There are arguments for and against the enactment of state legislation, akin to the federal character principle, to check persistent cries of marginalisation by ethnic minorities in states nationwide. But the current inefficiency of the Federal Character Commission and daylight nepotism of the ruling party are disincentives for advocates of similar experiments at the state level, AMEH OCHOJILA reports.

To forestall the domination of political power by majority interests, the federal character principle was introduced at the national level and eventually embedded into the constitution to make its implementation compulsory. But whether the body charged with the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the principle is living up to expectation is arguable, considering lopsided appointments made by the former administration led by Muhammadu Buhari and the worrying dominance of certain ethnic groups in many agencies of the federal government.

Perhaps, what many do not know is that the fear of dominance, which resulted in the creation of the Federal Character Commission (FCC) at the national level, exists very in the federating states. This is why governors are being called upon to reflect and respect state character in appointments into public service.

For instance, in states where minorities are marginalised, there are arguments as to whether state legislation is needed to accommodate their interests and serve as a mechanism to mitigate persistent cries of marginalisation.

Proponents of state legislation have generally argued that by granting legal recognition and protection to minority communities in a state, they are more likely to feel valued and included in the larger Nigerian society.

However, the effectiveness of these state legislations in addressing persistent cries of marginalisation depends on various factors such as implementation, enforcement, and the willingness of the majority group to embrace diversity and integration.

Also, it is important to consider whether simply accommodating minority interests through legislative measures is sufficient to address structural inequalities and historical injustices.

The proponents stressed that it is necessary to address specific issues and concerns within a state that may not be adequately covered by existing federal laws. They argue that states are more in touch with the needs and priorities of their residents and are better positioned to address local nuances and complexities.

The argument is that state legislation will allow far greater flexibility and customisation in addressing unique challenges and opportunities within a state. It can address gaps in federal law, offer additional protections, and create tailored solutions to specific problems. State legislation can also foster innovation and experimentation, allowing states to test new policies and approaches before they are adopted at even the federal level.

Additionally, state legislation can serve as a check and balance of federal power, ensuring that the rights and interests of individual states are protected. It promotes the principle of federalism, where power is shared between the federal government and individual states. State legislation provides an avenue for states to exert their authority in areas that they deem important, without completely relying on federal laws.

For others, the federal law is sufficient and only needs enforcement and to be strengthened. To address the severe disparities that exist across various demographic segments, Nigeria, South Africa, and Namibia all have affirmative action policies in place. For example, legislative quotas for women and marginalised ethnic groups are milder versions found in many other African countries.

On account of this, Senator Abba Moro attempted a bill for the rotation of power among the geopolitical zones in the Constitution, but it was cut short at the second reading stage.

The only senator who spoke in favour of the bill then was Senator Istifanus Gyang of Plateau state, who insisted that the bill seeks to address the management of diversity in the country.

It will be recalled that the FCC was established in Nigeria in 1993 by the Federal Character Commission Act No. 34. This legislation aimed to ensure fairness, equity, and equal representation in the distribution of public offices, resources, and opportunities among Nigeria’s diverse ethnic, religious, and regional groups.

The law mandates the Commission to ensure that government bodies and agencies reflect the federal character principle in their composition and decision-making processes. Additionally, it focuses on preventing any form of marginalisation or dominance by any group.

Moreover, the FCC Act empowers the Commission to investigate and address complaints of non-compliance with the federal character principle. Consequently, the applicability of this law extends to all states within Nigeria’s federation, as it is fundamental in fostering unity, reducing tensions, and promoting a sense of inclusion and belonging among the various groups.

Despite the existence of the law, the outcry persisted from FCT, Benue, Kogi, Adamawa and others. A scholar, Dr Onjefu Okidu, argued that the Idoma people are a major ethnic group in Benue state as much as her Tiv ethnic counterpart but still suffer marginalisation.

He, however, lamented that recent appointments since the beginning of the current administration in the state, showed that the “representation of the Idoma people is almost zero per cent.”

In Kogi State, the Igala Cultural and Development Association (ICDA) has also expressed concern over the alleged marginalisation and victimisation of the Igalas in the state’s civil service under the administration of Governor Yahaya Bello.

The national president of the association, Mr Josiah Ikani, who addressed newsmen in Lokoja, alleged that Igalas occupying key positions in the state civil service were being removed or suspended from office for no justifiable reasons.

In the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), there is a cry of marginalisation by the original settlers of the territory. The Original Inhabitant Youths Empowerment Organisation (AOIYEO) in the nation’s capital, said their interest is not being considered in political appointments. The secretary general of the organisation, Yahuza Abubakar, said: “Abuja deserves a leadership that would reflect the mind of the young and ambitious indigenes because of its nature and the growing electorate.

According to the organisation, there is a lack of community participation in the decision-making processes by indigenes of the territory, a development that puts the indigenes in a disadvantaged position in the scheme of things.

To that extent, the organisation said the indigenes had decided to change the narrative and rewrite history by organising what they called a Community Mayoral Election to identify and elect a mayor who would act as the voice of the people in all areas of socio-cultural and economic development.

A lawyer and Executive Director, Sterling Law Centre, Deji Ajare, said the FCC has the mandate to implement and enforce the Federal Character Principles of fairness and equity at the national level.

“It is clear from the spirit and letters of the Act that its operations are limited to the Federal Government and its agencies and cannot automatically have operational effect in the running of the affairs of the various states of the federation,” he noted.

According to him, section 14(3) of the 1999 constitution, makes provision for the establishment of the Federal Character principle. The section says: ‘‘The composition of the government of the federation and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and to promote national unity and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in the government or any of its agencies.’’

According to the lawyer, the drafters of the constitution, like those of the FCC Act, missed an opportunity to compel the states to apply the federal character principle in their domains.

The lawyer wondered why states do not feel compelled to buy into the philosophical underpinnings behind the federal character principle, which essentially is to ensure evenness in spreading government appointments to promote inclusion, engender a sense of belonging and strike a balance in the polity, by providing equality of access in public service representation to curb dominance by one or a few sections.

Convener, Vanguard for the Independence of the Judiciary (V4IJ), Douglas Ogbankwa, a lawyer, also blasted the FCC for underperforming.

According to him, it is a paradox that even the Federal Character Commission, the institution imbued with the powers to enforce federal character, had no federal character in its composition and appointment of its officers.

He said, section 14(3) of the 1999 constitution (as altered), captures the mandate of the federal character, which they hardly carry out effectively.

He said: “The federal character template at the state level can be seen in the Constitutional provision that makes it mandatory for each local government in a state to produce at least one commissioner in the State Executive Council.

“The workability of replicating the federal character principle at the state level is practicable by adopting the federal module of treating every local government, tribe and religion in the state equally.”

By ensuring that the siting of projects is done equally in a way all parts of the State benefit, Ogbankwa maintained that everyone will have a sense of belonging.