- Written by Dr. Femi Okurounmu
• Progressives may not have far-reaching changes they hoped for
Being a lecture address by Dr. Femi Okurounmu, Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee on the National Conference, at the Annual Luncheon of the Lagos Brunch of the Government College, lbadan Old Boys Association (GCIOBA), on Sunday, June 8, 2014.
Introduction
IT is always a great privilege for me to address an assembly of GCI old boys, a group that is certain to contain some of the most cerebral citizens that Nigeria has produced.
Here in this gathering are people who embody the cherished old values — the values of honesty, hard work, integrity and humility — all of which were drilled into us in our sojourn through the great GCI.
Each time I am in this company to deliver an address, and that has been quite a few times, I feel a special honour and elation. In commencing my talk, therefore, this afternoon, I will like to start by doffing my hat to the great college and its distinguished old boys.
The subjects of my various lectures at the gatherings of old boys have invariably always been political even though, by training, I am an engineer and applied physicist.
My adventure into politics probably arose from a belief in the late Kwame Nkrumah’s dictum “to seek ye first the political kingdom, and all else shall be added unto you.”
If Nigeria had been blessed with leaders having the qualities so thoroughly ingrained into many of you here today, we would not be in the mess we are in currently.
In my lecture before the annual luncheon of this same Lagos branch of the GCIOBA on May 14, 2005, I identified the major problems regarding the development of our nation as corruption, greed, the struggle for ethnic dominance and the exclusive pursuit of self-interest.
Today, nine years further down, these still remain our major problems, only now compounded by the aggravated level of national insecurity, occasioned by the Boko Haram insurgency.
In fact, it is the persistence of these problems over the past several decades that precipitated the agitations for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC), which became intensified after the annulment of the presidential election of June 12, 1993.
But before delving into issues pertaining to the National Conference, it will be instructive to digress into a little bit of Nigerian history.
A historical excursion
NIGERIA has been described as an amalgam of ancient kingdoms, caliphates, empires and city-states with a long history of organised societies.
It is this agglomeration of the differing tribes and tongues, in the words of our first National Anthem, that adventurous British traders and empire builders brought imperiously together, starting from the proclamation of the Crown Colony of Lagos in 1861, the Niger Coast Protectorate in 1893, the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria in 1899 and the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria in 1906.
The amalgamation of the two Protectorates in 1914 by Lord Lugard gave rise to the geographical contraption called Nigeria.
It was clear from the onset that the newly crafted country was a forced cohabitation of strange bedfellows, a feature that characterises our nation to this day.
While the North has over 70 per cent of the total land area of the country, its peoples were feudal, reluctant to embrace Western education and values, less agitative and less confrontational to the colonialists. The South, on the other hand, quickly embraced the opportunities provided by the religious missions for Western education, and was more assertive and more politically aggressive.
The South was bedrock of anti-colonial demonstrations and agitation for self-rule while the North seemed more placid and more tolerant of colonial over-lordship.
For example, when in 1953, Chief Anthony Enahoro moved the motion for self-government for Nigeria by 1956, Northern representatives not only opposed, but also staged a walkout. The British thus saw the peoples of the North as more accommodating for the sustenance of their imperialistic interests.
The above probably explains why the British, while preparing to hand over power to Nigerians, showed a clear preference to hand over to leaders from the North.
In a heart-rending confession published in the TELL Magazine issues of March 7 and March 21, 2005, Mr. Harold Smith, a colonial labour officer in Nigeria between 1955 and 1960, who was then in his eighties, had this to say: “When we assessed Nigeria, this was what we found in Southern region: strength, intelligence, determination to succeed, well-established history, complex but focused life style, great hope and aspirations... the East is good in administration and commerce, law and medicine, but it was a pity we planned our agenda to give power at all cost to the Northerners. They seemed to be submissive and silly of a kind... The West led in the fight for the independence and was punished for asking for freedom.”
