Restructuring, Devolution Or Disintegration: The Choice Before Nigerians In 2017

BY PROFESSOR EGHOSA OSAGIE

The year 2017 is likely to be pivotal in the history of Nigeria. In the mass media as well as social media, there are discordant opinions regarding the appropriate direction the country should go. Specifically, there are competing calls for restructuring, true federalism, secession, and expulsion of specific ethnic groups from parts of the country. In addition, we have insurgencies in different regions of the country, which the Federal Government, in spite of over centralization of power in Abuja, has failed to bring under control. 
Political parties and the Governments they constituted during the turbulent Fourth Republic since 1999 have failed to address these problems in a sincere, meaningful and honest manner. Both the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) have favoured continued over-centralization of power at the apex level. This is most probably due to their fear of retired army generals who are the proponents of the current unitary system in spite of the fact that the founding fathers designed a loose federal system as spelt out in the 1960 constitution. The Jonathan Administration, for example, lacked the political will to implement aspects of the recommendations of the 2014 constitutional committee that did not require constitutional amendments by the National Assembly. Similarly, the current Federal Government and the APC are not supportive of any move to change the constitution to effect the overwhelming desire of Nigerians for considerable devolution of powers to lower tiers of government.
We are now observing an attempt by the National Assembly to amend the Constitution through passage of several Bills which at the end are not motivated by commitment to an over-riding national philosophy, thus resulting in an amended constitution which is incoherent, inconsistent and directed at protection of the interest and ambition of the legislators.
At the end of this exercise, the amended constitution will be irrelevant for solving national problems of political instability and spreading insurgency.
The word “restructuring” has been trending in national discourse in the last few months. It’s in-fact, a source of political controversy and intrigue. While stakeholders dissatisfied with the operation of the 1999 Constitution as amended call for “restructuring”, others who apparently benefit from it are opposed to significant change. In reaction to the increasing attraction of “restructuring”, the APC that is opposed to any major constitutional change has even set up a “committee” to consider the matter. But what is “restructuring”?
What we should realize is that restructuring is neither the same thing as devolution of powers to lower tiers of government nor return to honest federalism. Indeed, it is not a constitutional or legal term. It is so unspecific that it means different things to different people. To some, it means creation of more states and local governments. To others, it means adjustment of the Revenue Allocation Formula in favour of States. Also, a growing number of Nigerians see it as a tool to reverse the lopsided domination of the country by the North-West and South-West   political zones. But to politically conscious and perceptive Nigerians, it is a term designed to mystify real constitutional issues and a cleaver diversionary tactic employed by politicians to project themselves as sensitive to the desires of the electorate.
The terms that should occupy our attention in these perilous times are “devolution” and “federalism”. It may sound surprising to many Nigerians that it took almost ten years of serious-minded since renegotiations by patriotic founding fathers of an independent Nigerian Nation State to agree on Federalism as the most suitable form of government.
The 1960 constitution guaranteed self government for the Regions and mutual respect among our almost 400 ethnic nationalities. It provided for effective devolution of powers and responsibility over such sectors as agriculture, education, health, infrastructure, sports, industry and international trade to the Regions. Competition among the Regions encouraged hard-work, creativity and progress. The only shortcoming to this carefully arranged federalism was failure to provide self-government for the vast majority of ethnic nationalities that were distinct from the WAZOBIA oligopolies. The mistaken idea took hold that Nigeria was made up of three ethnic nationalities considered as major ethnic groups, while others were pejoratively referred to as “minorities”. This misconception initiated by the British before the attainment of Independence in 1960 was readily accepted by the oligopolies and surprisingly by the other marginalized ethnic groups. This classification of Nigerian ethnic groups by the British was cynically motivated by desire to punish the “nations” that seriously defended their independence during the “Scramble for Africa” in the last quarter of the 19th century and reward the “nations” that supplied soldiers and support to the invading British. This prejudice was easily inherited by the Armed Forces and put into practice during periods of military rule. It is, therefore, not surprising that the marginalized groups include, among others;
❖ Benin, and its derivative clans
❖ Opobo, and other groups in the Niger Delta
❖ Lagos
❖ Calabar
It is a strange turn of events that these ethnic politics that lost sovereignty to the British by Treaties of Annexation are now considered as “minorities” while others that were not hitherto considered as single ethnic groups were grouped together as distinct ethnic nationalities. It is this outcome that was readily accepted by Nigerian Military Governments and passed on to civilian (really quasi – military)governments during the period 1999 to 2017. It is this misconception of majority – minority configuration of Nigerians that is working against the resolution of political and social problems in Nigeria today.
The choices that should engage our attention are devolution, federalism and confederation. Calls for continued operation of an illegal unitary system imposed on the country by military regimes and a handful of retired army generals works against the generally acceptable principle of “unity in diversity”, and promotes domination of the country by one or a combination of the three oligopolies. This, as we have observed, has been opposed, and will continue to be opposed uncompromisingly by marginalized ethnic groups whose areas provide the lion’s share of resources required to run a system that discriminates against them and encourages an indolent orientation of “planlessness”, laziness, mediocrity and corruption. It is clear that continued operation of a unitary system and pretending that we are a federation is no longer sustainable. Continued enforcement of this system will only elicit more insurgencies and attempts at secession by more ethnic nationalities. Increasing insurgencies and attempt to suppress those results in unnecessary loss of lives, destruction of national resources and stunted economic growth.

