Igho Natufe’s path to redemption in Okpe nation – Part 2

The column continues our reading of Professor Omajuwa Igho Natufe’s very sparkling essay on the path to redemption in Okpe nation. The President General worldwide of Okpe Union is a thorough-bred Safarian and a cosmopolitan who advocates justice and equal rights for all Nigeria’s indigenous ethnic nationalities including his beloved Okpe nation. He denounces, without mincing words, the Animal Farm mentality and hierarchy in Nigeria. Kindly savour what he says/proposes as Nigeria’s “homogenous and heterogeneous federating units”, and other matters of patriotic and national/nationalistic interest.

A pathway to redemption
Nigeria’s minority ethnic nationalities are crushed under the weight of the above problems. This is evident in the onslaught of minority ethnic nationalities in central Nigeria, for example, and the arrogant inclusion of southern minority ethnic nationalities in the Biafran and Oduduwa Republic maps produced by the Igbo and Yoruba, respectively.

Prior to independence in 1960, the demand for state creation for Nigeria’s ethnic minority nationalities was meant to restructure the polity by freeing them from the marginalisation which they faced in each of the three regions dominated by the tripodal hegemony. This issue was the key theme at a post-Richards national constitutional conference convened in Ibadan in January 1950 under Governor John MacPherson. To help focus the deliberations at the Ibadan Conference, H. M. Foot, the Chief Secretary posed two vital questions for the consideration of the delegates.

“Do we wish to see a fully centralised system with all legislative and executive power mainly concentrated at the centre or do we wish to develop a federal system under which each different region of the country would exercise a measure of internal autonomy?”

“If we favour a federal system, should we retain the existing regions with some modifications of existing regional boundaries or should we form regions on some new basis such as the many linguistic groups which exist in Nigeria?” (As cited in Kalu Ezera’s, Constitutional Developments in Nigeria, London, 1961, p.110.)

The second part of the question regarding the creation of regions (states) for the various ethnic groups recognised that the Nigerian polity had become a prison for minority ethnic nationalities. Unfortunately, only the Midwest Region was created via a referendum on August 9, 1963 under a civilian regime.

Basically, to restructure a political system is to reform its components and redefine the relationships governing the powers and responsibilities of all levels of government. Especially in a supposedly federal system like Nigeria, such a restructuring is expected to recognise the exclusive jurisdictions of the federating units in critical sectors of industry and the economy as evidenced in the 1963 Constitution. The resistance to this has been very loud, as the opposition perceives restructuring as a code name for the dissolution of Nigeria. In fact, those arguing for 54 or more states in Nigeria and opposed to restructuring are primarily concerned about forfeiting their fiscal benefits of the current distorted federal system that allows them to collect monthly stipends from Abuja.

The politico-military class in power since 1966 has jettisoned the federal principles of the 1963 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in favour of a unitary political system, even though they christened the 1999 constitution a federal republican constitution. Ironically, the United Kingdom, a unitary system possesses more federalism compliant institutions than a supposedly Federal Republic of Nigeria. For example, political parties in the United Kingdom are federalism compliant unlike the military imposed command system that defines the form and content of Nigerian political parties. This military imposed command system has permeated all levels of governance including the state and local governments.

While it may be fashionable to condemn the military regimes for restructuring Nigeria via their respective state creation exercises between 1967 and 1996, it is most disturbing that the elected civilian governments (1979-1983; and since 1999) have failed to address the issue in a meaningful way to halt the various centrifugal forces in the country. For example, their refusal to restore the 1963 Republican Constitution and jettison the 1999 Constitution, which is essentially a militarised command-system constitution, can only be construed as a rejection of renewed federalism.

But if restructuring is to succeed in Nigeria, there must be a universal recognition of the tenets of federalism as contained in the 1963 Constitution. Assuming that we agree on the prerequisites for restructuring, then a key question to be resolved is on the number of states (federating units) in a renewed Nigerian federalism.

That Nigeria is a collection of indigenous ethnic nationalities, it is the view of the Okpe Union that a restructured Nigerian federalism must reflect this imperative. The state creation imposed on the country by various military dictatorships (1967, 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1996) merely balkanised the three major ethnic groups into states.

