Introduction "Man proposes, but God disposes," as the saying typically inscribed on an Ekene-Dili-Chukwu-like bus would say.
If the present national discourse about the occurrence or otherwise of a Sovereign National Conference in our country was the intention of the Sharia proponents, then they have succeeded famously in re-igniting a national consciousness.
If it was not their intention, then Sharia as presently canvassed is a God-sent "faux-pas", a mistake of biblical proportions.
But God does not make mistakes; Man does.
Our next mistake will be if we EVER let go of this window of opportunity of convoking a (Sovereign) National Conference within the shortest possible time. If we do, then some of us in the grey days of our old age, with some teeth gone, eyes gone weak, rocking in an old chair, will look back to this period and lament a road not taken.
A road not taken, too many roads not taken in Nigeria, have led us to this impasse.
A Renewed Clamour for SNC: Real or Memorex? Until three weeks ago, the letters "SNC" were stigmatized in a way typical of Nigerian political discourse: obfuscation, innuendo, blackmail, intimidation, cajolery and outright falsehood.
"Hidden Yoruba agenda for secession"
"a NADECO-inspired aberration"
"the product of idle minds"
"an impossibility, because there cannot be two sovereigns in the same country",
etcheram, ad nauseum, it was trumpeted.
To some of us its apostles, it had the same frustration as these letters: "June 12", "GNU - Government of National Unity."
Then suddenly, February 21 occurs in Kaduna, and February 28 occurs in Aba, and just as suddenly, a triangular confluence of voices develops:
Hear some Northern elements:
"Let us have an SNC - as our Yoruba citizens have always demanded."
The South-Eastern governors pushed the envelope further:
"We want a Sovereign National Conference - and a confederation. This is no longer a South-Western agenda."
Praise God! A dupe, a t'ope da!
One would normally welcome this company, this new-found convergence, except for two things: the lack of representativeness and the Nigerian factor.
As far as the South-West goes, at least ALL the State Assemblies of Alliance for Democracy (AD) states are on record as having passed resolutions urging the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference.
We know that the South-Eastern governors have a sliver of representativeness, but who do the Kano Ulamas represent (spokesperson: Dr. Datti Ahmed) except a zealot fringe of Islamists? Even the South-East governors cannot be absolved from the suspicion that they are talking from their emotional sleeves, and should convince us otherwise by sponsoring some bills in their own State Assemblies to vote up or down this issue of the SNC.
The Nigerian factor is more invidious. One can almost be sure that as we speak, old traditional alliances are being called up to dredge up old suspicions and wounds, and reverse the wheels pursposeful angst being currently shown. Money, blackmail, cajolery are probably changing hands in spades in order to ensure that this SNC "stuff" does not get out of hand.
Already we read in The Guardian the following report:
QUOTE
GUARDIAN
Sunday, March 12, 2000
Presidency Stalls Meeting Of Southern Governors
From
Akpo Esajere (Political Editor) and Sunny Igboanugo (Enugu)
DUE to pressure from the President, governors of the south-east and south-south zones could not hold their scheduled meeting slated for Enugu, yesterday.
Important economic and social matters rather than Sharia and Sharia-related upheavals would have engaged the 11 governors who were to have met at the old Eastern Nigeria House of Assembly Complex in the Enugu State capital.
At 6.30 am yesterday the Enugu State Broadcasting Service (ESBS) relayed a statement by Secretary to the state government, Mr. Onyemuche Nnamani, cancelling the meeting for "unavoidable reason."
But The Guardian On Sunday gathered that the five governors of the south-east zone who met at a plenary session on Friday decided to "make a tactical withdrawal "after it was conveyed to them that the Federal
Government was concerned by the timing of the meeting.
"The Presidency has not said they should not meet, but that they ought to realise that because of the prevailing situation in the country, the meeting is capable of causing panic."
Aside from its perceived unfavourable effect on the polity, another source said, the Presidency told the governors that they could unwittingly play into the hands of elements bent on the disintegration of the country.
As at Friday night, senior government officials in Enugu were frantically contacting South-South governors to shelve the meeting.
Some federal officials were said to be already reaching individual
South-South governors to dissuade them from attending.
