By Chido Onumah
I didn’t imagine I would return to this
column, although temporarily, so soon after I decided to take a long break
three weeks ago. But that was exactly what I found myself doing when I received
a call from a friend last week informing me that Nigeria’s Senate President,
Brig. Gen. David Bonaventure Mark (retd.), had voiced support for a “national
conference” as a way out of our current political morass.
I was elated, even before I had the
chance to explore the details of Mr. Mark’s position. I must confess I am not a
fan of Mr. Mark. He is one of the most loathsome figures in Nigeria’s tortuous
road to democracy and nationhood. Mr. Mark is a survivalist. For him,
expediency is the name of the game. He once vowed to go on a shooting rampage if
the winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, Chief M.K.O Abiola, was
sworn in. A few years later, he would go on exile and lend support to pro-democracy
groups during the dictatorship of Gen. Sani Abacha.
Mr. Mark has moved from assuring us he
would put on his camouflage and fight another civil war rather than “negotiate”
Nigeria to now acquiescing to a national conference “to confront the perceived
or alleged structural distortions which have bred discontentment and alienation
in some quarters”. So, it wasn’t much of a surprise when I finally got the
opportunity to review Mr. Mark’s latest proposition. It was dripping with survivalism.
But this is one issue I am ready to ignore the messenger and focus on the
message.
Of course, there is nothing new about
Mr. Mark’s current position other than the fact that he is the highest official
in the present administration to publicly make a case for a “national
conference”. Mr. Mark’s latest move, its shortcomings notwithstanding, is commendable.
It is heartwarming that after years of denial, Mr. Mark has found the chutzpah to
come out of the closet.
I crave the indulgence of readers to
quote him extensively. During his September 17, 2013, speech to senators, Mr. Mark
said:
“(On) the renewed calls to convene a
national conference, let me counsel that we make haste slowly, and operate
strictly within the parameters of our Constitution as we discuss the national
question. We live in very precarious times, and in a world increasingly made
fluid and toxic by strange ideologies and violent tendencies, all of which
presently conspire to question the very idea of the nation state.
“But that is not to say that the nation
should, like the proverbial ostrich, continue to bury its head in the sand and
refuse to confront the perceived or alleged structural distortions which have
bred discontentment and alienation in some quarters. This sense of discontentment
and alienation has fueled extremism, apathy and even predictions of catastrophe
for our dear nation.
“A conference of Nigeria’s ethnic
nationalities, called to foster frank and open discussions of the national
question, can certainly find accommodation in the extant provisions of the 1999
Constitution which guarantee freedom of expression, and of association. To that
extent, it is welcome. Nonetheless, the idea of a National Conference is not
without inherent and fundamental difficulties.
“Problems of its structure and
composition will stretch the letters and spirit of the Constitution and
severely task the ingenuity of our constitutionalists. Be that as it may, such
a conference, if and whenever convened should have only few red lines, chief among
which would be the dismemberment of the country. Beyond that, every other
question should be open to deliberations.
“However, I hasten to add that it would
be unconstitutional to clothe such a conference with constituent or sovereign
powers! But the resolutions of a national conference, consisting of Nigeria’s
ethnic nationalities, and called under the auspices of the Government of the
Federation, will indeed carry tremendous weight. And the National Assembly,
consisting of the elected representatives of the Nigerian people, though not
constitutionally bound by such resolutions, will be hard put to ignore them in
the continuing task of constitution review. But to circumvent the Constitution,
and its provisions on how to amend it, and repose sovereignty in an
unpredictable mass will be too risky a gamble and may ultimately do great
disservice to the idea of one Nigeria”.
There are many things wrong with Mr. Mark’s
position. First, the military decree which passes as the 1999 constitution – a
constitution which had no input from Nigerians, one which Mr. Mark and his
colleagues didn’t see prior to taking over from the military in May 1999 – is
not worth the paper it’s printed on. As a mark (no pun intended) of its
worthlessness, it ought to be publicly shredded. Second, sovereignty lies with
the people. Mr. Mark would do well to dispense with the delusion that the
chair-throwing, do-nothing National Assembly should be vested with the powers
to define the “new Nigeria” we envisage. It would be tragic to say the least.
It is not for nothing that “political
jobbers, sycophants, and hustlers have prematurely seized the political space,
and are being allowed to set the tone of national discourse”. That is the
nature of politics in Nigeria. Political office is not an opportunity to render
service, but an avenue to plunder. It is a pointer to the fact that the last
thing Nigeria needs now are elections.
That brings me to the question of the
2015 election. I propose a moratorium on the next general election slated for
2015. As a country, we’ll be deluding ourselves going into any election without
resolving, or at least understanding and confronting, many if not all the fundamental
issues of our nationhood.
For the edification of Mr. Mark and
others who now accept, albeit grudgingly, the inevitability of the SNC, I shall
paraphrase the salient points of the SNC – points that have been made popular overtime
by many writers, including Prof. Ben Nwabueze, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite, Olisa
Agbakoba (SAN), Femi Falana (SAN) Jaye Gaskia and, of course, Edwin Madunagu.
While it might
be difficult for Nigeria to disintegrate into ethnic republics (I don’t know of
any “ethnic nationality” that is willing or ready to go to war), the “Somaliazation”
of Nigeria is a “clear and present danger”. While in principle the “unity of
Nigeria” is beneficial, that unity can only be meaningful if it is founded on
justice and equity.
The
SNC is meant to prevent a one-sided, or unilateral and, therefore,
violent, resolution of the current crisis. It is the only viable
historical option, (though not at all times), but precisely at those points in
a nation’s history when a crisis, signifying the bankruptcy of a social order
or an existing political structure, cannot be resolved either by the existing
state or by any other coalition of forces.
The
SNC need not aspire to address all questions. It should limit itself to
the fundamental question of our national existence. Other questions will
be taken up by an elected Constituent Assembly or Constitutional Conference
when the terms of our continued existence have been agreed upon by the SNC.
The
SNC should not be conceived as a gathering of Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities,
because Nigeria is not, and has never been, the arithmetical sum of ethnic
nationalities. The SNC is not a Constituent Assembly or Constitutional
Conference, and must not be confused with it. A Constituent Assembly or
Constitutional Conference is normally put in place by an incumbent government
under its own rules. Whatever form it takes, a Constituent Assembly or
Constitutional Conference comes into being only when a basic direction of
national renewal has been agreed upon, or imposed.
I
am tempted to argue that in the planned SNC there should be a few “no-go areas”,
but that would be presumptuous and reckless of me. A Sovereign National
Conference proceeds with no assumption whatsoever; it is national in the
truest sense of the term; it is pragmatic; it is self-constituted and,
while it lasts, it is superior to any other political institution in the land,
including the incumbent government. Only a referendum can alter even a single
word in the decisions of the SNC.
Two weeks ago, The Guardian
reported that President Jonathan was considering the option of a “sovereign
national conference to douse political tension ahead (of the) 2015 presidential
elections”. Now is the time to make the
SNC a reality. Rather than investing on a doomed second term agenda, the
president should summon the courage to push the SNC agenda.
Nigeria is in dire need of statesmen and
patriots, not vacillating politicians. As Edwin Madunagu has noted, a nation in
crisis, like Nigeria, can
advance in one of three directions: Either it degenerates into anarchy
(Liberia and Somalia) or disintegrates (Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union), or
the whole nation meets to save itself. The way to national recovery and
renewal lies in the third direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment