Salihu Moh. Lukman
Progressive Governors Forum
Abuja
Paper Presented at International Conference on 50 Years Post Nigerian Civil War: Issues, Challenges and Prospects towards National Integration, Justice, Peace and Security organised July 5 – 7, 2021 by Centre for Health and Allied Legal and Demographical Development Research and Training, Nnamdi Azikwe University, Awka, Anambra State
Loading ...Introduction
Let me thank Prof. Charles O. Esimone, FAS, FPSN, Vice Chancellor of Nnamdi Azikwe University and all management team ofthe university for initiating this conference, which is to review issues, challenges and prospects towards national integration, justice, peace and security, more than fifty years after the Nigerian civil war. We must commend the foresight of the leadership of the Centre for Health and Allied Legal and Demographical Development Research and Training of the University for facilitating the conference. It is quite an honour to be invited to join other eminent scholars to contribute towards generating recommendations that would assist to explore how we can strengthen peaceful co-existence in our dear country, Nigeria.
There cannot be a better time than now to organise this conference. This is largely because politics has taken over almost everything in Nigeria, and almost everybody is interpreting all challenges based on narrow political choices. It is quite unfortunate that with such polluted political atmosphere, our history as a nation is being impaired and, almost every day, rewritten to serve narrow political interests. Sadly, younger generation of Nigerians are being misled to believe that ethnic and religious factors are the foundational issues for guaranteeing national integration, justice and security. No doubt, ethnic and religious factors are very important and must be recognised and respected. But making them the foundational issues for guaranteeing national integration, justice and security is deceptively self-serving.
It was Kwameh Anthony Appiah, a British-Ghanaian philosopher, in the book, The Lies that Bind: Rethinking Identitywho argued that “Philosophers contribute to public discussions of moral and political life, …, not by telling you what to think but by providing an assortment of concepts and theories you can use to decide what to think for yourself.” In our context in Nigeria, we have more than fair share of assorted concepts and theories of what we can use to decide what to think of ourselves. In most cases, all our concepts and theories are more about justifying why things are bad and why Nigeria is ‘failing’ and some have even gone a step ahead to argue that Nigeria has ‘failed’.
Perhaps, it is important from the start to make the point that my presentation will deviate from the doomy approach of presenting long list of sad narratives and heaping every blame on our political leaders. As much as it is important to recognise all our leadership challenges, we should do so based on the capacity to take responsibility and to bolster the confidence of Nigerians, especially our younger generation, that as a nation, we can overcome our challenges. While recognising our challenges, we should be able to acknowledge all the important little progress we have been able to make as a nation.
To do this, I want to focus my presentation on the theme Nigeria’s Democracy and Challenges of Federalism: Neglected Task of Political Parties’ Development. If anything, the collapse of democracy, First Republic, in 1966 was the first launchpad of the Nigerian civil war. Secondly, with the emergence of first military government under Gen. J. T. U. Aguiyi Ironsi, Nigeria’s federalism went through several years of distortions. One of such distortions was the infamous Unification Decree No. 34 of 1966, which abolished the federal system of government based on the claim of discouraging tribalism and promoting national reconstruction.
Almost all the military governments we had between 1966 and 1999, more than seven, undertook some reform measures that altered (distorted) the configuration of Nigeria’s federalism. Combined, these experiences contributed substantial parts of the assortment of concepts and theories of what we are using today to think of ourselves as Nigerians. Each military administration had variant of its own propositions, which in one way or the other created additional challenges to issues of national integration, justice, peace and security.
If the claim is that military governments over a period of more than thirty years have created conditions that distorted Nigeria’s federalism, how has democratic experience over the last years (more than twenty years) handled the task of rebuilding the nation’s federalism? To what extent is the issue of rebuilding federalism addressing the challenges of peaceful co-existence? Beyond the question of presenting candidates for elections, have Nigerian political parties prioritise the issue of rebuilding the nation’s federalism based on the cardinal principles of promoting peaceful co-existence and national integration?
Democracy, Political Parties and Challenges of Federalism
Since the overthrow of the First Republic in 1966 and the civil war that followed between 1967 and 1970, ethnic relations, especially between the so-called Hausa-Fulani Northern part of the country and Igbos in the South-East region of the country has been twitchy. This is also the case predominantly between both the Hausa-Fulanis and Igbos on the one hand and Yorubas in the South-West, as well as with the Ijaws, Ibibios, Efik, and other ethnic groups in the South-South region of the country. Tense relations between our ethnic groups is responsible for why at different times and in many instances, there are cases of ethnic and communal violence, often resulting in ethnic profiling of criminals.
Problems associated with ethnic profiling get compounded by over centralisation of governance especially during periods of military rule. Frustrations associated with failed political transitions of the military, both under Gen. Ibrahim Babangida and Gen. Sani Abacha between 1985 and 1998 further compounded challenges of peaceful co-existence and national integration and have remained sources of national pain. Combined, these are unfortunately major reasons for sectional agitations, which considerably constitute challenges to current federal structure as provided under the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended.
Although problems of political tension between ethnic groups in the country could be said to be volatile since the 1966 military intervention, reckless and brazenly repressive conducts by the past military leadership heightened ethnic tension in the country. Twice, between 1985 and 1998, the political transition programme initiated by the military was disrupted with hardly good justifiable reasons. Even when the process, in June 1993, was leading to the emergence of a President who would have successfully won votes from all sections of the country, notwithstanding the fact that both the candidate, Chief M. K. O. Abiola and his running mate, Amb. Babagana Kingibe, were both Muslims, the military leadership of Gen. Babangida went ahead to annul the election without any credible reason.
The annulment of June 12, 1993 election further worsened ethnic relations in the country such that although the elections produced one of best electoral results that confirms there is still a good hope for national unity and peaceful coexistence, campaigns for its actualisation sharpened divisions along ethnic lines. This was aggravated by the tight-fisted political transition of the late Gen. Sani Abacha administration between 1993 and 1998. Chief Abiola, the presumed winner of the June 12, 1993 election spent the remaining parts of his life between 1993 and July 1998 under arrest.
Part of the challenge that require proper attention in the country is the need to resolve problems of mismanagement of the country’s transition from military rule to the current Fourth Republic. Without recalling all the unfortunate details of the problems created by the annulment of the June 12, 1993, it is important to recognise that more than 20 years into the current Fourth Republic, the tension created in the country are far from being resolved. Prior to 2015, the closest we came to addressing these issues, as a nation, is the appointment of the Justice Oputa Oputa Human Right Violation Investigation Commission under former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 1999 and the 2014 National Conference under former President Goodluck Jonathan. Of course, in 2005, there was the National Political Reform Conference under former President Obasanjo, which eventually became embroiled in the controversy around former President Obasanjo’s Third Term agenda and as a result all the recommendations were therefore never considered.
