups.

If a National House and state houses of chiefs are allowed, it would amount to giving constitutional imprimatur to serious cases of internal colonialism. The point is to distinguish between and not confuse citizenship and indigeneship. Where citizenship is emphasized, it is a distraction to bring in questions of indigeneship.

It is when questions of traditional authority are played up, beyond localities, that indigeneship becomes an issue. If citizenship is equated with indigeneship, it creates the basis for a permanent civil war in virtually every part of the Federation.

The old question by Mahmood Mamdani, when does a settler become a native is not one to be answered tritely until there is an agreement over economic and cultural rights that will not give to one ethnic group or race what is denied to another. On this count, I have written in a recent article that “The process of equalizing conditions across the country, a necessity for transforming Nigeria and dissolving tumours like Boko Haram, must begin with defending the right of all Nigerians to be free of hegemonies, regional or ethnic.

In relation to these, it is important to continue to press, as the national conference has commendably done, and to pitch for all contiguous conurbations of the same ethnic group to be in the same state rather than mucking up and cutting a line through an ethnic group, leaving minorities of one in a state or local government, dominated by another. Of course, there are few cases where such minorities are scattered across several states without contiguity.

The reason such cases are not being properly addressed is because of the stand of those who think there must be only one kind of solution for all cases. A multi-ethnic state that insists on such fixity of position is pleading a zero-sum approach that can only result in terrorism as norm.

On the contrary, if all Ekitis in the North and Ekitis in the South were brought together in the same state, it would remove the boundary between North and South in that zone. The same is true if Oyos in the South and Oyos in the North were now to be domiciled in the same state. Let Nigerians have a breathing space away from Lugard’s gerrymandering.

One critical case concerns the Gbagyi people of central Nigeria who, following some arcane monafiki, are scattered in five different states although they are contiguous enough to be in one state. Frederick Lugard hived off a part of Gbagyi territory to create a capital for the old North in Kaduna. The Nigerian creators of a Federal capital territory took another chunk of the territory in Abuja.

Today, the Gbagyi are in Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, and Abuja with fractions in Kogi. What crimes have they committed against anybody that they should be under the curse of such authoritative mis-allocation of territory? Someone may ask: have they demanded a state of their own? But this is the wrong question.

Should a national sense of justice not require that no community be subjected to the trashing of its language and its relationship with culturally contiguous communities simply in order to meet a legalistic requirement of propriety that others are not burdened by? Perhaps, the asterisked position that is bound to become most contentious if maltreated pertains to the autonomy of the local government system.

It may be best guaranteed by providing for no joint LG/state account; but a Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal Commission for the state. In addition, it should be guaranteed that although only a state may create local governments, once created, no state shall have power to remove the electoral principle from the affairs of a local government whether in the process of creating it or funding it.

The self-governance of communities is tied to this principle and it is the bedrock on which democracy stands or falls. •CONCLUDED

0 Comments