By Hassan Rilwan
As a follow-up to the first session
wherein a viable youth agenda was outlined, I have in this second session
deliberated with my think-tank on the Structure of Government as an agenda for
the National Conference. Under this broad topic ‘Structure of Government’ other
clusters of sub-topics were also treated. These include: Fiscal
Federalism/Resource Control, Indigene-Settler Crisis, Federal Character/Quota
System and Single-term Tenureship.
Before the think-tank session, we had
set up an online polling system to take a poll of the position of the youths on
these subjects. The results from the online poll formed a basis for further
stormy deliberations by the think-tank; a deliberation which resulted in
harmonized positions reflecting the general trend of views on each of the
subjects. This however does not remove the right of some youth who may have a
different opinion no matter how small their number.
1.
Structure of Government
Background
After the establishment of a colonial
state by the British Government, the British government adopted the policy of
gradually amalgamating various administrative units in Nigeria in order to
ensure the central direction of policy and to pool economic resources
together. This culminated in the 1914 episode of amalgamation of the Northern
and Southern protectorates. From this period, Nigeria developed
constitutionally till 1954 when the Lyttleton Constitution introduced federal
principles into the polity.
Since then, the Nigerian federation has
had a chequered history. It has been through four phases, namely, colonial,
civilian, military and post-military.
From January 15, 1966 to October 1,
1979, Nigeria had a military government. The military administration effected
some fundamental changes in the nation’s political and administrative systems
of government. The first of such fundamental changes was Decree 34 of 1966
promulgated by the first military head of state, the Late Major General
Aguiyi-Ironsi.
Under that decree, Nigeria operated a unitary system of
government. Given the political crisis at the time and what was clearly
perceived as serious threats to the federation, General Ironsi felt that what
the nation needed was a unitary form of government with an over-bearing centre.
By the time the military quit the stage on October 1, 1979, in the first
instance, they had succeeded in changing the character of the federation in
response to the nation’s historical problems of fear and domination. The centre
became, and remains, powerful and the constituent units became, and remain,
weak.
Over the years, Nigeria has witnessed
the creation of many states (presently 36) from the old three constituent
regions – North, West and East. The powers of the constituent states in the
Federation has become so diluted that they now wholly depend on the centre for
their sustenance.
Our
Position
It is our considered view that the
present structure of government does not define the reality of our character as
a nation of multi-ethnic and multi-religious diversities. We know that most
states are created to give identity to a sizeable community based on ethnicity,
culture and language amongst other factors in response to allegations of
marginalization, etc. This rarely stops the problem as cries of marginalisation
will never cease except we are ready to have as many states as the number of
the ethnic groups or languages that we have in Nigeria.
Creation of more states is not the
answer to the cries of maginalisation but a responsible leadership that strives
to carry everybody along especially the minority.
It is also our considered view that the
present arrangement does not reflect the features of true federalism as power
is too heavily concentrated at the centre.
We therefore call for a new structure
of federal government to be made up of the 6 geo-political zones and not the
states. Revenue should be shared amongst the six zones only. Such an
arrangement will ensure the zones are strong enough to serve as viable
federating units within the Federation. It will also make the creation of more
states less attractive since creating more states within a region will reduce
the revenue accruable to the states within that particular region. We may even
see situations where some states may opt to merge with other states so as to
reduce cost and increase viability.
While we feel that the presidential
system be maintained at the federal level, each of the geo-political zones
should be allowed to determine how they want to be governed within the
presidential system. Each zone will deal with issues on the concurrent list
affecting that geo-political zone. In this respect, there should be more
devolution of powers from the centre to the federating units. Each federating
unit should be allowed to make laws that are in tune with its broad character,
beliefs and culture. This also means that a region can decide to retain the
states under it or collapse them into the regional government.
We consider that in a situation where
the mood of the nation does not favour the zonal arrangement, we may consider to
have the states as federating units.
2. Resource
Control/Fiscal Federalism
Background
During pre-independence era, each of
the three regions in Nigeria – North, West and East, operated somewhat
independently and controlled their resources100%.
After independence (especially in the
1960 and 1963 Constitutions) there was a derivation formula of 50% for
producing regions. So each of the three regions (North, West & East) took
50% from the FG as derivation. This seems to have been the situation up until
1970.
