Multiplicity of states as an albatross
Nothing better demonstrates the destabilising forces inherent in the multiplicity of states in Nigeria than the benumbing feud between former President Goodluck Jonathan and his fellow Niger Deltan, former Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State; a feud which, in 2015, substantially discounted the electoral prowess of the first Niger Delta Executive President of Nigeria.
These Alumni of the University of Port Harcourt brought to the fore the underlying contradictions of the Nigerian state, even before her independence in 1960: the unresolved problem of power-balance between the Federal Government and the governments of the federating units, following the 1953 landmark decision in which Her Majesty, the Queen of England, granted autonomy (virtual sovereignty) to the federating units of Nigeria.
On the heels of that epochal decision, the minority groups across Nigeria had respectively voiced their grave concerns about possible marginalisation in such autonomous federating units; those concerns were of such proportions that necessitated a Royal Commission specifically to investigate them. A distinguished former Vice Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Henry Willink, was appointed to head the commission. The Willink Commission Report was duly completed on July 30, 1958. Any person or group of persons looking to resolve Nigeria’s lingering political crises must thoroughly digest The Willink Commission Report on The Fears of Minorities and the Means of Allaying Them.
Among other things, the commission observed that since it was “seldom possible to draw a clean boundary,” which does not create a fresh minority, it concluded that states creation would not provide remedy for the fears expressed by the minorities. (This conclusion has been vindicated by the ever-increasing demand for more states since the 1967 creation of 12 states from Nigeria’s four regions). The commission also observed that competition for power between the Federal Government and Regional Governments would present a challenge to national development since the regions would strive to attain the full powers which their autonomy gave them leave.
This has been the Nigerian story. Governor Rotimi Amaechi as the then chairman of Nigeria’s Governors Forum had represented the centrifugal forces of the federating units contending for power with the Federal Government, represented by President Goodluck Jonathan. Both men were victims of the potent conflicting forces that had been called into being, even before their respective births. Selfsame forces had inexorably led to the 1965 crisis of supremacy between the Federal Government and the Western Region, which largely inspired the January 1966 coup that eventually resulted in the 1967-70 Civil War.
As the resultant Civil War clearly demonstrated, rather than weaken those threatening centrifugal forces, states creation along tribal lines greatly exacerbated the separatist forces: the Igbo tribe declared a sovereign state of Biafra mere weeks after the first set of 12 states were created(!) It is necessary to quote in extenso The Willink Commission’s informed observation on the question of states creation on tribal lines:
“But there is also a general consideration of the first importance, which we should have had to take into account if there had otherwise been sound arguments in favour of a particular state (creation). Until the last years when the prospects of independence came close, the tendency within Nigeria (as in other parts of Africa) was for tribal differences to become less acute: this was beginning to happen to some extent even among the uneducated in big towns, much more in the secondary schools and the higher places of education and in general among those who had reached a higher level of education.
“With the approach of independence, the tendency has been reversed and there has been sharp recrudescence of tribal feeling. But it does not necessarily follow that this will continue; in a few years time, a Nigeria which has to face the outer world may find within herself forces working strongly for unity. It would be a pity if, at the moment when Nigeria achieved independence, separate states had been created which enshrined tribal separation in a political form that was designed to be permanent. In such circumstances, it seems likely that differences would grow steadily stronger.
In Nigeria at the moment thought is directed to the defence of local rights, but it might be well to bear in mind the example of East Africa; a Royal Commission has there reported that what stands in the way of full productive capacity and a higher standard of living is the existence between tribal areas of boundaries which were meant to protect but have come to confine (development).
“It is of the first importance to find means of allaying fears which do not perpetuate differences that might otherwise disappear. This is the reason why we do not accept in its entirety the principle of ethnic grouping, that is, the principle that a recognisable ethnic group should whenever possible form a political unit.”
The pertinent points of the foregoing are: a) the formation of political unions (states) should not follow tribal lines; and, b) the sharp recrudescence of hitherto waning tribal differences in the years leading up to Nigeria’s independence. The latter point reminds one of that mysterious change of heart of the ordinary northerners who had openly cheered the January 1966 coup leaders, but within mere days viciously thirsted for their blood and those of all other indigenes of the eastern region. The Willink Commission had intuitively hinted that Nigeria’s elite class might be tempted to use its acquired intellect to manipulate the ordinary citizens at the detriment of national development, as was observed in East Africa. Indeed, as the erudite Professor H. A. Oluwasanmi, then of the University of Ibadan had commented in reviewing the 1962 report of Justice C. C. Coker Commission of Inquiry, “the tragedy of Nigeria is that few of its citizens had risen to such heights of sophistication that make it possible for them to issue their personal valuations to the less sophisticated citizens as universal imperatives…”
Had Nigeria’s first crop of elite class been as nationalistically altruistic as The Willink Commission Report envisaged, Nigeria’s primordial three regions (Northern, Western, and Eastern) would have, for reasons of national unity, progressively grown stronger in political power at the expense of the Federal Government. Alas! the converse became the case, all the more so with the 1966 military usurpation of power and the creation of states in 1967. About 50 years following with 36 federating units, socio-economic development has stagnated, with the ordinary citizenry’s living conditions hitting record low levels.
Today (2016) over 70% of the national budget represents governments’ recurrent expenditure, while 27 of the 36 states have become insolvent merely that the prices of Nigeria’s principal export dwindled. Thus the nation’s multiplicity of states has become an albatross on her exchequer. No stronger case could be made against states creation; and there could be hardly a better time to collapse the extant 36 states back to the pre-1967 four-regional architecture with a considerably whittled down Federal Government.
The Willink Commission made another observation of first importance: the entire Niger Delta region was to be regarded as a “Special Area” on account of the region’s ecological sensitivity. A percentage of the national budget was to be dedicated to the region, the commission subsequently recommended. On top of that observed ecological sensitivity has since been added gross environmental and socio-economic degradations by the International Oil Companies (IOCs) operating in the region. The region’s monumental challenge is well documented; its enduring resolution calls for a profound commitment on the part of the federation. It is the height of irresponsibility to make light of it. I so submit; so help us God.
Afam Nkemdiche is a consulting engineer in Abuja.
Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox every day of the week. Stay informed with the Guardian’s leading coverage of Nigerian and world news, business, technology and sports.
1 Comments
Yours is just and opinion. The restructuring is necessary but 6 not 4 regions. Nothing special should be made of any region. But collapsing the present and evening out things is the way forwards
We will review and take appropriate action.