Thus, by military fiat, the Hausa/Fulani have 10 states, the Yoruba have seven and the Igbo have five. This military fiat must be discarded. If we recognise that all indigenous ethnic nationalities are equal federating units of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, then on what basis was these three ethnic groups Balkanised into several states, respectively, and thereby establishing power disequilibrium in the polity?

This creates an undue access to power for these ethnic nationalities in terms of multiple federal ministerial and board appointments to each of them, compared to, for instance, 1 federal ministerial appointment for the entire 40 ethnic nationalities in Plateau State or 1 for the entire 10 ethnic nationalities in Delta State. Is this George Orwell’s Animal Farm hierarchy the basis for Nigeria’s renewed federalism?

As a framework for a restructured federal Nigeria, we propose the following: –
The creation of homogeneous federating states for the 15 most populous ethnic nationalities that have contiguous boundaries, respectively. These federating units will be 15 homogeneous ethnic-based states for the Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Kanuri, Ibibio, Okpe, Tiv, etc.

The creation of a maximum of 15 heterogeneous (multi-ethnic) federating states for the other ethnic nationalities. An ethnic nationality occupying a defined contiguous boundary in a heterogeneous state shall constitute an autonomous region with due constitutional jurisdictions. It shall also have concurrent jurisdiction with the heterogeneous state over natural resources discovered in its territory; but shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over primary and secondary education, culture, language, and traditional institutions, etc.

A Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting minority rights will anchor this restructured federalism.
If the proposed homogeneous and heterogeneous federating units are rejected in favour of the existing 36 states, then it is recommended that a distinct ethnic nationality occupying a defined contiguous territory, like, in alphabetical order, the Benin, Itsekiri, Nupe, and Okpe, for example, be classified as an autonomous region with due constitutional jurisdictions to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the state over natural resources in its territory; but shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over primary and secondary education, culture, language, and traditional institutions.

Another proposition which appeals to Okpe is the 18-regional structure prescribed in the PRONACO People’s Constitution of August 2006, where the Isoko, Okpe, and Urhobo ethnic nationalities are grouped in one region to be known as either ISOKPU or ISOKPEHOBO Region. Each of the three (3) ethnic nationalities shall be classified as an autonomous area with due constitutional jurisdictions to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the state over natural resources in its territory; but shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over primary and secondary education, culture, language, and traditional institutions.

In all of the above proposed frameworks, the revenue allocation formula shall be 50 per cent derivation; 20 per cent Federal Government; and 30 per cent to the Federation Distributable Pool.

It must be emphasised that restructuring by itself does not guarantee an end to marginalisation in Nigeria. In each local government area and in each state across Nigeria, there are communities marginalised out of the mainstream by leaders and political parties comprised of members of the same ethnic and religious groups, for example, in Delta State and in Okpe Nation. What we have is poor governance across all levels of government, including the traditional system, anchored on massive corruption.

Therefore, we recognise that restructuring by itself is never a panacea for good governance, as long as corruption remains the mainstay of Nigerian political culture. A respected retired permanent secretary who knows his onions had this to say about corruption. He opined:

“One fact Nigerians must know is that Nigeria is not a rich country per capita; it is the corruption level that projects otherwise. That is why we must learn to live within our means and fight the war against corruption a little more ruthlessly.” (Anonymous, May 4, 2024).

In his series of public lectures, Prof. PLO Lumumba succinctly addressed this quagmire by reminding us that those found guilty of corruption in China are summarily executed while their counterparts in Africa, especially in Nigeria, are eulogised and elected to leadership positions at all levels of government. We recommend the Chinese treatment in dealing with convicted corrupt officials in Nigeria as the most effective method of waging the war against corruption. We are aware that sitting legislators (at local, state, and federal levels) will not support this recommendation. It is left for the citizenry to determine for how long they want to watch their commonwealth stolen by political and traditional so-called leaders.
To be continued.
Afejuku can be reached via 08055213059.