‘Nigeria needs to convoke proper national conference’

What is your view about the appointments so far made by President Muhammadu Buhari?

My view is that when somebody has four years to govern this country, he should be allowed to start. We are judging him too soon. That is my view!
Some of those who accused him of lopsided appointment are saying the federal character principle should be expunged from the constitution so that presidents could appoint from wherever they like.

The federal character principle is one that is indeterminate for those who understand the principle. When you are applying the federal character principle, you can do it state by state, including the federal capital territory, which is what applies when you are appointing ministers. The constitution makes it compulsory that each state must have at least one minister. That is one level of federal character. The other level is to take it along the lines of zonal considerations. Due to political convenience, politicians have divided Nigeria into six zones. I say politicians because there is no instrument of any sort, whether a statutes or any piece of legislation prescribing the zonal arrangement. If you take the zonal structure and you appoint somebody from the six zones, you have applied federal character. So when you are looking at the federal character principle, it depends on level of operation. At state level, there are three senatorial zones for instance and their local governments. Whatsoever, federal character principle is applied, what it amounts to is to accommodate our diversities and what we preach constitutionally is unity in diversity – you take account of diversity in order to create unity. So there is no way you can justify the abolition of the federal character principle. You will be throwing the country into chaos. That is the reason for the wrangling here and there. The appointment that has been made so far is just a minutest of the appointments that Mr. President must inevitably make in his four years tenure. That is why I say that we must be patient.

What is the place of merit and competence in this issue of federal character?
They are not antithetical. Within a particular geo-political zone or within a state, an appointment can reach the person who is most qualified for it. If you are looking for a minister for instance, all of them will not be equal in intellect and height, but what you may be looking for is a strategic average. So if you have a first class brain from State A, you look for a first class brain from State B or in the alternative somebody very close to first class. But if you have just one opening, that is when you will talk about the best and brightest. Let say, we want to send somebody to the United Nations or a multinational agency, that is when we look for the best in that area. But if we want to satisfy the federal character principle, then there must be some cost, inevitably. You will not in a class of 50 expect 50 first classes. The teacher has to accommodate his best, those in medium level and those that are slow in learning. That is actually the philosophy of teaching. God did not make the five fingers equal. So when we are talking about merit, we also have to look at the circumstances.

What about the quota system? Is it in any of our statutes?
Quota system is simply a euphemism for federal character. That is what it is and it is still part of ensuring that our diversities are attended to in order to meet the justice of our situation. That is actually why Nigeria became a federation. In 1914 when amalgamation came, Nigeria was not a federation. We started from Unitary and moved to Federal in 1954, if my memory serves me right. So it’s a recent event!

Some are of the view that we are not practicing real federalism?
In some respect yes, they are right. Even the Supreme Court said so; that our constitution was deliberately designed as it is and will continue to remain so until it is amended. It is a centralized federalism. That is my own name for what we are practicing. I am actually an opponent of that type of federalism.

So what are you proposing?
What I propose is that we practice federalism as far as it is possible, recognizing the true pillars of federalism. For instance, ensuring the autonomy of States with regard to the powers that are devolved to States by the federal government. If you look at the constitution of Nigeria and the practice of federalism, you will see that the body language of politicians do not even reflect federalism. Governors run to Abuja every week at the slightest excuse. That is the body language I am talking about. Will you support parliamentary system of government in the alternative?
No! We are not talking about whether it is parliamentary or presidential. We can tailor the presidential system to meet our immediate needs. We practiced parliamentary system, if you remember under the independence constitution and under the republican constitution of 1963. There was a reason for moving to presidentialism in 1979. I think that if we are honest in interpreting the constitution and annexing the powers under the constitution, we should be able to make the most of presidentialism.

What is your position on the report of the National Political Reform Conference? Some people are of the view that government should jettison the report?
My position even at the time the conference was on was that I saw finger prints indicating that the conference was political and the fact that the president himself at the time did not take steps to implement it, justifies the views I have. So I would think that if we harbor very genuine desires of meeting the shortfalls in our present constitutional arrangements, let a proper conference be convened in circumstances that would show the end-point; what do we want to achieve? How do we want to achieve it? What character of

Nigerians are we going to ask to design our future?
Irrespective of how the former conference was convened, are you not comfortable with some of its recommendations?
I am not comfortable that we should have 18 more states. Anybody who thinks otherwise does not love Nigeria. When you think that every city in Nigeria should be a State, then, you are not showing any seriousness, in my humble opinion.

Don’t you think that such State creations would accelerate developments?
What has happened since the last State creation exercise? While on one hand you may contend that it was designed to meet the yearnings of the people for some kind of self-determination, it must also be acknowledged that it has not accelerated any development in any sense.

If it is implemented side by side with resource control, what do you think?
Resource control has been reduced to a nebulous concept. Nobody has worked it out. How do you determine the resources? I know that the Supreme Court has defined resources control but in a situation where you have solid minerals spread over a large area of Nigeria and then you the oil as a mineral resource spread through nine states called the littoral states. Resource control means what? That any state that has solid mineral should control it? That any state that has oil and natural gas should also control it and probably use the American model and pay tax to the government at centre? But what about the identification of those resources? Who bears the responsibility? There has been mining for oil in Lake Chad basin and in some other parts of Nigeria. It is the federal government that has been picking the tax. So it is an entirely and completely different sphere which has to be determined fully and effectively before we can talk about who controls what and what that control means?

At present, do you think there is a renewed vigour in the anti-corruption war?
Certainly! But to what effect? I have always held the view that as long as the federal government ostensibly exclude the states from the war against corruption, it will continue to be more noise than effect. The point I am making is this: you have the EFCC, ICPC, the Nigerian Police and all the other agencies that are concerned with the fight against corruption. All of them are agencies of the federal government. So, a situation in my view, where the federal government determines who is corrupt at local government level and whether to prosecute the person or not, is not pro-effectiveness in terms of fighting corruption. The underpinning of the war against corruption should be; if somebody takes money belonging to a local council, out of the 774 local government councils in the country, let that local government decide whether it is willing to pursue the loss of those funds.

Are you proposing a local government anti-corruption agency?
Why not? How can somebody sit in Abuja know who has stolen money in a local government in Borno State? If there is one thief in each local government, how can you see 774 persons? All the security agencies combined cannot chase 774 persons at the same time.

How can that be realized going by the seemingly unlimited powers of the State chief executives?
There is no unlimited power at state level or any level. The constitution is designed on the principle of checks and balances. All I am saying is that the impression should not be created that our States and local governments are incapable of fighting corruption. It is that impression that has continued to undermine the effectiveness of the war against corruption. If those agencies concentrate on those who embezzle federal government monies, the fight against corruption would be better fought.