My Harold Smith went on to admit that the census results (of 1952) were announced before they were counted. In his words: “Despite seeing vast land with no human but cattle in the North, we still gave the North 55 million instead of 32 million. This was to be used to maintain their majority votes and future power bid.”
He further stated that the West, without Lagos, was the most populous in Nigeria at that time, but the colonial rulers ignored that. He continued... that the North was seriously encouraged to go into the military in the belief that even though the South may attain Western education, the future leaders would always come from the military background.
And he lamented: “I am sorry for the above evil done to Nigeria. I can’t say sorry enough.”
From the above, we see the beginning of the politicisation of census figures, and why it has been imperative for the North, once power had been manipulatively handed to it in 1960, to sustain the myth of higher population in the North in subsequent censuses, to hold on to power.
In their wisdom, they have also heeded the advice of the British as to the importance of the military path to leadership. Thus, between 1960 and 1993, the year of Chief M.K.O Abiola’s annulled election, a period of 33 years, the North held on to power at the centre, either as civilian or military rulers, for 30 years, that is, about 90 per cent of the time.
Still, Abiola’s election was annulled, largely because he came from outside the area supposedly anointed to produce the nation’s leadership. This annulment gave rise to the fiercest political agitation ever in post-Independence Nigeria — the agitation for the realisation of Abiola’s election victory.
Agitation for a National Conference
EVEN before 1993, Anthony Enahoro had, in 1992, started his Movement for National Reformation, canvassing for a Sovereign National Conference, one of whose objectives would be the restructuring of Nigeria into zones or regions of ethnically affined, contiguous, ethnic nationalities.
The idea gained currency during the pro-June agitation and soon became a cause-celebre in the nation’s progressive circles, spawning such groups as the Pro-National Conference Organisation (PRONACO), the Movement for a New Nigeria (MNN), etc.
Central to all the movements was a demand for the restructuring of Nigeria into a few relatively autonomous regions of ethnically affined communities to whom substantial power would be devolved from the centre, reducing the attraction of the centre and the inter-ethnic acrimony often generated by the competition for its control.
It was realised that the large number of states that the military rulers had created had made the states too weak and ineffectual, thereby making the centre too powerful and the man who controls it, a virtual emperor.
The commitment to convene an SNC, if it won the presidency, was a major campaign plank of my political party, the Alliance for Democracy (AD) — the party, on which platform I won election to the Senate in the elections of 1998/99.
Even though my party did not win the presidency, I felt honour bound to pursue the crusade for the SNC in the Senate, and I did. On three different occasions, I sought to push through a motion in the Senate for the convening of a National Conference. But each time, the motion was defeated.
This was not surprising, given that the AD was the smallest party in the Senate, having only 19 out of the 109 members, and that most of the other Senators were people who had participated actively in the aborted Babangida and Abacha transitions and whose parties at the time did not favour the conference.
In the three motions above, I had to climb down from an earlier demand for an SNC to simply a National Conference because the term “sovereign” was being mischievously and erroneously interpreted to mean that all extant structures of government had to abdicate for the conference to hold, whereas an SNC simply means that the outcomes of the conference would be sovereign, that is, have finality and not be subject to any amendments by the extant authorities.
In spite of the compromise, however, the motions still failed to sail through the Senate.
If the failure in the Senate was disappointing, the greater disappointment came from the president at the time, President Obasanjo.
During the transition that brought him to power, Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar had promised NADECO (the mother of the AD), as a condition for getting it to participate in the transition elections, that the first order of business of the new government that succeeds him would be the convocation of a National Conference.
Yet, Obasanjo, upon assuming power, turned deaf ears to all demands for the conference. In spite of these disappointments, the agitation continued under various platforms, most especially PRONACO and MNN. And then came October 1, 2013.
The prelude to the conference and the 2014 National Conference
WITH President Jonathan’s announcement on October 1, 2013 of his decision to convene a National Conference and his immediate constitution of a Presidential Advisory Committee under my chairmanship, almost all progressives in the country were overjoyed, all that is, except a small group of politicians, portraying themselves as progressives, but who had become clasped in a political embrace with the traditional opponents of the conference and whose short-term political ambitions were threatened by the prospects of a successful conference.