Inability to address issues of ethnic tension in the country has continued to inflame all manner of political crisis. Coupled with widespread systematic weakening of governance institutions, especially on matters of guaranteeing the security of lives and property of Nigerians, issues of role of political leaders in addressing the challenge became a major political issue. The problem of insurgency in the North-East and the spate of suicide bombings by Boko Haram terrorists between 2010 and 2015 compounded the task of managing ethnic relations thereby creating serious security challenges in the country. Before 2015, the Boko Haram insurgents were controlling most parts of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe States. Weak response and excessive politicisation of our national security challenges under former President Jonathan administration, including the false accusation that opposition politicians were sponsoring Boko Haram, lower the approval rating of the Jonathan administration in the country, which significantly contributed to its defeat in 2015.
Part of the challenge of ensuring that Nigeria’s democracy prioritise the issue of rebuilding federalism is the narrow focus on regional representation in governments especially in terms of who emerges as president. Promoted largely by Nigerian elites who most times position themselves to emerge as the main beneficiaries of such campaign, the major focus is reduced to which region of the country produces the President. Whether such President is able to respond to challenges of the region he/she comes from is another matter entirely.
The narrow focus on individual candidates has so far created a situation whereby political parties are nothing more than platforms for contesting elections. Specific commitments of parties to issues of federalism are taken for granted. Consequently, the true substance or content of politicians and how they will handle the task of rebuilding Nigeria’s federalism when elected, which will determine policy choices may only be speculated based on estimation of past experiences of candidates. The truth, however, is that the dynamic of public life is completely different and no matter the level of experiences, factors that would influence decisions of political leaders when in office are far more complex than what their past suggest.
Part of the assumptions that democracy is founded on the logic that political parties should have manifestos, which should highlight ideological orientations and commitments of leaders and members, is just redundant in our context. Any close observer will recognise that although there is a document called party manifesto, party members, including leaders are hardly committed, in fact, many are hardly conversant with provisions of their party’s manifesto. To a large extent, this account for why initiating policies and programmes based on provisions of the manifesto is weak. How many party members, including leaders have gone through the party manifesto? How many party leaders can develop perspectives, which will highlight policy choices in lines with provisions of the party’s manifesto?
The consequence is that the only political contest that take place is electoral contest, which is just about personalities. To go beyond electoral contests means that debate on perspectives should highlight possible choices open to governments. To what extent are political parties able to project the demands of Nigerians especially in terms of regional representations? Beyond the personality of candidates and their ethnic or regional backgrounds, what are the other demands of Nigerians from the six regions? How can any candidate from any of the regions reconcile all these demands and make Nigeria home to all ethnic groups in the country?
The Issues – Campaign for Restructuring or True Federalism
It was Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson in the book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, that argued No two societies create the same institutions; they will have distinct customs, different systems of property rights, and different ways of dividing a killed animal or loot stolen from another group. Some will recognise the authority of elders, others will not; some will achieve some degree of political centralisation early on, but not others. Societies are constantly subject of economic and political conflicts that is resolved in different ways because of specific historical differences, the role of individuals, or just random factors.
This means that the demands of the different sections of Nigeria in terms of the details of what Nigeria’s federalism should be, will be different. The extent to which therefore these details are clarified by political parties based on which individual leaders of political parties commit themselves to implementing policy proposals that unite Nigerians are hardly the issue. As a result, in 1999, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) succeeded in producing former President Olusegun Obasanjo as President of the country largely in order to pacify the Yoruba’s in the South West without any expressed specific commitment to resolving any of the broader challenges of rebuilding Nigeria’s federalism. What the emergence of former President Obasanjo for instance meant to other regions – the three regions in the North, South-East and South-South was simply taken for granted.
Perhaps on account of the need to end military rule and return to democracy, especially given the anger against the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election, which was adjudged to have been won by Chief M. K. O. Abiola, a Yoruba from the South-West, the elite consensus in the country was to allow the South-West to produce the President. This was mainly responsible for why the two Presidential candidates that contested the 1999 election, former President Obasanjo and Chief Olu Falea, were both Yorubas from the South-West. How the emergence of former President Obasanjo was able to respond to agitations of Yorubas from the South-West is completely another matter.
To considerable extent, former President Obasanjo’s era could be said to be a period of lost opportunity for Nigeria in terms of taking advantage of the return to democratic rule to commence the process of rebuilding Nigeria’s federalism. Inability to use the new democratic opening to commence national negotiations to rebuild federalism reduces democracy to electoral contests. With hardly any exception, ahead of every election, almost everyone become sucked into the politics of ethnic contests. Every government initiative and almost all actions of political leaders get interpreted in ethnic terms.
The best description of this reality was provided by Graeme Gerrard and Benard Murphy in the book How to think Politically when they argued that “We assume that citizens should be informed. But they also need to be knowledgeable and even wise. Today we are inundated with information – but knowledge and wisdom remain as scarce as ever. Thanks to the miracle of digital technology, we are drowning in oceans of data, facts and opinions. What we need now is not more information but more insight, not more data but more perspective, not more opinions but more wisdom. After all, much of what is called information is actually misinformed, and most opinions fall short of true knowledge, let alone wisdom. Even a superficial glance at the state of contemporary politics will dispel any illusion that the explosion of information has led to wiser citizens or politicians or improved quality of public debate. If anything, misinformation is winning out over knowledge.”
There is no better description of our national reality defined by ethnic tension and the politics of hatred. While it is true that ethnic politics will always be part of our national life, it is important that Nigerians are able to engage beyond the simplistic issue of which ethnic group or region produces the President of Nigeria. As important as that should be, it must be supported with specific governance reform proposals aimed at facilitating regional developments. Why should any region or ethnic group produce a President and at the end of the tenure of such a President, there is nothing in terms of physical development of the region to justify that such a region has produced the President of Nigeria? For instance, what was the benefit to the South-West throughout the eight-year of former President Obasanjo? Or what was the benefit to the South-South to justify the six-year tenure of former President Goodluck Jonathan?
Given our political history and all the accumulated grievances of sections of the country, controlling and managing ethnic tension is a determining electoral factor, which should be taken seriously by all political leaders irrespective of ethnic background. On the other hand, no matter how well a leader performs, once such a leader failed to meet the expectations of sections of the country on account of poor management of ethnic relations, the leader may only be remembered based on all the unpopular choices he or she made while in power. For instance, President Obasanjo is only remembered today for the Third Term agenda he attempted to impose on the nation. Former President Jonathan is mostly associated with problems of insecurity. In the particular case of former President Jonathan, not even the case of convening the 2014 National Conference and his magnanimous decision to concede defeat in the 2015 election even before INEC declared the results surpass the poor management of security as the defining credentials of his leadership in the rating of many Nigerians.