Another choice before Nigeria is secession. The current agitators for secession are groups in the South-East (Biafra) and South-West (Oduduwa). At the same time, old politicians from the three Southern political zones meet periodically to dialogue and brainstorm on current national problems and react to positions taken by their Northern counterparts. What is not clear is how well these politicians reflect the aspirations of their people. What we should not forget is that Southern politicians, like rival wives, have repeatedly formed alliances with their Northern counterparts without bothering to carry the South-South along. The APC victory at the 2015 Presidential election was made possible by alliance between dominant political factions in the North-West and South- West. The probable objective was to “capture” power at the central government level and leave the rest of the country, that is, South-South and South-East in the political dog house. In addition, it is on record that the South-East was not marginalized during the Jonathan Administration, as the most important posts in the Presidency, the Federal cabinet and the financial sector were occupied by the South-East. The South-West, on its part, produced Presidents at least twice, and the current Vice President is from that zone, which is clearly the most developed part of Nigeria today, partly because of the foresight of Obafemi Awolowo and because it is part of a large and well- endowed country. Probably the regions that are likely to benefit from a break up of Nigeria are the South–South and North-Central. Yet, these regions have so far not decided to secede. Unfortunately, the regions that have benefited most from Nigeria (South-West, North-West and South-East have threatened at different times to secede from Nigeria.
The dire consequences of secession are as follows:
First, the secession of one Region will almost automatically be followed by more secession.
Second, undemocratic and unviable “countries” not better than banana republics will emerge.
Third, new lines of division in these republics will manifest, resulting in additional agitation for further political fragmentation in an increasingly globalizing world.
Fourth, and most importantly, the poorly demarcated and delimitated borders will elicit protracted wars in the Middle Belt axis, and in the South-South as competing claims are made on that endangered zone by the South-East and South-West by military means and the North-West through herdsmen invasion. These potential civil wars should be avoided by all means. This can be achieved by constitution of a Sovereign National Conference where representatives would be mandated by their people (not by retired military generals, federal government officials, and political party chieftains) to produce an acceptable constitution for the country. The era where the military dictated the nature of the constitution analogous to the tail wagging of the dog is “past and over”.

FEDERATION AND CONFEDERATION
We must be sincere with ourselves if we expect that Nigeria would survive current difficulties. Many stakeholders argue that the 1999 Constitution is the obstacle to progress; they believe another constitution presumably crafted in line with their preference will save the situation. They blame military governments and lawyers for imposing an inappropriate, unjust and corruption-friendly constitution on the country. To them, considerable “restructuring”, no matter how defined, “devolution” of powers to lower tiers of government, and a return to “true federalism” will restore stability and promote national development. No thought whatsoever is given to the fact that current national problems result from systemic deficits in moral and ethical values. An objective assessment of honesty in both public and private sector transactions indicates a lamentably low level of performance. Employers generally exploit workers who on their part seize almost every opportunity to cheat their employers. Politicians and civil servants generally over-invoice official financial transactions with a view to enriching themselves at the expense of government. Those who feel “marginalized” by the system are tempted to fight back by joining insurgency movements, criminal gangs and cults. It is unrealistic to assure that “restructuring” or “devolution” of powers would heal chronic national wounds, without first addressing ethical and moral failure; “devolution” merely transfers the venue of corruption from the centre to the constituent regions. It is in consideration of this that we argue that any credible attempt at resolving the Nigerian national question must be preceded by a nationwide programme of moral and ethical revival promoting the virtues of honesty, transparency, accountability and justice.

