I am persuaded to begin this discourse by quoting copiously the late Professor Ben Nwabueze’s position on the concepts of federalism and of government. On federalism, he averred inter alia: “—-is essentially an arrangement between governments, not between the people of a country. It is an arrangement whereby powers and resources within a country are shared between a national, country-wide government and a number of regionalised ( i.e. territorially localised) governments in such a way that each exists as a government separately and independently from the others operating directly on persons and property within its territorial area, with a will of its own and its apparatus for the conduct of its affairs, and with an authority in some matters exclusive of all the others.” (In: Crisis of Governance in Nigeria).On government, quoting an authority, D’Entreaves, “states [i.e. governments] exist or not according as they have the force to impose their commands”.
Further, “in more explicit words, no organisation qualifies as a government without a separate coercive force of its own and under its independent control to maintain its existence and authority as a government and to enforce its laws” (In: The Notion of the State). His verdict, drawing from the foregoing definition, “[our] State governments do not qualify as a government”. Implicitly there is only one government in Nigeria – the Central government as configured by the 1999 Constitution, accounting for the crises of governance.
But Section 2(2), of the 1999 Constitution states unambiguously inter alia: “Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of states and a Federal Capital Territory”. That is to say there are two federating units – the Central Government and the State. Consistent with this provision is the tacit recognition that local government areas are subunits of states arising from which is the provision in Section 162(6) of the Constitution, inter alia: “Each State shall maintain a special account to be called ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ into which shall be paid all allocations to the local government councils of the State from the Federation Account and from the Government of the State”.
Notwithstanding the abuses by state governments in disbursements of allocations to local government councils, the Supreme Court judgment of July 2024 mandating direct allocation to them clearly undermines the underlining principles of the subsisting provision of Section 162(6) of the Constitution and raises a fundamental question: can Supreme Court override the provisions of the Constitution no matter how well intentioned?
Section 44(3) states: “ —- the entire property in and control of all minerals, mineral oils and natural gas in, under or upon any land in Nigeria or in, under or upon the territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone of Nigeria shall be vested in the Government of the Federation and shall be managed in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly”.
This provision is antithetical to the fundamental principles of federalism and underscores the centripetal forces rocking the Nigerian body politic and the injustices inherently palpable. How can States survive without substantial control of their God-given natural resources locked down in, under or upon their land and waters? The environmental degradation and despoliation evident in areas endowed with mineral resources speak to the injustices inherent in Nigeria’s governance structure as defined by the Constitution. The case of Oloibiri in present-day Bayelsa where the first commercial oil field was discovered in 1956 got the attention of Arise News documentary recently showing a sordid neglect by the Nigerian State. It raises the compelling question: whose interest does the provision in Section 44(3) serve?
On internal security, Section 214(1) states: “There shall be a Police Force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this section no other police force shall be established for the federation or any part thereof” (emphasis supplied). Again, this provision, in centralised policing, is antithetical to the concept of federalism and is now evidently a factor in the dysfunction in our internal security management and the resultant call for establishment of State Police.
It reinforces the fact that government properly defined, as having the powers and coercive force to enforce laws, does not exist at the state level in Nigeria, meaning governors are lame-docks in matters of internal security.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu showed initial enthusiasm on the need for State Police in light of un-mitigating internal security challenges but now appears to tread cautiously, probably because of certain concerns being expressed by some Nigerians, especially the fear of misuse and abuse by state governors that could result from it. Nevertheless, the call for State Police is plausible but must be within the context of a truly federalised Nigeria.
The democratic processes over the years have been so flawed characterised by the phenomenon of godfatherism, ethnicism, nepotism and sundry factors which negate the emergence, for most part, of fit and proper persons to positions of governance. To entrust the coercive powers in the authority of such persons is a matter of legitimate concern. But Nigeria must begin the process of nation building anchored on the immutable principles of federalism, otherwise it would be motion, no movement.
The 1979 Constitution and the successor 1999 Constitution not being products of the collective wisdom and aspiration of the Nigerian peoples are fraught with anomalies and contradictions all of which underpin the dysfunctions in the body politic, the incessant amendments and the feeling by some persons of immaturity of the Nigerian State to federalise.
We are now concerned with the inexorable gravitation to a one-party State by gale of defections by law makers and governors from other parties to the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress, without consequences. It is preposterous that whereas the 1999 Constitution provides penalty for defection by lawmakers in Sections 68(1)g and 109(1)g, albeit with nebulous caveat, it fails in this regard for defecting governors.
The spokesperson for the ruling party described the phenomenon gleefully as ‘democratic consolidation’ not democratic deconsolidation that it is. The defections and the surprises thereof are figuratively akin to putting an inflammable substance on a naked flame and expressing surprises that it caught fire!
The National Conference, 2014 made a plethora of far-reaching recommendations to align Nigeria on the path of true federalism, with substantial devolution of powers and responsibilities to State governments, albeit unable to agree on resource control as it pertains mineral oil and gas. It is regrettable that the report of the conference was set aside by Buhari’s government and is yet to catch the attention of President Tinubu. Notable recommendations of the conference include: State to have its Constitution; establishment of State Police; decentralisation of the Judiciary; creation and control of local government areas by State; reform of electoral system in ways that ensure independence of umpires; reform in the system of political party by which parties are registered on the basis of ideological identities.
Further, ‘ — elected official, executive or legislator who carpet-crosses, regardless of the reasons for such, shall automatically forfeit their seats’ (p722, National Conference, 2014); decoupling of the office of Attorney-General and Minister of Justice; ‘Census, including the establishment and maintenance of machinery for continuous and universal registration of births and deaths throughout Nigeria should be moved from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent Legislative List’ (section 6.4.1.(1)ii, National Conference, 2014). This recommendation recognises the geo-politics in the inability of Nigeria to have credible and acceptable census, a factor inimical to effective national planning; ‘Make Socio-Economic Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy justiciable’ (section 6.5.1(1), National Conference, 2014). This recognises government’s nonchalance on socio-economic wellbeing of citizens as enshrined in Chapter II on Fundamental Objectives of State Policy of the 1999 Constitution and to make it obligatory.
There are host of other policy issues addressed by the Conference. On education it says: ‘allocate 30 per cent to education in annual appropriation laws of our governments at all tiers—-‘(section 6.3.2(1); cognizant of the security challenges emanating from protracted herder-farmer clashes, it says: ‘phase out cattle routes and grazing reserves in the long term to lay emphasis on ranching’(section 6.1.2(13)c. It is evident from the foregoing that there is the compelling need for a federal Constitution and for States, as federating units to have their Constitutions to regulate governance at that level. In other words, State Police should be established within the ambit of a truly Federalised Nigerian State.
Prof. Eromosele is former Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.