Ethnic Tension and Challenges of National Unity
If the eight-year tenure of former President Obasanjo and by extension the sixteen-year tenure of PDP is regarded as period of lost opportunity, to what extent is the current era of President Buhari and APC setting the right agenda to rebuild Nigeria’s federalism? To what extent, for instance, are President Buhari’s initiatives a reflection of the commitment of the APC and its leadership? Perhaps, being a party envisioned to be social democratic with the principles of promoting all-inclusive government for the development of policies and programmes that would improve the lives of Nigerian citizens, regardless of ethnicity and religious orientation, it could be argued that APC and its leadership are as committed as President Buhari to these issues. But it is one thing to make such a claim and entirely another thing to justify it with reference to actions and pronouncements of APC leaders.
As things are today, President Muhammadu Buhari had done what no leader has ever done in the political history of this country in terms of attempt to respond to issues of ethnic tension because of past injustice under military rule. This is to the effect that on June 6, 2018, he acknowledged that annulment of June 12, 1993 election was an act of injustice and proceeded to declare June 12 as Nigeria’s Democracy Day. Since 1999, only South-West governments controlled by the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) and later ACN, observed June 12 as Democracy Day. The Federal Government and all other state governments outside the South-West only recognise May 29 as the Democracy Day. Although being a Hausa-Fulani, which is the ethnic group accused of perpetrating the June 12 injustice, President Muhammadu Buhari took the bold decision of declaring June 12 as Nigeria’s Democracy Day. In addition, he conferred the highest national honour Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR), on late Chief MKO Abiola, the standard bearer of the June 12, 1993 elections posthumously as well as also publicly apologising to the family of late Chief Abiola.
In taking these bold steps, President Buhari was unambiguously clear that the objective was to correct the injustice of the past. This was contained in his speech while presenting members of Chief Abiola’s family with the award of posthumous national honour when he stressed, “We cannot rewind the past, but we can at least assuage our feelings, recognise that a wrong has been committed and resolve to stand firm now and ease the future for the sanctity of free elections. Nigerians will no longer tolerate such perversion of justice. This retrospective and posthumous recognition is only a symbolic token of redress and recompense for the grievous injury done to the peace and unity of our country.”
Alh. Babagana Kingibe, the running mate to Chief Abiola and another veteran of the struggle for the actualisation of the result of June 12, 1993 elections in the country, late Chief Gani Fawehinmi were conferred the national honour of Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger (GCON). These are important milestones, which the government and our leaders would have consolidated by activating the processes of considering other governance initiatives to manage problems of volatile ethnic politics.
In addition to issues of injustice arising from June 12, 1993 annulment, subsisting challenges of the civil war of 1967 – 1970 in relation to political participation especially in terms of leadership of Nigeria are still there. Issues of leadership contest will continue to be a permanent factor, not just for people of the South-East but for all sections of Nigeria. How political parties and leaders are able to develop framework for political negotiations is a major challenge. The question is, would political negotiations for leadership integrate issues of regional development based on which all political leaders are able expeditiously implement? The extent to which people are able to own development initiatives and correspondingly therefore justify political choices are very critical. Politics will be meaningless if political choices are not correlated with issues of development.
Addressing issues of representation in government and challenges bordering on political participation are functions of negotiations and ability to produce compromises that will further expand the scope of participation of Nigerians from the South-East in Nigerian politics. This is also largely a question of the ability of leaders from the South-East to win the trust and confidence of political leaders from other parts of the country.
The excellent reality is that the people of the South-East are very much ahead of politics. Both in business and other private endevours, they are about the only ethnic group that have successful been able to explore and harness their vast resourceful potentials in every part of the country. The entrepreneurial capacity of the Igbos is very well located in the remotest part of Nigeria across every section. To some extent, political negotiations in Nigeria is below the standard of the desire of the average citizen from South-East. When for instance leadership negotiation is reduced to emergence of individuals as President from specific regions without recognising the progress made by citizens from that region to integrate themselves in every part of the country shortchanges Nigerians and therefore present a false narrative. Most importantly, political elites need to be more representative beyond personal ambitions for leadership.
All the clamour for representation should be grounded around the unique capacity of Nigerians to excel and make every part of Nigeria their home. When elites reduce issues of rebuilding Nigeria’s federalism based on opportunistic clamour of emergence of Nigerian President from a section or simplistic access to public appointments, they downgrade the resourcefulness of citizens. The rising wave of divisive, secessionist and separatist agitations that promote ethnic and regional identities is also completely at variance with the desires and capacity of citizens from the region where such campaign originate to explore and harness Nigeria’s vast potentials. Nigerian politics and political negotiations should be about supporting citizens to excel irrespective of whoever is the President of Nigeria.
Partly because political negotiations in Nigeria is not about supporting citizens to explore and harness Nigeria’s vast potentials, we are today confronted with a reality whereby even when government is able to initiate and implement policies that support citizens to explore and harness Nigeria’s vast potentials, so long as it does not serve the narrow interests of political elites, it is dismissed and rubbished. This is sadly the case in many respects confronting us as a nation today. As a result, we are witnessing the resurgence of desperate youth groups promoting ethnic and regional secessionist campaigns in the country from the South-East and South-West, all because political elites are mismanaging processes of political negotiations in the country based on narrow personal ambitions.
The challenge, therefore, is for political parties and leaders to rise above personal ambitions for leadership and make issues of national unity a priority for political negotiations. While recognising that as a nation, Nigeria has so many challenges, the resolution of the challenges rest with the development of our democracy and with it, the ascendency of structured processes of consultations, negotiations and agreements facilitate by our political parties. Inability to prioritise issues of national unity based on selfish personal ambitions of political elites have made politicians to in many respects accommodate, tolerate and impliedly accept secessionist agitations in Nigeria today. In the same vein, Nigerian political parties hardly regard the issue of negotiating national unity and peaceful co-existence of all the different components of the Nigerian federation an important political issue. This negligence has resulted in the resurgence of separatist agitations in the country.
For instance, since 2016, the separatist group of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) under the leadership of Nnamdi Kanu have been campaigning for the creation of Biafra. The South Eastern part of the country became the centre of activities for the group. There is hardly any counter political mobilsation by any political groups from the South-East. Similarly, there were instances of youth groups from Northern Nigeria issuing threats to Igbo citizens in Northern Nigeria to leave the North, allegedly in response to IPOB campaigns. Although many leaders and groups from these regions intervened to ensure that the situation didn’t degenerate into violent conflict, there was hardly any conscious effort to mobilise citizens against activities of these groups.
Unfortunately, however, political tension associated with ethnoreligious activities of groups such as IPOB and so-called coalition of Northern groups still continue to dominates the polity. In recent times, secessionist campaigns led by Sunday Igboho to mobilise for so-called Odudua Nation in the South-West have started. Noting that the IPOB campaign for a ‘Biafra Nation’ in the South-East is already launching attacks on government structures, especially police stations, thereby killing police personnel and other innocent citizens, it is worrisome that secessionist campaigns by self-acclaimed regional leaders is weakly being responded to by regional political leaders.