A bit of arm-twisting was brought into the bargain by federal officials who were said to have warned the South-South governors to be wary of being cajoled into agreement they may be in no position to extricate themselves from in future.
It was gathered that the meeting had been scheduled since January and that it was designed to iron out areas of economic, social and cultural co-operations between the 11 states of the two regions.
However, following Sharia riots and the meeting of the South-East
governors which called for confederacy as a way to tackle incessant ethnic and religious crises in the country, the Federal Government apparently thought the parley could send wrong signals.
South-East governors such as Orji Kalu, (Abia), Achike Udenwa (Imo) were closetted in Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani's Enugu office between 9 p.m and 11 p.m on Friday. But after, words eventually went round that the main meeting with their South-South counterparts was not going to hold, they departed Enugu without any further ceremony.
UNQUOTE
Are we running a federal system or not? What kind of "fake" federalism is this? One wonders what kind of eunuchal leadership we appear to have in our country.
When one adds to this report that other one about our President Obasanjo writing to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia through Vice-President Atiku Abubakara to plead with him (in effect) to urge the Nigerian Hajj pilgrims to "pipe down" on Sharia, one wants to throw up. I could not believe what I read.
One is reminded of the father who has lost control of his wayward son, and has to visit his church priest to please call his son in to give him a talking-to.
If we recall that the Saudi Arabian ambassador attended the formal inauguration of Zamfara on October 27, 1999, President Obasanjo's letter is equivalent to appealing to the church priest who has been sexually abusing the wayward son.
I am sorry, but that is how it feels.
Sharia and Nigeria's Census 2001: The Next Big Palava "The tyranny of the majority" is how cynics describe electoral democracy. Those more charitable would describe it as "a system in which the majority have their way, but the minority have their say."
This year 2000 is when the United States holds in decennial census exercise, and I have already received my own information in the mail. I intend to fulfill my civic duty and fill in the information for my family and send it on its way.
With respect to Nigeria, it has had at least ten census counts on its soil since 1871:
1871 - Census of Lagos colony;
1881 - Census of the settlement of Lagos and its dependencies;
1901 Census of the British empire;
1921 - Nigerian Census;
1931 - Nigerian Census;
1950 - Population census of Lagos;
1952-3 - Census of Nigeria;
1963 - Population Census of Nigeria (cancelled);
1964 Census and finally
the 1991 Census.
Nigeria's last exercise of 1991 means that its next one is next year, 2001.... And that is when the next major palava "go come", especially now heightened by Sharia!
If you read every account about Nigeria's religious population distribution, it always reads as follows: "Muslims, 50%; Christians, 40%; Animists, 10%". It is like Holy Grail.
It is this reference that is made by former Head of State Buhari who indicates that "after all, Muslims are the majority in Nigeria" when he backhandly defends Zamfara's Sharia application and the attempt at Sharia imposition in Kaduna.
It is reference to population majority which enables Sani Ahmed to indicate that there are 99% Muslims in Zamfara; or the quibble in Kaduna as to whether there are 60%, 50% or just 40% Christians in the state.
How can this determination be made if there is no accurate census?
Who will be able to OBJECTIVELY carry out this census now that the religious issue of Sharia - not just North-South distribution, or state-by-state population distribution - has entered the picture?
Will Zamfara allow men to count women - or vice-versa? Christians to count Muslims and vice-versa? Who will count who?
I do not envy President Obasanjo will regard to the oncoming Census 2001. It will be a hot potato which he will probably postpone. Already he has fired the former military-man Chief Ugochukwu (former head of National Population Commission) for shooting from the hip about Abacha (back-handedly praising him) and publicly criticising/disgracing the federal government in an interview in a recent TELL magazine issue - the same issue that featured Waku's pro-coup statement!
We shall see. Census 2001 may become a non-event.
The Options Before Us: So Many Roads So what are the options open to us as a country's survival? There are only five:
revert to unitarism under a military regime.
continue the current fake federalism
establish a true federalism based on strengthened states and/or regions
establish a union of confederations;
break-up into several republics.
I will briefly take each one in turn.
Reversion to Military Unitarism Perhaps the greatest joke that has been placed on Nigeria since 1966 has been the title "Federal Military Government of Nigeria" with which successive military governments that have ruled us 35 out of our 40 years of independence have been labeled.
