By Ighodalo Clement Eromosele
Against the backdrop of failure of governance under former President Buhari and the attendant economic downturn, asphyxiating debt burden, heightened insecurity, pervasive misery and multi-dimensional poverty, the ‘Renewed Hope Agenda’ of President Tinubu was re-assuring albeit with mixed feelings by the whimsical removal of fuel subsidy.

The renewed hope agenda is encapsulated in eight subject matters viz: i. Food Security, ii. Ending Poverty, iii. Economic Growth and Job Creation, iv. Access to Capital, v. Improving Security, vi. Improving Playing Field, vii. Rule of Law, viii. Fighting Corruption, all of which may be summarised as socio-economic. Admittedly, the agenda is robust and will, of necessity require time to accomplish the objectives.

However, mid-term assessment of the administration indicates challenges, not least of which is high exchange rate, albeit stable but inimical to a highly import-dependent economy and, the high cost of fuel with negative impact on costs of goods and services.

The assurances of government that the economy is recovering is academic as citizens are daily confronted with existential challenges and headwind. Regrettably, the 8-point agenda failed to recognise the political dimension of Nigeria’s socio-economic woes, traceable to a dysfunctional quasi federalism.

That this is the case for President Tinubu, a dyed -in-the -wool federalist by his antecedent, raises the compelling question: why the apparent volte-face? The functionaries in the three arms of government – executive, legislature and judiciary – are well heeled in their remunerations as to be impervious to the plight of multitudes of Nigerians in the valley, helpless.

At the Annual Colloquium of Haske Satumari Foundation on diversities, former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan made scathing remarks on the state of the nation, particularly, on the suspension of a democratically-elected governor of River State by President Tinubu by a proclamation of a state of emergency and the less than salutary concurrence, by voice vote, of the National Assembly. This was surprising to many Nigerians against the background of his normally taciturn persona.

He recalled an Indian proverb which says: ‘if somebody is really sleeping, you can wake-up the person. But if somebody is pretending to sleep, it is difficult to wake-up the person’. In unmistakable terms he averred that all arms of government, the executive, legislature and judiciary know what is right to do but they are pretending otherwise, describing the suspension of River State governor as ‘ clear abuse of offices, powers and privileges’.

But recalling that ensuring the rule of law is a cardinal object of the 8-point agenda, it is difficult to comprehend why an explicit provision in section 305 (1-6) of the 1999 Constitution on terms and conditions for proclamation of a state of emergency in a State should be subject of disparate interpretations by even legal minds.

More worrisome are the different actions of former Presidents, invoking the same provisions of the 1999 Constitution for proclamation of a state of emergency in Ekiti (Obasanjo), in three States viz: Yobe, Borno and Adamawa (Jonathan) and Rivers (Tinubu). President Obasanjo suspended the governor of Ekiti State, appointing a military sole administrator to oversee the State; Jonathan did not suspend the governor in any of the three States under state of emergency. Tinubu has chosen, to suspend the governor of Rivers State.

From preponderance of legal opinions, and in the absence of any ambiguity in the constitutional provision on the matter, I am persuaded that President Jonathan was right and Presidents Obasanjo and Tinubu were wrong, in all cases supposedly acting on the advice of their respective Attorneys-General.

This inconsistency in interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution in the instant case is a blur on our jurisprudence and a drawback on the constitutional democracy we claim to practice.

The terms and conditions for defection from one party to another by a legislator at the national and state levels are explicitly stated in sections 68(1)g and 109(1)g respectively. However, the caveat in both cases namely: “provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two political or more parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored”, while protecting the constitutional right of association has not helped the development of political parties in theory and praxis in Nigeria.

Virtually every defection is justified on grounds of division in a previous party, real or imagined, by a defector, a mockery and a travesty. This caveat should be repealed. On the instant case of Rivers the defection of 27 members of the PDP to APC with pomp and pageantry implied they were no longer legitimate members of the House on the strength of section 109(1)g and in the absence of any of the conditions enunciated in the caveat to it.

In the circumstance the residual 4-member on the strength of the rule of law was legitimate pending election to fill the vacant positions. Arguably the governor relied on this provision as indeed many of us did, unlearned in matters of law, regardless of the anomaly that the 4-member House evoked.

While the matter was still at the lower court a pronouncement of the Supreme Court conferred legitimacy on the 27 defectors on a matter not before it but more importantly, undermining an earlier judgment of the court in a similar case of Ifedayo Abegunde v. Labour Party on April, 2005. It ruled in favour of the Labour Party on grounds that the defector had no legal justification to retain his seat in the absence of a division in the party at the national level.

The political imbroglio in Rivers State has its root in the sore relationship between the former governor and his protégé, governor Fubara, which in the Nigerian parlance is a disagreement between godfather and a godson! Opinions are mixed on the lingering feud. On the one, that governor Fubara erred in being disobedient to a godfather. On the other, that he was right to subordinate his loyalty to the overriding interest of the State and not to a godfather.

But godfatherism is ‘a form of political corruption in which an influential individual handpicks another often less influential candidate to attain leadership in order to exert authority or influence’ (Wiktionary).

Regrettably, the Nigerian political ecosystem is characterised by this phenomenon as to become normative. Those who see Fubara as intransigent cannot see the nexus between the phenomenon and Nigeria’s underdevelopment.

Interestingly, in a number of cases the overbearing influence of godfathers is resisted as was the case in Edo State when former governor Obaseki then of APC moved to the PDP, denied ticket for a second term by his party.

Other classical examples abound but suffice to mention former governor Ngige of Anambra State and the anachronistic but celebrated Okija shrine. Even in the ivory tower there are cases where disobedience to a godfather has had severe repercussions.

Clearly, what is desirable is mentorship where the overriding interest of the mentor is not prependa or quid pro quo but aims to equip the mentee with the requisite knowledge, skill and experience to successfully and positively navigate the challenges of duty for overall benefit of society.

This calls for ethical revolution and a national rebirth. The manner of handling of the Rivers case so far, undermining the rule of law and civilised ethical standards by persons at all levels of government is symptomatic of a state of anomie.

The need to manage our diversities as a coherent whole with shared values and aspiration, is more than ever before an imperative. The extant governance system, hallmarked by centripetal tendencies, stands on the way to achieving this objective.

True federalism offers a veritable system of governance for Nigeria to en route to nationhood and to achieve national development objectives. President Tinubu would do well to chart this path in the national interest.
Professor Eromosele is former Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.