Resurgence of ethnic and regional secessionist campaigns by extremist groups are being made against the background of rising insecurity in the country. No doubt issues of insecurity are challenges which Nigerian politics and leaders must address. To what extent, are political elites united in addressing challenges of insecurity will be a critical determining factor for success. Sadly, rather than political elites uniting to address challenges of insecurity, personal ambitions for leadership are being used to further escalate the situation. Most of our political elites are positioning themselves to take advantage of rising wave of insecurity as negotiation factors for next leadership of Nigeria.
There is the need to appeal to political leaders in Nigeria that at the core of the forces tearing the fabrics of national unity and coherence is a contestation of nationhood, the true meaning of citizenship for many Nigerians and the perception that Nigeria’s federal system has not been fundamentally reformed to assure the constituent parts of the country of inclusiveness. These are genuine cumulative grievances from Nigeria’s colonial and post-colonial history of bad governance and manipulation of differences. These are political problems that need to be confronted with a demonstration of political will at the highest level and across the spectrum of the political leadership.
Despite the deep-seated challenges of the economy and insecurity, which the APC government inherited, democracy offers an opportunity for addressing all the nation’s numerous challenges including regional inequality and the distortions in Nigeria’s federal system. Without any doubt, the challenges of insecurity in the country are manifesting in new desperate forms beyond problems of kidnappings and Boko Haram, which the APC inherited in 2015 when it assumed power. Unfortunately, instead of political leaders seeking to address these issues using dialogue, negotiations and the progressive reform of the 1999 constitution, reckless and ill-motivated ethnic and regional political organisations and their self-appointed spokespersons kept issuing inflammatory and intemperate statements and counter-statements.
Most Nigerians observed the ethno-regional activities of these groups with consternation and grief, the reckless and bellicose utterances of groups, organisations and individuals fanning the ember of ethnic and regional hate and openly seeking the dismemberment of Nigeria. It is even more regrettable that these groups have been issuing provocative statements on behalf of sections of the country. It is, however, important to appreciate that the proliferation of these youth groups, is in the first place, a reflection of the failure of development, and specifically a failure to create a future for the youth population who now devote their energy to unproductive ventures including serving as cannon fodders for divisive politics and the violence associated with it.
While the unity of Nigeria should be a priority, it must be underlined by the commitment of political parties in power and their elected representatives at all levels. Political parties and elected representatives must effectively govern and deliver services and promote social justice; formulate policies that take account of Nigeria’s ethnic and cultural diversities; and promote the security and welfare of citizens across the country irrespective of the ethnicity and religion of individuals and groups.
Myth of a “Geographical Expression”
Nigerian politicians and elites who are determined to work against Nigeria’s unity and corporate existence often misrepresent the observation once made in 1947 by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo to the effect that Nigeria was a “mere geographical expression”. The essence of this remark, which was apt at the time, was that only by addressing the reality of our differences would Nigeria make progress.
Nigeria of today is not a mere geographical expression. The consequence of our liberal Constitution, which have encouraged Nigerians to live in every part of the country to pursue legitimate activities regardless of ethnicity and place of origin is that diverse and multi-cultural communities exist in every part of the country. The free movement of people across the length and breadth of Nigeria, which started even before British colonialism, has resulted in trans-regional ethnic and religious ties and truly diverse communities in all parts of Nigeria. Many Nigerians have their lifetime investments in regions and states other than the ones they call their own in the Nigerian parlance. The reality today is that these cross-cutting ties have created bonds across ethnic, religious and regional divides around livelihood issues which are more enduring than primordial identities of religion and “tribe”.
There are many successful nations today in terms of having a common purpose and strong national bond that have been created out of multiple ethnic and religious identities. Visionary and purposeful leadership has created such nations, leveraging on strong national institutions, good governance, equity and justice, which enable each group to fulfill its aspirations. After all, a nation is an imagined community of people who share a common aspiration, which is realisable through the principles of justice and the rule of law as enunciated in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The idea of Nigeria being a mere geographical expression is, therefore, a misnormer in the light of the present realities.
APC and the Campaign for True Federalism
Perhaps unlike the case of lost opportunity under the sixteen-year tenure of PDP in terms initiatives to rebuild Nigeria’s federalism, the Chief John Odigie-Oyegun led APC National Working Committee, in July 2017 set up the APC Committee on True Federalism with Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, Governor of Kaduna State and Sen. Olubunmi Adetunmbi, as Chairman and Secretary respectively. The Committee initially had a limited membership of ten (10) but was later expanded to twenty-seven (27), covering all sections of the country, all interest groups and given more time to consult more extensively across the country. Its terms of reference include making recommendations to advance the unity, national integration and collective well-being of the country.
In discharging its mandate, the Committee identified thirteen (13) issues based on the review of reports of National Conferences, including the 2005 National Political Reform Conference and the 2014 National Conference. The 13 issues identified are – Creation of States, Merger of States, Derivation Principle, Devolution of Powers, Federating Units, Fiscal Federalism & Revenue Allocation, Form of Government, Independent Candidacy, Land Tenure System, Local Government Autonomy, Power Sharing & Rotation, Resource Control and Type of Legislature.
Having outlined these issues, the Committee invited memoranda from Nigerians and held public hearings in all the six geopolitical zones of the country. The committee broadened its considerations of issues to be recommended to advance the unity, national integration and collective well-being of Nigeria beyond the limited interest of members of the APC. It took memoranda and submissions of Nigerians who are not APC members. Besides, it organised dedicated public hearings for women, youth, civil society and physically challenged groups, which held between September 18 and October 9, 2017. And based on all the submissions from the public hearings, the Committee made the following recommendations:
- Creation of state – creation of state is not expedient given the bureaucracy and attendant cost but recommended the need to attend to the isolated case of South East zone where there is the demand to balance states to be equal to other zones.
- Merger of states – recommended constitutional provision for legal and administrative frameworks for states that may consider merger provided it does not threaten the authority or existence of the federation.
- Derivation principle – recommended amendment to section 162 (2) of the constitution to allow for upward review of the current derivation formula and its adoption in respect of solid minerals and hydro power.
- Fiscal federalism and revenue allocation – recommended amendment of Allocation of revenue Act 2002 to ensure upward review of current revenue sharing formula to states.
- Devolution of powers – recommended the transfer of some items on the exclusive legislative lists to concurrent and residual, which include foods, drugs, poison, narcotics and psychotropic substances, fingerprints and identification of criminal records, registration of business names, labour, mines and minerals including oil field, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas, police, prisons, public holidays, railways and stamp duties be transferred to concurrent list.
- Federating units – recommended retention of current political arrangements with states as federating units. In order to continue to manage constant agitation to make geo-political zones federating units, recommended that group of states can cooperate on regional basis in line with section 5 (3) of the constitution.
- Form of government – recommended continuation of the presidential system but concerns about corruption and high cost of governance should be addressed with all seriousness.
- Independent candidates – recommended that anybody who wishes to contest as independent candidate can do so provided that such a person shall not be a registered member of a political party at least six (6) months before the date set for the elections, his/her nominators must not be members of registered political party, he/she pays a deposit to INEC in the same range as the non-refundable deposit fee payable to candidates sponsored by political parties to their parties, which should be determined by Act of the National Assembly and the candidate must meet other qualification requirements provided by the constitution.
- Land tenure system – recommended that the land use act be retained in the constitution in the greater interest of national security and the protection of Nigeria’s arable land from international land grabbers.
- Local government autonomy – recommended that LGA should be removed from the constitution and states be allowed to develop local administrative system that is relevant and peculiar to respective states.
- Power sharing and rotation – recommended that the complexity of power sharing and rotation be managed at party level rather than in the constitution.
- Resource control – recommended amendment of Petroleum Act, LFN 2004, Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act, 2007, Land Use Act, 1978 and Petroleum Profit Tax Act, 2007 so that states can exercise control over natural resources within their respective territories and pay taxes or royalties therefrom to federal government.
- Type of legislature – recommended retention of current system but with downward review of running cost.
- Other issues
Beyond the 13 issues, the Committee made additional recommendations on 11 issues, which are considered necessary to strengthen Nigeria’s democracy and make it functionally appealing to wider sections of Nigerians. These 11 additional recommendations, all came from the submissions received from Nigerians from all the public hearings across the six geo-political zones. The 11 additional recommendations are:
A. Demand for affirmation of vulnerable groups – recommended that vulnerable groups (women, youths and physically challenged persons be given adequate attention in terms of appointment in government jobs and political positions, including creating dedicated advisory role at all levels.
B. Citizenship – recommended a comprehensive review of all constitutional provisions on indigeneship and residency status to eliminate all the pervading primordial sentiments on citizenship and indegineship so that ethnic affiliation begin to give way to birth and residency.
C. Ministerial appointment – recommended amendment to section 147 (3) of the constitution to remove requirement on the President to appoint Ministers from every state who must be indigene of the states.
D. State constitution – recommended that state constitution is not a priority.
E. Role of traditional rulers – recommended that each state explore ways of incorporating traditional institutions into their governance models based on which respective House of Assembly enact appropriate laws.
F. Community participation – support all efforts to promote increased community participation in governance within the framework of two-tier federation.
G. Minimum wage legislation – recommended that each state should be free to decide its remuneration based on its resources and productivity
H. Elections – recommended that every tier of government should have autonomy in conducting its own elections
I. Governance – recommended review of scope of immunity granted to Governors and Deputy Governors
J. Judiciary – recommended the creation of State Judicial Council to exercise the function of National Judicial Council in relation to state courts.
K. State alignment and boundary adjustment – recommended that section 8 (2) and (4) of the constitution be amended in order to subject any request for boundary adjustment to a referendum as the case with creation of states and local governments under section 8 (1) and (3) of the constitution.
The full report of the Committee was submitted to the APC National Working Committee on January 25, 2018 organised in four volumes are:
· Volume 1: Main Report. – http://pgfnigeria.org/2018/01/29/volume-1-report-of-the-apc-committee-on-true-federalism/
· Volume 2: Legislative, Executive and Other Action Plans – http://pgfnigeria.org/2018/01/29/volume-2-report-of-the-apc-committee-on-true-federalism-action-plan/
· Volume 3: Project Communications Report & Online Survey – http://pgfnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Volume-3-Project-Communication-and-Online-Survey.pdf
· Volume 4: Summary of Memoranda and Analysis of Data – http://pgfnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Appendix.pdf
Volume 2 contained proposed legislative bills for either constitutional or amendments of all the relevant laws based on the recommendations contained in the report of the APC Committee on True Federalism.
Negotiating True Federalism and Political Parties
The report of the APC True Federalism Committee represents a radical departure by a political party in Nigeria in responding to political challenges facing the country. It was the first time since Nigeria’s independence that a political party would undertake such an elaborate exercise and come up with a report that could have appropriately aggregated all the contentious demands and interests of all sections of the country. Besides, the decision of the Committee to invite memorandum and organise public hearings in all the geopolitical zones of the country was also the first time a political party would undertake such an extensive participatory exercise. Perhaps for being able to correctly aggregate all the contentious demands from all parts of the country, even Governors of PDP such as former Governor Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State publicly commended the report.
The Report of the Committee is now in the custody of the National Assembly Constitution amendment committee led by the Deputy Senate President, Sen. Ovie Omo-Agege. Like many nations, Nigeria is a nation built on multiple and diverse identities that requires purposeful and visionary leadership. Nigeria can fulfil its manifest destiny as Africa’s regional power with leadership that is a rallying point for good governance, justice, equity and the rule of law. It is doubtful that Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, Tiv or any individual ethnic group can attend greatness and satisfactorily fulfil the aspirations of its members. Democratic governance offers Nigeria the rare opportunity to reconfigure the Nigerian federation to become a genuinely federal democracy that meets the aspirations of the citizens in which fiscal and political autonomy at sub-national level co-exists without tension with a stable national government capable of being a mirror for its constituent elements. However, this is only possible if the Nigerian nation is strengthened based on strategic reform of the federal structures such that issues of development and access to opportunities by all citizens irrespective of identities are guaranteed.
Although APC was able to debate, negotiate and agree on some baseline proposals as responses to Nigeria’s numerous national challenges during the merger negotiation and during the 2015 and 2019 campaigns, the same could not be said about other parties including the PDP. The other issue is also that even within APC, leaders may not be uniformly committed to implementation of these baseline proposals as agreed by the party including recommendations of the APC Committee on True Federalism. How parties can develop frameworks that compel all leaders especially elected representative to implement agreements is the challenge.
The reality is that while as a nation, we have made progress especially with respect to managing elections, the challenge of political party development and how they are able to serve as vehicles for interest negotiations in the country is taken for granted if not neglected. The only interest that dominates our parties is personal ambitions of individuals and how ethnic factors are used to negotiate those interests. Unless a new framework is instituted, which strengthened commitment of political parties and leaders to facilitate interest negotiations in the country and when there are agreements, elected leaders are compelled to implement, narrow issues of leadership selection based on ethnic or religious identities will continue to be exploited by political elites in the country. Even where political parties and leaders are able to initiate policy measure that proportionately responded to citizens demands from all parts of the country, issues of subjective interpretation of priorities of parties and political leaders would be used to undermine the democratic credentials of political parties and leaders.