The North, of course, had always been opposed to it and was shocked by the new development.
After a very successful, six-week, whistle-stop tour of the country by my committee to mobilise and sensitise the citizenry, the overwhelming embrace of the conference initiative by the masses soon reduced all opposition to a whimper and everybody began to look forward to the conference, including all those initially opposed.
Expectations from the conference were quite high. Many hoped that it would mark an upward turning point for our nation, but no sooner did it begin than it became obvious that not all delegates shared that hope.
Very early in the conference, three categories of delegates emerged. People in the first category, consisting of delegates from the Southwest and to a lesser extent, the Southeast, were eagerly anticipating fundamental changes in the status quo, such as a return to regionalism and to the parliamentary form of democratic practice, and a substantial devolution of powers to the regions or zones.
The Southwest may be said to be the only zone that came with concrete proposals for changes that were conceived to be in the best interest of the entire nation, and not for the benefit of the zone alone.
People in the second category of delegates, mostly from the minority zones of the country, while quite supportive of the conference, were mainly concerned with issues touching upon their marginalisation.
Thus, the Middle Belt opposed a return to regionalism, fearing they may once again come under the domination of the ethnic nationalities in their zones, from which state creation had freed them. They, in fact, wanted more states created for ethnic minorities still entrapped in core Northern states with Hausa-Fulani dominant ethnic majorities.
In addition, they wanted urgent attention paid to the completion of the Ajaokuta Steel Industry.
The South-South on its part was fixated on the issue of resource control and resource ownership.
The third category consisted of delegates from the core North. They came with a very straightforward agenda, which is to block any change and ensure the sustenance of the status quo.
So, the conference has mostly been a clash of the Southwest against the core North. While the Southwest pushed forcefully for the realisation of all the elements of their agenda, they found themselves almost in every case pitted against the core North, enjoying only lukewarm support from the Southeast and a near total indifference from the rest of the country.
The resistance to change from the core North was understandable and, indeed, expected. The status quo clearly places the North in a vantage position relative to all other sections of the country.
The military rulers, who had fashioned out the 1999 Constitution, were all from the region, and had erected the structures of state to favour their peoples, especially in the distribution of states and local governments.
Furthermore, they had assumed that the North would always control power at the centre, a consideration that gave rise to making the centre so strong and the federating units, so weak.
They had also guaranteed, by that Constitution, that the North would have a comfortable majority in the National Assembly, making it near impossible to make any constitutional changes that will reduce their advantage.
The totality of the North’s position is that while they may accept some inconsequential amendments to the I999 Constitution, they are doggedly opposed to the writing of a new one. Not even with the President’s green light, as expressed in his conference inauguration address that a new Constitution could be recommended if the conference found it desirable!
They were always quick to point out, at every opportunity, that the conference was not elected, that it lacked the powers to write a new Constitution and that all the outcomes of its deliberations must be forwarded to the National Assembly.
If the attitude of the core-North delegates could be translated into an agenda, that agenda will have the following components, namely: frustrate regionalism, frustrate the reduction of presidential powers, resist the call for a referendum, frustrate the emergence of a new Constitution, ensure minimal, if any departures from the 1999 Constitution and ensure that all the outcomes of the conference go to the National Assembly where the North, of course, has the numbers to frustrate those it considers antagonistic to its interests.
Glimpses from the Conference outcomes
GIVEN the above scenario, how is the conference likely to turn out? So far, all indications are that the progressives may not have the kind of far-reaching changes that they had hoped for, although there is still some hope that we may have enough departures from the status quo to justify the submission of the conference outcomes to a referendum preparatory to writing a new Constitution.
The quests for a return to the regional structure and to the full parliamentary system have suffered setbacks at the committee stage but the battle is sure to drag on at the plenary.