FEDERALISM
Federalism was the unanimously agreed constitutional principle on which the 1960 Constitution was based. The founding Fathers and British colonial authorities agreed that this model suited the cultural and historical differences of the country. Each Region enjoyed autonomy over such critically important matters as agriculture, health, education, infrastructure, sports and export of principal export commodities like palm produce, cotton, cocoa, rubber and groundnut. In addition, mining, rents, royalties and taxes went to the Regions. This carefully arranged edifice started to be undermined during the Action Group crises in 1962. There occurred a schism in the Action Group, then the ruling party in the Western Region which the ruling parties in the North (NPC) and East (NCNC) sought to exploit with a view to dislodging the Action Group from power. Disputed election results in the West and the Federal level created widespread violence in the West which eventually led to the first military coup in January 1966. It is conceivable that if the political crisis in the West was not interfered with by the other two Regions, the West might have found a way to resolve internally its problem and the incursion of the military into Nigerian politics might have been avoided. It is not surprising that the military, in line with its unified command structure, destroyed the federal system and imposed a unitary political system which extended to uniformity of institutions (e.g. Land use Decree which in fact was the result of a minority report) and unanimity (e.g. enforced national political parties, and the idea of “no-go-areas” in constitution-making). It is dissatisfaction with this enforced political structure that has produced insurgencies in the North-East; militants demanding “fiscal federalism” and “resource control” in the South-South, and spreading agitation for secession. The Federalists argue that a return to either the 1960 or 1962 constitution would restore the system negotiated by the founding fathers and annul the current dysfunctional Constitution imposed by military regimes and still being promoted by retired army generals and their conservative civilian associates.

CONFEDERATION
Political developments in the Forth Nigerian Republic have raised concerns about the future of the country. Extensive employment of thugs and the security agencies to help the parties in power to win elections at national and state levels, spreading insurgencies, implementation of inappropriate economic policies that raise the spectre of mass poverty, unchecked invasion by foreign – backed herdsmen of virtually all states in the South and Middle Belt, calls by youths for the expulsion of Nigerians from parts of the country and growing movements for secession have eroded confidence in the goodwill of Nigerian ethnic groups towards one another. Mutual distrust is on the increase. In these circumstances, many Nigerian ethnic groups no longer believe that their interest and security can be guaranteed by the Federal Government under a Unitary or Federal system. There is now a rapidly growing groundswell of support for a confederation system which guarantees autonomy to federating units over almost all sectors except a few common services such as foreign policy, postal services, while the Armed Forces are organized under a system of joint command which protects any part of the confederation from being subjected to brutal attack for whatever reason.
Under the proposed confederation, the country will be made up of federations of ethnic nationalities under which each will have a sense of belonging and self government. Instead of the six geopolitical regions, the number can increase to 8 or 9 depending on consensus of federating states. In the South, the non-Yoruba States in the former Western Region will constitute the Mid-Western Region as was constitutionally agreed by an Act of Parliament in 1963. Similarly, the non-Ibo ethnic nationalities in the former Eastern Region can constitute a Southern Region with Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Cross River State as federating units. The Southern Region and the Middle Belt Region could have been created along with the Mid-West in 1963, if the ruling parties at the federal level had not collided to frustrate them. In addition, the North-Central Zone or the Middle Belt as it is sometimes called should as the situation in the South be split into 2 Regions at least, taking into consideration cultural and historical affinities.

CONCLUSION
Nigeria deserves a constitution which guarantees that no ethnic group is oppressed or marginalized. Each distinct group no matter how small needs to be protected from exploitation and eventual extinction. The country should, as a matter of urgency, commence a serious minded programme of moral and ethical re-orientation without which any war against corruption would be futile. The process of ethical re-orientation should immediately go hand-in-hand with an honest re-write of a brand new constitution to replace the 1999 Constitution which has been so frequently amended that it resembles a badly tattered garment no longer suitable for use by anyone. Finally, every distinct interest group should call their youths to order to prevent the outbreak of an orgy of violence from which no one will benefit and the end of which no one can predict. All these should be concluded before the next presidential election in 2019.

.PROFESSOR EGHOSA OSAGIE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, BANKING AND FINANCE, BENSON IDAHOSA UNIVERSITY, BENIN CITY & FORMER DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR POLICY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES, KURU, JOS.