For instance, when the issue of representation in leadership become the main problem of democracy and reduced to ethnic, religious, or other demographic factors, negotiation may only lead to some wild goose chase of endless political problems, which mutates and resurfaces in bigger or worst forms. This is largely because ethnic, religious and all the other democratic factors do not represent any conscious choice made by any candidate for any leadership position and therefore wouldn’t highlight the possible choices of such a political leader. We can as individuals be associated with any of these groups (ethnic, religious or demographic), mobilise and make demands. However, it is important to recognise that compromises based on simplistic representation in leadership on account of ethnic, religious or demographic factors alone will hardly resolve most of Nigeria’s developmental challenges.
Problems associated with negotiating only issues of representation in leadership has trapped the Nigeria’s democracy and for over 20 years now, Nigerians have limited political contests to only electoral contests. Whether political leaders are taking any initiative to facilitate interest negotiations based on development priorities is at best assumed. Even when they initiate interest negotiations, so long as such negotiation does not rhyme with the popular narrative of promoting dominant narrow interests, which seeks to produce some expected compromises, unwillingness and disdain sets in and sadly any potential political negotiation risked being blocked.
There is no dispute that Nigeria is an emerging democracy. As an emerging democracy, policy initiatives of political leaders should be the driving factors for political negotiation, not just electoral contest. Political development initiatives without corresponding negotiation or engagement involving political leaders and citizens, create problems of ownership. The painful aspect of this is that even when political leaders come up with excellent responses to problems faced by citizens, factors of alienation on account of lack of negotiation can make citizens to oppose such initiatives by political leaders.
This is perhaps the case why notwithstanding all the landmark development initiatives of the current APC administration under President Buhari, such as the National Social Investment Programme and the ambitious infrastructural development in every part of the country, the political narrative promoted by opposition parties, especially PDP is that APC and President Buhari have failed. What are the alternatives being offered by the PDP and all those opposed to APC especially in terms managing ethnic tension and promoting national unity and peaceful co-existence can only be assumed. There is nothing either with reference party manifesto or campaign documents that highlight the visions of political parties opposed to the APC.
Unfair Politics of Ethnicity
Thus, beyond propaganda, how true is it that APC and President Buhari are sectional as is being claimed by opposition PDP and their supporters? Is there any justification to such a claim with reference to the policies being implemented, whether with reference to location of projects or the expected beneficiaries? The best way to check this is to review the policies being implemented by APC controlled Federal Government led by President Buhari.
· For instance, Social Investment Programmes are being implemented in every state of the country without any exception. As part of that all the five States of the South-East produced 68,000 N-Power beneficiaries and 85,000 similar beneficiaries for the six States of the South-South. In all five States of the South East, the APC-led Federal Government is funding school feeding programme, while three States of the South-South are benefiting. In addition, in the case of the South-East, pensions have been paid to Retired War-Affected (Ex-Biafran) Police. In 2017, the Buhari Administration paid 500 million Naira to clear pensions arrears that had not been paid since their presidential pardon in 2000.
· Formal flag-off of the N-Power Build Programme, the Buhari Administration’s Vocational Training and Apprenticeship programme, took place in Enugu State, on the premises of Anambra Motor Manufacturing Company Limited (ANAMMCO Limited), on Friday May 18, 2018. It is also to the credit of President Buhari led APC government that N700 billion for Road Refunds to states was made to all state governments irrespective of which geo-political region they come from. Rivers State government which is a PDP state got over N70 billion. 362.5 billion Naira raised in Sovereign Sukuk Bonds so far, shared EQUALLY across the 6 geopolitical zones. Similarly, there was the case of Paris Club Refunds to all the 36 state governments. Estimated $5 billion was paid by the Federal Government without any state being discriminated.
· There is the case of International Airport Upgrades, which the President Buhari administration included Enugu Airport in the list of International Airports receiving federal attention: Brand new runway was delivered to the airport in 2020; work is ongoing on new International Terminal Building. The new Port Harcourt International Airport Terminal has been completed and commissioned in 2018. New International Airport Terminals have also been completed and commissioned in Abuja, while those in Lagos and Kano are being completed. In addition, brand new Runways have been constructed in Abuja and Enugu, in 2017 and 2020 respectively.
· The Presidential Infrastructure Development Fund (PIDF) that has 3 projects so far, one in the South-West, one in the North, one in the South-East – the 200 billion Naira Second Niger Bridge, which is projected for 2022 completion. The second Niger Bridge, originally conceived decades ago, is now more than 50 percent completed, and scheduled for commissioning in 2022, as is the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, which has defied every administration since 1999. Other landmark projects being completed include the Bodo-Bonny Road in Rivers State, Apapa-Oshodi-Oworonshoki Expressway, Loko-Oweto Bridge connecting Benue and Nasarawa States across the River Benue, Port Harcourt-Enugu Expressway, East-West Road (across Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa-Ibom and Cross River States), the new Ikom Bridge in Cross River, Abuja-Kaduna-Zaria-Kano Expressway, Keffi-Akwanga-Lafia-Makurdi Road, and many more.
· Take the ground-breaking project for reconstruction of Port Harcourt – Maiduguri Rail Line, linking the South-East States to a Sea Port, and to Northern Nigeria. Similarly, there is the Lagos – Kano rail line. A section of it, 156km Lagos – Ibadan Standard Gauge Rail, the first double-track Standard Gauge Rail project in West Africa (and the first Standard Gauge Rail project in Nigeria to be started and completed by the same administration). Financing of the Ibadan – Kano part of the project has already commenced. The Lagos – Ibadan Rail Line was commissioned nine months after the 327km Itakpe – Warri Standard Gauge Rail, was commissioned 33 years after construction began. The 168km Abuja – Kaduna Rail project, and the 42.5km Abuja Light Rail project, both inherited from previous administrations, were completed in 2016 and 2018 respectively. A brand new Deep Sea Port is being constructed, in Lagos, the first new Deep Sea Port in the country in more than four decades; while ground-breaking for a second private-sector-funded Deep Sea Port (in Bonny) took place in March 2021.
