Nigeria in peculiar mess –penkelemesi

There is no doubt that President Bola Tinubu’s government is trying to manage an ailing economy, prostrate on multidimensional fronts through drastic policies, which appear to exacerbate it.

The reactions of the people, in pains and agony, are palpable such that the government is compelled to review such policies at frequent intervals. This is understandable given the complexities of the problems and the absence of a reliable data upon which to plan.

But the case of Nigeria is a ‘peculiar mess’ to adopt the phraseology of the late Gbadamosi Adegoke Adelabu, the Yoruba version of which is penkelemesi. It is a peculiar mess because it is self-inflicted, but nonetheless reversible if the system of governance is right as envisioned by the founding fathers before Independence.

In 1957, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa said: “I am pleased to see that we are now all agreed that the federal system is, under the present conditions, the only sure basis on which Nigeria will remain united. We must recognise our diversity and the peculiar conditions under which the different tribal communities live in this country.”

It is instructive to note that in the “Draft Constitution for Federal Republic of Nigeria” as proposed by Pro-National Conference (PRONACO) in 2006, there are listed 374 Nigerian Ethnic Nationalities which underscore the grim realities of our diversities with distinct languages, cultures and values. We live a lie, when we operate a unitary system of governance which stifles expressions of the diversities but project it as federal.

And then we are surprised at the consequences. In the twilight of my Ph.D work at Trinity College, Dublin, my supervisor gave me a thesis to peruse but remarked that the author was one who would put a beaker of ether, a highly inflammable solvent, on a Bunsen burner and when it catches fire he would be surprised – an uncharitable remark for a Chemist. This is the case with Nigeria, our country.

We are surprised that the system of local government administration is in shambles, abused by governors in cahoots with State Houses of Assembly when there is no specified tenure for local government Chairman in the 1999 Constitution.

In contrast, the 1989 Constitution, not promulgated, states in section 296(3): “…the Chairman shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of three years commencing from the date (a) in the case of a person first elected as Chairman under this Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of office.’’

We are surprised in slow criminal justice administration when all judicial matters emanating from the States converge at the federal Courts of Appeal and ultimately, the Supreme Court where Justices are overburdened.

Yet, the 2014 National Political Conference recommended decentralisation of judiciary stating in section 6.9.1 number 4(c) of the report: “Create a State Court of Appeal for every State”. 4(d) states: The State Court of Appeal shall be a terminal Court for States on State matters. However, Appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court in state matters involving weighty constitutional issues, civil liberties and matters of overriding public interest.”

We are surprised that State House of Assembly is at whims and caprices of governors when there is no financial autonomy guaranteed for it in the 1999 Constitution. We are surprised that state governors cannot enforce security in States when de facto, the Commissioners of Police are not answerable to them without clearance from the Inspector General of Police.

We are surprised that the vast natural resources especially minerals domiciled in States are not developed when they are vested in the Federal government and States have no control over them. All these and many more point to contradictions in the 1999 Constitution.

It is not yet clear if the Tinubu’s government will be willing to address the fundamental issue around the system of governance, as configured by the Constitution, which to date has rendered Nigeria unworkable.

Understandably, and for inclusion in the Federal Government, the number of ministers under the 1999 Constitution cannot be less than 37 by the provision of section 147(3) which states: “…The President shall appoint at least one Minister from each State, who shall be an indigene of such a State.” But in light of the cost of governance and debt burden, it is simply irreconcilable that to date we have 48 ministers excluding Cabinet –level members, altogether 52 each of whom with plethora of aides.

Further, there is no pronouncement on the Steve Oronsaye Committee report, which identified 541 federal parastatals, commissions and agencies and recommended 38 federal agencies to be abolished amongst other recommendations in bid to check duplications and cut cost of governance.

Then the question, what is the rationale for the President’s approval of N70 billion for the National Assembly in the 2022 Supplementary Appropriation Bill to improve the working conditions of its new members against the backdrop of deep-seated poverty in the country. It is now in the public space that each National Assembly member is to receive an SUV Land Cruiser worth N160 million.

This is more worrisome when it is realised that the yearly overhead cost for each of some Federal Universities is a paltry N108 million, that is N9 million monthly which has rendered administration extremely difficult.

Regrettably, the National Assembly, in its conduct over the years is demonstrably an albatross in our governance system inconsistent with its status as the First Estate of the Realm with overarching functions to ensure good governance.

It is regrettable that the National Assembly, failing in its constitutional duties would justify its actions of profligacy and other sundry excesses on grounds of similar actions of the executive arm of government over which it is expected to exercise oversight functions. The Legislature and the Executive arms of government at all levels, States and Federal, are self-serving and insensitive to the sorry state of ordinary citizens, to who, in normal order, they are accountable.

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), the godfather of modern Singapore, ensured good governance by his People’s Action Party as an instrument to be in power for 30 years under his leadership. He was labeled a dictator by the opposition but could not be faulted by his traducers on his principles for good governance.

On this he said: “The foundations for our financial centre were the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and a stable, competent and honest government that pursued sound macroeconomic policies with budget surpluses almost every year.” (‘From Third World to First’, LKY, p73).

Further he said, “A precondition for an honest government is that candidates must not need large sums of money to get elected, or it must trigger off the cycle of corruption… Having spent a lot to get elected, winners must recover their costs and also accumulate funds for the next election.” (LKY, p164).

Juxtaposing Nigeria in context, it is evident that the country is lacking in many of the conditions for good governance. It bears recall that the All Progressives Congress demanded N100 million for application form for the 2023 presidential election under the watchful eye of President Buhari, a man projected as frugal and spartan.
To be continued tomorrow
Professor Eromosele is former Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.