Also, the relevant committee, i.e., the Committee on Restructuring and Forms of Government, has recommended the retention of the states as the federating units although allowing for the possibility of contiguous states setting up a Joint Zonal Commission to pursue their common economic development, welfare and security, as well as to merge, if they wish, provided they meet certain stipulated conditions.
Furthermore, the committee has also recommended a modified presidential system of government, with a unicameral legislature and with most government ministers, including the vice president, expected to come from among the elected legislators.
Other committees have also recommended the total removal of the immunity clause, the devolution of certain powers from the Exclusive to the Concurrent Legislative List and a reduction of the Federal Government’s share of the Federation Account.
Significantly, it has been recommended that local governments, their creation, number, funding and other arrangements for their management and sustenance democratically, shall be the responsibility of the states solely, and that sharing of the Federation Account shall be only between the federal and state governments and, most significantly, that local governments shall no longer be listed in the Constitution.
On religion, even though the conference has recommended the stoppage of government sponsorship of religious pilgrimages, it has shied away from affirming the secularity of the Nigerian nation, preferring instead to maintain reference to it as a multi-religious nation. This decision may yet come back to haunt us.
The above are just a peep into the ongoing developments at the conference but since the plenary is yet to conclude, anything is still possible.
Prognosis for Nigeria
SOON, the conference will be over. What is the prognosis for the future course of development of our nation?
Have developments at the conference suggested it might signal a significant upturn in our developmental trajectory? That was the hope of many but it seems we shall need a lot of prayers for that hope to be realised.
With the passionate and unyielding posture of the core North in opposing even the slightest departures from the status quo, and the equally passionate resolve of the South, particularly the Southwest, to effect radical changes, most of which have been frustrated by the core North, it would seem that the apparent consensus of the conference on most issues is merely superficial.
With the failure of the conference to affirm the secularity of the nation, it is obvious that the road to ethno-religious harmony in the country is still paved with thorns.
It is clear that some danger signals are already clearly discernible from documents originating from the core North and circulating contemporaneously with the conference, though not specifically directed at the conference.
These documents portray that the core North has a fixation with the immediate return of power to the region, and they are determined that that power must return undiluted.
There is nothing wrong in any section of the country wishing to have the presidency, but when a section is so desperate for it, in the belief that it is its ordained entitlement and that it is the only section ordained by Allah to lead the nation, then, we are once again moving towards crisis.
That the presidency is the North’s birthright, to have in perpetuity except when it graciously concedes it to others, seems to be the mindset of its leaders currently.
This mindset is manifested in a full page advertorial appearing on page 70 of The Nation on Sunday of June 1, 2014, captioned: “2015: Why Power Must Return To North.”
In the advertorial, the authors, writing on the platform of the Movement for the Political Survival of Northern Nigeria, under the signatures of Dr. Yusuf Jubril and Mallam Sani Mohammed, affirmed the determination of the North to reclaim its traditional position of providing leadership for the Nigerian polity, rehashing the now well-known mantra that, “The North is only asking for what it does best in Nigeria, leadership… that all regions of the country excel in some area or the other, the West in education, Eastern Region, business…” and reminding readers that “the North has since Independence provided leadership and administration, which has kept the country stable and secure.”
They continued by emphasising that, “this is no accident; it is the Almighty Allah that has destined it so.”
The advertorial went on to describe the current president, Goodluck Jonathan, as an interloper and to characterise the Obasanjo presidency as “the mistake of 1999,” which they would not allow to happen again.
The authors, nevertheless, had some fraternal words for Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who they say, “has since seen the light and realised the strategic wisdom in working with the North,” declaring that “with the Southwest under Bola Tinubu with five states combined with our population in the North, we will show our superiority on Election Day, come 2015.”
The authors of the advertorial are probably not prominent in the Northern political leadership, but it sounds like a case of lesser known leaders saying what is the common dogma but which it may not be appropriate for the better known leaders to say.
May God bless Nigeria!
No comments:
Post a Comment