· There is also the flagship agriculture initiative, the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative (PFI) of the Buhari Administration. The PFI was launched in December 2016 as a government-to-government partnership between the Governments of Nigeria and Morocco. Since inception it has produced and delivered to the Nigerian market, over 30 million 50kg bags equivalent of fertilizer, at reduced prices; and resulted in the revival or construction of no fewer than 40 moribund fertilizer blending plants across the country. That Nigeria today has 44 functioning blending plants, with more on the way, is solely due to the success of the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative (PFI). The following are some of the specific achievements of the PFI:
o In 2017, the multinational group Olam invested $150 million in an integrated animal feed mill, poultry breeding farms and hatchery in Kaduna State, as well as an integrated poultry and fish feed mill in Kwara State.
o In Anambra State, the Coscharis Group began the cultivation of rice in 2016, on a 2,500 hectare farm, and soon after expanded into Milling, with the commissioning of a 40,000 MT modular Rice Mill in 2019,
o In Niger State, the BUA Group is currently completing a $300million Integrated Facility comprising a Sugar Mill, Ethanol Plant, Sugar Refinery and Power Plant, and a 20,000-Hectare Farm.
o In Kebbi State, GB Foods has invested 20 billion Naira in a Tomato Processing Factory supplied by what is said to be the single largest tomato farm in the country. Future phases of the investment will make it the largest processing facility for fresh tomatoes in sub-Saharan Africa.
o The same GB Foods in July 2020 opened its N5.5 billion Mayonnaise production facility in Ogun State, which will be supplied with input from the company’s new farms in Kebbi State.
o In Lagos, Ariel Foods FZE has recently constructed and completed the biggest Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF) production facility in Africa.
o In Nasarawa State, the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA) has recently completed work on the first phase of a multi-million-dollar animal feed processing facility and a backward-integrated 3000-hectare Maize and Soyabeans Farm, in a co-investment partnership with a South African Investment Group.
o In 2021, the Dangote Group commissioned its $2 billion Fertilizer Plant, with an annual capacity of 3 million Metric Tonnes, the largest fertilizer plant in West Africa. In June 2021, the plant began delivering an average of 120 trucks of Urea per week to the Nigerian market, and is also set to target the export market across West Africa and beyond.
o State Governments are also actively keying into the President’s Agriculture vision. In 2018, Cross River commissioned a 3 billion Naira Hybrid Rice Seedlings Factory, to supply rice seedlings to farmers and governments across the country.
o Lagos State is completing the 32 Metric Tonne per hour Imota Rice Mill, which, when functional, will be one of the largest rice processing facilities in sub-Saharan Africa. The Imota Rice Mill will produce 2.4 million bags of 50kg per annum, and create an estimated 250,000 direct and indirect jobs, and will plug Lagos State firmly into the national rice value chain.
o Ekiti State is reviving its Ikun Dairy Farm, in a successful partnership with Promasidor, with a production target of 10,000 Liters of milk daily.
o In Ondo State, the 9 billion Naira Sunshine Chocolate Factory – a Public Private Partnership involving the State Government – was completed and commissioned in 2020, to take advantage of the State’s leading position in the cultivation of cocoa.
· There is also the Anchor Borrowers Programme (ABP), which is being implemented by the Central Bank of Nigeria, launched by President Buhari on November 17, 2015, in Kebbi State. Since then, it has provided more than 300 billion Naira to more than 3.1 million smallholder farmers of 21 different commodities (including Rice, Wheat, Maize, Cotton, Cassava, Poultry, Soy Beans, Groundnut, Fish), across all the 36 states of Nigeria, successfully cultivating over 3.8 million hectares of farmland, and helping agriculture enjoy the enviable feat of being the only sector of the Nigerian economy that has consistently posted positive growth rates since 2015.
· There is also the Energizing Education Programme (taking clean and reliable energy to Federal Universities across the country): One of the first EEP projects to be completed and launched was the 2.8MW Solar Power Plant at Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike Ikwo, Ebonyi State. Similar to the EEP is the Energizing Economies Initiative: (taking clean and reliable energy to economic clusters i.e. markets, shopping complexes etc, across the country). One of the first to be completed and launched was the first phase of the Ariaria Market (Aba) IPP, supplying electricity to 4,000 shops in the Market.
· Another initiative of the President Buhari APC led Federal Government is NSIA Healthcare Investments under which Brand new $5.5m Medical Diagnostics Center has been completed in Umuahia and operational. The other NSIA Healthcare investments are in Lagos and Kano. There is the Presidential Fertilizer Initiative and Ebonyi State was among the first set of State Governments to sign up, which resulted in the revitalisation of a moribund Fertilizer Blending Plant in Abakaliki, which now supplies NPK Fertilizer to farmers in the State and beyond. It was also to the credit of the administration that in 2018 Zik Mausoleum in Awka, Anambra State was completed and commissioned, 22 years after construction started.
There are many more other initiatives of the APC led Federal Government of President Muhammadu Buhari spread across all sections of the country. Compared to all other administrations, especially PDP led Federal Government between 1999 and today, a fair assessment will indicate the reality that President Buhari has achieved much more within six years covering all the six geo-political zones of the country. President Buhari led APC Federal Government has done more for the South-West and South-East in six years than all the PDP administrations between 1999 and 2015 combined. Largely because politics is reduced to electoral contests of personalities, dishonest campaigns led by PDP have dominated public conversations in the country.
Challenges of Insecurity – The Big Elephant in the Room
Recognising that issues of insecurity inherited by the APC led government of President Buhari remained a major challenge, this not a matter that should be politicised. Some PDP leaders and their supporters have accused APC of using insecurity to defeat PDP. This is false. The reality was that PDP under former President Jonathan argued that Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East was sponsored by opposition to PDP. And when the Chibok abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls happened in 2014, the position of former President Jonathan led Federal Government was that it was a setup. For quite some time, former President Jonathan administration did not mobilise any response to the Chibok abduction.
There was also the challenge of corruption, which embroiled the management of huge amount of money (billions) meant for the procurement of arms to fight the Boko Haram insurgents. Till today those issues are being investigated. Former National Security Adviser under the former President Jonathan, Col. (Rtd) Sambo Dasuki, former PDP National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Olisa Metu and many PDP leaders are facing trial.
The point is, up to May 2015 when APC government was inaugurated, PDP led Federal Government was in denial of especially the problem of Boko Haram insurgency. This is not the case with APC under President Buhari. No doubt, insecurity has assumed new forms, activities of bandits, resulting in kidnappings and abductions of innocent Nigerians, including school children. Related to this is the recurrence of ethnic conflicts because of criminal activities of some Fulani herdsmen. Issues of open grazing and the need to regulate the movement of Fulani herdsmen have generated so much controversies in the country.
Beyond politics however, it must be recognised that problems of insecurity are issues, which require that Nigerians, especially our leaders should unite. A situation where political leaders use the problem of insecurity to promote divisive campaigns in the country, is most unfortunate. It was the American political scientist, John Mearsheimer, in the book, The Great Delusion – Liberal Dreams and International Realities, who draw attention to how our capability for critical thinking and reasoning as humans distinguishes us with all other creatures and makes it possible to dominate our planet earth. It is also the same capacity for critical thinking and reasoning that enables us to create body of ideas ‘about how the world works. Yet there are significant limits on our ability to reason, which have important consequences for social and political life. One such limitation, our inability to agree about what constitutes the good life, sometimes leads individually as well as social groups to hate and try to hurt others, which in turn causes the others to worry about their survival.’