"Military" and "Federal" are an oxymoronic combination, for by nature, military organization is intrinsically unitary.
After years of promoting the myth of public invitation, our Military finally over-did itself by throwing up a ruling monster in the form of General Sani Abacha and his tyranny.
Abacha brought Nigeria to the edge of an abyss, and thanks to those easy women of virtue who terminated him with viagraic alacrity, we have since retreated from the abyss.
Or have we?
There are rumors in the air that the current spate of crisis is being promoted by those who would wish that they can be quelled by calling in military units.
A sufficient number of these military interventions, the thesis goes, might then once again trigger in the myth of public invitation: "Hey, military guys, why not just "kuku" come back and rule, since these civilians cannot get their act together?"
Senator Joseph Kennedy Waku's recent mouth-running and Nigerians' reaction to his spectre of coup indicated that we have no more stomach for it.
It is MOST UNLIKELY that Nigeria will survive another military mis-adventure, although civilian collaborators are still waiting in the wings.
What is missing in our current discourse is the following: what would you do if tomorrow a bespectacle Seargent announced "Fellow Countrymen...."?
This much I know: Before Sharia, I could not be definitive. After Sharia, it will most likely be bloody. A fine, bloody, disintegrative mess.
Continuing the Current "Fake" Federalism Nigeria's current constitution, as it was in the 1979 constitution, is a very funny one.
Let us look at its Second Schedule, Parts I and II, which list the Exclusive and Concurrent Lists respectively of the Federal Government and the States.
QUOTE
1999 Constitution
Second Schedule
LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Part I
Exclusive Legislative List
Item
Accounts of the Government of the Federation, and of offices, courts, and authorities thereof, including audit of those accounts.
Arms, ammunition and explosives.
Aviation, including airports, safety of aircraft and carriage of
passengers and goods by air.
Awards of national titles of honour, decorations and other dignities.
Bankruptcy and insolvency
Banks, banking, bills of exchange and promissory notes.
Borrowing of moneys within or outside Nigeria for the purposes of the Federation or of any State.
Census, including the establishment and maintenance of machinery for continuous and universal registration of births and deaths throughout Nigeria.
Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens.
Commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trusts.
Construction, alteration and maintenance of such roads as may be
declared by the National Assembly to be Federal trunk roads.
....
....
Weights and measures.
Wireless, broadcasting and television other than broadcasting and
television provided by the Government of a State; allocation of
wave-lengths for wireless, broadcasting and television transmission.
Any other matter with respect to which the National Assembly has power to make laws in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
Any matter incidental or supplementary to any matter mentioned
elsewhere in this list.
Part II
Concurrent Legislative List
Section 4
Extent of Federal and State Legislative Powers
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the National Assembly may by an Act make provisions for -
the division of public revenue -
between the Federation and the States;
among the States of the Federation;
between the States and local government councils;
among the local government councils in the States; and
grants or loans from and the imposition of charges upon the
Consolidated Revenue Fund or any other public funds of the Federation or for the imposition of charges upon the revenue and assets of the
Federation for any purpose notwithstanding that it relates to a matter
with respect to which the National Assembly is not empowered to make laws.
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, any House of Assembly may make provisions for grants or loans from and the imposition of charges upon any of the public funds of that State or the imposition of charges upon the revenue and assets of that State for any purpose notwithstanding that it relates to a matter with respect to which the National Assembly is empowered to make laws.
.....
A House of Assembly may, subject to such conditions as it may
prescribe, make provisions for the collection of any tax, fee or rate or for the administration of the Law providing for such collection by a local government council.
.....
A House of Assembly may make laws for the State with respect to -
electricity and the establishment in that State of electric power
stations;
the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to areas not covered by a national grid system within that State; and
the establishment within that State of any authority for the promotion and management of electric power stations established by the State.
In the foregoing provisions of this item, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings respectively assigned to them -
.....
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a House of Assembly may make Laws for that State with respect to industrial, commercial or agricultural development of the State.
.....
The power conferred on the National Assembly under paragraph 27 of this item shall include power to establish an institution for the purposes of university, post-primary, technological or professional education.
