THE hues and cries in the wake of appointments by Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari betray a fundamental and critical fault line in our national structure and existence. The cry from several quarters of clear marginalisation by the President is at a crescendo and the prevaricating stance and equivoques from the presidential media handlers and the president’s party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) appears only to add insult to injury. Many eminent Nigerians that cut across various regional enclaves including Prof. Ben Nwabueze, Sen. Femi Okurounmu, to mention but a few have all lent their voices to this ‘‘blatant treachery’’ perpetrated in broad day light by the President. Some are yet bolder in their put down of the President’s actions calling it ‘‘the Northernisation’’ of Nigeria since the bulk of the appointments favour persons from that region.
The agitation that the President’s action is in clear violation of the federal character clause in the Nigerian constitution wrenches the skies like the bolts of Zeus’ crackling thunder as he bares his umbrage and indignation at the Titans, his sworn enemies. It promises a feisty confrontation between the champions of anti-marginalisation and equal representation on the one hand and die-hard Buharists to whom the President can do no wrong, on the other. As both parties spoil for war in the gladiators’ arena, the social media, armed to the teeth, no side is willing to concede any grounds or take prisoners in a battle of absolutes where the winner takes all. One would have expected that the presidency’s seemingly after thought reactionary statement of balancing the scale in subsequent appointments would suffice to make the Buharists, the wailing wailers and every other gladiator in between sheath their swords.
In the maddening confrontation, it appears that hardly is there anyone who wishes to sit down to do a circumspect review and analysis of the federal character clause, its relevance and its real potency in proving the much touted ‘‘balancing’’ in the composition of government personnel at the federal level. It is true there is a federal character clause but the recent agitations throw up a curious scenario in the mind of the perceptive and the analytical. The curious question is on what bases do we establish and thus practice federal character? How do we effectively and objectively define federal character such that it provides adequate coverage in practice for every unique character within the Nigerian conclave? Is it on regional basis or is it on ethnic premise? To provide the appropriate answer or an approximation of one, we need to further establish the parameters by which we define a Nigerian beyond the provisos of birth, parentage and paper certification for the purpose of the argument at hand. What defines a Nigerian more critically and more realistically? Is it region or ethnicity? The answer we provide to this critical question becomes the veritable backdrop against which we can really define federal character. This is because the essence of federal character is to provide adequate coverage for all stakeholders in the Nigerian enterprise. Does region provide a better coverage for all of Nigeria’s peoples or does ethnicity? To further broaden the scope and perspective on this germane endeavour, to deepen and improve one’s understanding of the relevance and consequence of this all important discourse, there is the need for at least a cursory understudy of Nigeria’s different and unique ethnic entities.
Verifiable statistical data suggest that there are about 300 different ethnic nationalities in Nigeria. These ethnic nationalities are spread across the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria. Within the Southern Hemisphere, the South-East block is predominantly, if not wholly, Igbo. The South-West likewise is populated by the Yorubas. The South-South boasts of a more eclectic ethnic population being host to about 40 different and diverse ethnic nationalities. This then brings the ethnic nationalities originally resident in Nigeria’s southern region to 42. To play it safe, let’s have a conservative round figure of 50. This leaves the remnant of 250 or so different and differing ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria, originally resident in the Northern Region, spread across the North-East, North-West and North Central.
What defines a Nigerian more critically and more realistically? Is it region or ethnicity? The answer we provide to this critical question becomes the veritable backdrop against which we can really define federal character. This is because the essence of federal character is to provide adequate coverage for all stakeholders in the Nigerian enterprise. Does region provide a better coverage for all of Nigeria’s peoples or does ethnicity?
This presents a naturally lopsided distribution of ethnic nationalities and poses the challenge of balancing. This reality then begs the question as to the basis upon which we define and establish federal character. This is because if the federal character clause is argued to have been deployed as an effective strategy to provide necessary balancing and adequate coverage, on what premise then should we as Nigerians define and practise federal character such that it provides the relevant coverage for all and sundry? Will it suffice to practise federal character along the lines of regional balancing or along the lines of ethnic representations? To better situate this seeming conundrum, let me paint a more realistic picture albeit fictitious.
Imagine a man married three women. The first wife bore him five children. The second bore three and the third two, bringing it to a grand total of 10 children. The man, perceiving he would soon undertake a one-way journey to the great beyond decides to make a will detailing the distribution of all his possessions equitably amongst his children in such a way as to forestall any sense of marginalisation by any of his three wives. He soon runs into a snag he discovers. How can he share his wealth equitably to provide adequate coverage for all members of his immediate family? Should he divide it equally among his three wives or should he divide it equally among his 10 children? He is in a genuine quandary. If he shares it equally among his children, the wife with five children would appear to have gained more. If on the other hand he shares it equally among his three wives, the children of the wife with only two children would appear to have benefitted more. How then must he proceed?
To be continued.
• Obaje is a philosophical theorist, a writer, public speaker and public affairs analyst.