As Nigerians, the problem of hate is making us lose our humanity so much that notion of survival both for individuals and groups is more about our ability to defend and rationalise our inclinations even when lives of other citizens are in danger. Our instinct to rationalise unacceptable realities has worsened and is certainly extinguishing our humanity to the extent that there is hardly any difference between leaders and followers as well as educated and illiterate citizens. If anything, our education is making most of us to become leading campaigners and promoters of our disagreements and why we should hate each other on accounts of our ethnic and religious differences. But as Mearsheimer asked, ‘First, are our preferences rational, and do those goals promote our survival or make some other kind of sense? Second, are we acting strategically to achieve our goal?
Do we even have any goal and if we do, what is our goal? Is it possible in any way that our goal includes promoting crimes or rationalising misconducts of Nigerians on account of ethnicity? It is very worrisome that as supporters of ethnic agitations, in one way or the other, political campaigns in the country is promoting ethnic and religious hatreds. Consequently, we are unable to see anything good associated with our so-called competing ethnic and religious groups. Everything is about casting aspersion on religious and ethnic groups outside the ones we belong. We profile each other in ways that suggest there is scarcely anything good about citizens belonging to other religious and ethnic groups. Everything that anyone coming from other ethnic and religious groups other than the ones we belong pronounces or articulates must be interpreted to confirm our beliefs in how bad other ethnic and religious groups are.
The reality is that none of Nigeria’s security challenges is new. Many would ask, if they are not new, why is the President Buhari led APC government unable to resolve the nation’s security challenges? The good thing is that unlike the former PDP led Federal Government, APC led Federal Government is not denying that the country is faced with security challenges. As a result, there are initiatives being implemented to respond to the challenges. These include Equipping the Security Agencies and Building Morale, under whichhundreds of new platforms are being acquired for the Army, Air Force and Navy. The Nigeria Air Force has received 23 new aircraft since 2015, with at least a dozen more being expected, and the Navy has most recently acquired its first new Landing Ship Tank (LST) since 1979.
The administration is promoting Community-led Solutions to Insecurity, New Security Infrastructure and Operations across Land and Maritime Environments, under which the Integrated National Security and Waterways Protection Infrastructure project was flagged-off and in the last five years, a number of technology solutions are being deployed and implemented to support the Police, Immigration and other security agencies.
The APC led administration is also addressing the underlying drivers of insecurity (poverty and youth unemployment), which include the new plan to lifted 10.5 million Nigerians out of poverty. The Federal Government has recently approved a National Poverty Reduction with Growth Strategy Plan, to consolidate on the successes so far, and to achieve the President’s vision of lifting a 100 million Nigerians out of poverty within a decade.
Certainly, all these measures can be strengthened, and the government can do more especially in relation to getting our security agencies to be accountable. Irrespective of ethnicity or religion, every Nigerian is at risk. The hard truth is that the nation’s security challenge requires thorough introspection by not just our security agencies but also imposition of severe sanction against security personnel, traditional and community leaders where kidnappings, banditry and all the crimes consuming the lives of innocent Nigerians are taking place. Most of the crimes being committed across the country are products of collaborations by some security personnel, traditional and community leaders.
Every police, security personnel, traditional and community leader, located within areas where activities of bandits such as kidnappings and abductions are taking place should be arrested and tried. Similarly, everywhere such incidences take place, police, security, traditional and community leaders should be the first line suspect. They should be made to prove their innocence by producing the culprits, failing which, they should be convicted. Depending on the extent of the problem, there is no reason why corporal punishment covering life and death sentences should not be given.
Everything considered, it will appear that number of police personnel in Nigeria may not necessarily be the problem, although many security experts believe strongly that it is indeed an issue. Issues of capacity with reference to equipment, training, intelligence gathering, moral, etc. are also strong factors, which need to be immediately addressed. Outside the police, other arms of the security agencies are faced with similar challenges.
The current security structure in the country needs to radically be reformed. Issues of amending the laws to enable state governments to establish state police
are clearly unavoidable. However, there are conditions that must be considered before any decision to establish state police can serve as a good response to Nigeria’s security challenges. This include the requirement that processes of regulating the operations of the state police should be centralised as part of the functions of the Federal Police. Under that, for instance, issues of recruitment, qualification, background checks for those to be recruited, enforcement of disciplinary requirement, arms procurement and training for weapon handling, etc. should be handled at Federal level so that there are uniform standards across the country. It should be like the case of universities with National University Commission (NUC) serving as the regulatory body enforcing standards across all Nigerian universities.
Outside regulations, there are issues of funding. Most time, Nigerians make proposals in terms of how government should address challenges with the assumption that funding is given, which means that government can always mobilise the resources. This is mostly exaggerated. To address Nigerian security challenges, especially if the establishment of state police is to be considered, there must be a new funding arrangement, which should insulate the operations of Nigeria Police including the new state police to be established from all the uncertainties surrounding public financial management.
Conclusion – Developing Political Parties
All things considered; Nigerian politics must be developed such that political parties prioritise interest negotiations beyond the narrow electoral contest focusing on regional and ethnic representations. Specific regional demands for developments should be integral parts of any demand for regional or ethnic representation in the leadership of the country. Clear policy choices reflected in commitments of political parties based on provisions in their manifestos should be the driving factors of leadership negotiations. Opposition to leadership should not be about promoting ethnic and religious hatred in the country. Once politics is oriented around promotion of ethnic and religious hatred, it will undermine capacity of leaders to mobilise Nigerians. It will also weaken the capacity of citizens to engage leaders and influence policy decisions. Consequently, this will undermine democratic development of Nigeria.
It is necessary that Nigerians recognise that political parties should be the most important democratic bodies to facilitate the process of negotiations in terms of how Nigerian federalism should be reformed. All political parties should be able to have clear positions in terms of how they intend to reform Nigerian federalism. Specific details of negotiable items should be outlined, and frameworks should be developed within political parties to ensure that elected representatives are committed to implement positions adopted by political parties. Eventually, Nigerian democracy should graduate from situation whereby electoral contests is all about personality contests, to the level that policy choices are integral parts of electoral contest.
If the narrative is that APC has failed, what is the alternative being offered by the opposition, including PDP? As part of the introspection required to strengthen the capacity of our party, our leaders and governments, we need to engage the debate based on assessment of what we must do to rebuild the confidence of Nigerians and regained their trust. In doing that, we need to restrategise and more effectively present the objective scorecards of governments at all levels since 2015 in ways that can truly demonstrate to Nigerians what has been achieved, and why in spite of what has been achieved we are having the challenges facing us as a nation. Nigerians need to rise above cheap campaigns of ethnic politics, which is now being used to promote hatred in the country. Anybody playing up the politics of ethnic hatred is big risk to even his/her ethnic group and is only opportunistically doing so in order to access leadership positions.
The debate continues, Nigerian democracy shall overcome its challenges such that Nigerian political parties can develop to facilitate interest negotiations effectively and efficiently as a major attribute of politics. Ultimately, Nigerians will be able to respect our differences and be able to access and harness the vast resource potentials of Nigeria at any point, anytime, anywhere and by everyone!
Thank you!