Subject as herein provided, a House of Assembly shall have power to make laws for the state with respect to the establishment of an
institution for purposes of university, technological or professional
education.
Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs of this item shall be construed so as to limit the powers of a House of Assembly to make laws for the State with respect to technical, vocational, post-primary, primary or other forms of education, including the establishment of institutions for the pursuit of such education.
QUOTE
While one can see how DETAILED and CLEAR the Exclusive List is (68 exclusive areas in Part I), immediately one gets to the Concurrent List, one cannot fail but be impressed by the hemming and hawing: 30 subsections (in Part II) of which 16 make references to the "National Assembly", and there is no clarity as to what to the states are REALLY empowered to do, and the Federal Government or National Assembly can give and take away as it pleases.
In a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Nigeria, that is too much power to be given to the center if we are to survive.
Establishing State-Based True Federalism You cannot have a federal government without federating units, and ostensibly ours is currently based on states, emasculated as they are by our Constitution as shown above.
You cannot have true federalism without fiscal and economic federalism as imperatives.
Let us make some comparisons with the United States of America.
With Nigeria having 36 states,
a population of about 100 million (who really knows?),
an area of 923,768 sq km (which is 356,669 sq miles; just more than twice the size of California [155,973 sq miles, 1998 population 32.7 million]
and just less than one-and-a-half times the size of Texas [261,914 sq. miles, 1998 population 19.8 million])
and 250 ethnic groups,
that gives on average 7 ethnic groups per Nigerian state, as well as states on average about the size of Connecticut in population (1998 population 3.27 million; Oregon's population is also close) and of Maryland (9,775 sq miles; Vermont is also close) in land area.
If tiny Rhode Island State (1,045 sq. miles, population 988,728) and Vermont (9,249 sq. miles, pop. 590,883) can hold their own in the midst of California and Texas, then neither population nor land mass should act as barriers to state development in Nigeria.
Constitutional EMPOWERMENT of the states, acknowledgement of the intrinsic MULTI-ETHNICITY of each state AND most importantly the creation of an educated workforce within each state are clearly the minimum necessary conditions for establishing true state-based federalism in Nigeria.
Reverting to Regionalism When Nigeria began its journey towards becoming an independent country, it had only 3 regions from 1951 till 1960 (North, East and West at Independence).
These became 4 in 1963 (with creation of MidWest), and then 12 states in 1967 (under Gowon, as an expedient under-cutting move just before the secession of Biafra), 19 in 1976 (under Murtala Muhammed/Obasanjo), to 21 (in 1987) and then 30 in 1991 (both under Babangida; who also catapulted the number of local governments from 301 under Obasanjo to 589) and finally to 36 states in 1996 (under Abacha).
Next was the creation of more local governments - from roughly 27 provinces in 1960 to 301 in 1979 to 774 in 2000.
What we have seen is an expedient atomization of Nigeria's administrative governance with the ostensible reason of bringing government closer to the people. The end result has been the creation of gargantuan, weak, center-dependent, cost centers called states without attendant autonomous fiscal resources to sustain themselves.
The movement back to regionalism as canvassed by some is informed by nostalgia about the 1960-1966 period when at least there was some semblance of healthy competition and economic, social and political development between and within the states.
We would return to the pre-1966 regional arrangement but augmented to six, eight or even ten regions as federating units, each with its own constitution that complements the Federal Constitution, each allowed to determine its own smaller unit of governance, whether state, province and/or local government, each according due recognition to the ethnic nationalities within its borders, each controlling the land, sea and air within its borders.
What are the objections to this desirable arrangement? First is the trivial fact that it is a reversal of the clock by 40 years, and the "re-enslavement" of since-created states, particular the "remote" ones, to any perceived tyranny of the regional centers of pre-1966 regions.
It is unlikely that many states (like mine, Ekiti State) will like to give up much of their independence to the regions, despite their present penury.
The second more substantive objection is the administrative cost of injecting another layer of bureacracy between the Federal government and the state and local governments without clearly spelling out the benefits.
Those two objections will have to be addressed before this re-regionalization can occur.
Establishing The Confederate Republic of Nigeria There is a fundamental difference between federalism and confederalism, and that has to do with the constitutional responsibility of each individual citizen within the country.
In a federalism, ALL the federal laws govern ALL the citizens, except for some local pertubations. Thus if the Constitution say that the Nigerian state is SECULAR, then this would imply that it applies to EVERY NIGERIAN or individual within the Nigerian borders.
In a federal system, you should not need to check the map and the calendar to decide what law is applicable to you today. Sharia as canvassed by Zamfara would thus be anathema, among other things.
On the other hand, in a union of confederations, the individual has a compact WITH THE CONFEDERATION, while the CONFEDERATIONS have administrative and mutual assistance compacts and mutual assistance (including defence) compacts with each other. In effect, each confederation operates like a country within a country.
Conceivably, a confederation might choose a state religion and apply it to ALL the citizens within its borders - and that would be its business. That is what Zamfara unwittingly seems to prefer, and a confederate option which the Southeastern governors have publicly subscribed to.
The main objections to this Confederation plan in Nigeria are that it is a slippery slope to the next option - separate republics - and that there is no assurance that a confederation-within-a-confederation movement will not arise from new minorities once each confederation is established.
True, very true. But elsewhere I have vacillated between this confederal arrangement as my favored option and strong autonomous regions within a truly Federal Nigeria [See Aluko: "Re-Structuring the Nigerian Polity and Army: A 21-Point Set of Suggestions"]
Separate Republics: Thinking the Unthinkable? This is the nightmare of those who are opposed to the SNC: that up to six possible republics
the Oduduwa Republic,
the Arewa Republic,
the Republic of Biafra,
the Niger-Delta Republic,
The Niger-Benue Republic and
the Kanem-Bornu Republic - might result.
Four of these will be land-locked, will the closest seaport for some being Tripoli, Libya! And that is scary.
And no more oil wealth to tap into? Ground-nut oil or palm-kernel oil instead of crude oil to depend on? That is scarier yet!
No wonder some claim that the "unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable."
With those wishing to impose Sharia lurking around, who says?
Some Concluding Statements: Back to the SNC "To be or not to be?" That is the national question posed by the various options outlined above. A reversion to military unitarism is almost inconceivable, and a splintering into separate republics would be most unfortunate, and anti-pan-African. However, nothing can ensure either of those solutions faster than continuing our currently fake federalism.
In order to decide whether we want to establish true federalism (either state- or region-based) or a confederal arrangement, a deep, comprehensive dialogue within the country is absolutely necessary.
Again, the motivation is simple: For too long, we have concentrated on "who rules Nigeria" rather than "what kind of Nigeria someone rules over." However, we must now re-focus: what we we must do before any other thing is the creation of STRUCTURES that are respected by all, within which millions of ORDINARY NIGERIANS, a few thousand EXTRAORDINARY NIGERIANS, and a dozen or so SUPER-EXTRAORDINARY NIGERIANS can operate with determination, efficiency, and progress.
We do not need a political messiah or messiahs in Nigeria - in any case, I see none in horizon, and certainly Obasanjo is not proving to be one, surprise, surprise - but what we need is agreement on a STRUCTURAL ETHOS.
That "structural ethos" must have as its bedrock:
A COMMITMENT TO UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY and PERSONAL FREEDOMS (even their most basic definitions will do);
an understood-by-all and inclusionary CONSTITUTION and a simple, justiciable BILL OF RIGHTS;
A COMMITMENT TO RULE OF LAW AND FREE JUDICIARY, and A FREE PRESS; and
PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE AS CLOSE AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.
This certainly includes the crucial issue of autonomy.
These would be best achieved as the outcome of a Sovereign National Conference, a brilliant, historical and justificatory foundation for which was recently provided by one Nigerian Francis Elekwachi writing from Australia [Elekwachi: "Sovereign National Conference, Sovereignty and Federation: Reconciling the differences. (Part I)"] .
This does not preclude the participation of the National Assemblies, but by ensuring popular participation, and the outgrowth of a new Constitution enstamped by the people via a Referendum, our nation can be set on the way to its greatness which its past leaders have denied it, and its present leaders might be delaying.
Again, we must ask: Can we talk? Who is afraid of talking?
Guides
SUNDAY MUSINGS