The offshore/onshore dichotomy was
introduced during the military regime of Gowon (1966-1975). Decree No.113 of
1970, promulgated by General Yakubu Gowon (rtd) reduced derivation formula to
45% and at the same time appropriated the entire offshore oil revenue to the
federal government.
In 1977, General Olusegun Obasanjo
(rtd) as the Head of State took another 20% to the centre, thus reducing the
allocation based on derivation to 25%. At the same time, he held on to the
entire offshore production revenue thus maintaining the onshore/offshore
dichotomy.
In 1981, Shehu Shagari removed yet
another 20%, thus reducing derivation on onshore oil to 5%.
In 1984, General Muhammed Buhari (rtd.)
further removed 3.5% thus reducing it to 1.5% while still holding on to the
offshore revenue.
General Ibrahim Babangida, through the
1992 Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC) decree,
increased derivation to 3% and abolished the offshore/onshore dichotomy.
The 1999 Constitution, which had its
roots in the recommendation of the constitutional conference called by General
Sani Abacha in 1994-1995, fixed a derivation formula at a minimum of 13% but
was silent on the issue of onshore-offshore dichotomy.
Since the 1999 Constitution was silent
on the dichotomy issue, it was assumed that its abolition by Babangida
subsists, until Obasanjo took the case to the Supreme Court in 2002. The
Supreme Court re-introduced the dichotomy in Abia State & 36 others vs
Federal Government of Nigeria.
The ruling of the Supreme Court
generated heated debates. Consequently, it was decided to find a political
solution to the issue. After much consultation, Obasanjo, on August 20, 2002,
sent a bill to the National Assembly seeking the abolition of onshore/offshore
oil dichotomy in the derivation revenue sharing formula in Nigeria.
The bill was passed by the House on
January 21, 2004, during the speakership of Aminu Bello Masari, and also by the
Senate under Adolphus Wabara, before Obasanjo signed it on February 16, 2004.
Thus effectively abolishing offshore-onshore dichotomy. In 2005, the Supreme
reiterated this position in the case of Adamawa & 21 others vs FGN.
Our
Position
It is our observation that the whole
debate on resource control has been quite narrow and restricted to oil only.
The discovery of oil in other African countries and the development of
alternative power like shale oil, etc, is fast diminishing the premium value
our oil commands. To be forward thinking, we must emphasize that within the
Nigerian nation abound diverse natural resources, which, over the years, have
not constituted remarkable means for socioeconomic advancement.
Such resources,
which include cotton, groundnut, ginger, cocoa, oil palm, rubber, and even
solid minerals, can play significant roles in fostering rapid growth and
development in the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy.
Every state within each of the six geo-political zones is blessed with abundant
minerals that, if developed, can be the catalyst for socio-economic development.
It is our observation that the debate
about resource control has been coloured by regional interest and politics
instead of hard economic analysis and political viability. Moreover, the
problem with Nigeria is not just about resource control but with resource
management.
It is our belief that fiscal federalism
is a key component of any federal system world over. A cardinal principle and
essential ingredient of federalism is that no level of government is
subordinate to another, though there must be a central government for this
exercise. Some important features of federalism as noted earlier are: (i)
division of powers among levels of government (ii) coordinate supremacy of each
level of government (iii) financial autonomy of each level of government.
We therefore call for the various
federating units (six geo-political zones) to control the resources (both oil
and non-oil) located within their states (onshore only) and pay tax of 50% to
the central government. This was the case with Nigeria until the military
struck in 1966.
The offshore resources, being located
within Nigeria’s territorial should be controlled by the central government for
the common good of all.
Consequently, all intervention agencies
like the Niger Delta Development Agency, Amnesty Programme, Ministry of Niger
Delta and related agencies should be scrapped.
3.
Indigene-Settler Crisis
Background
Although Section 41(1) of the 1999
Constitution gives every citizen the right to “move freely throughout Nigeria
and to reside in any part thereof”, and section 42 discourages discrimination
based on tribe, language, sex, religion or political leaning, practices have,
however, developed that prejudice and polarize the citizenry based on their
putative “indigene” and “settler” status.
The absence of residency rights also
continues to weaken Nigeria’s integration 53 years after its independence and
largely accounts for the conflict between “indigenes” and “settlers” in
different parts of Nigeria.
Chapter 2 illustrates that the framers
of the Constitution intended unity to be a central theme. Section 15 (3)
outlines the states’ duty to promote “national integration.” It requires that
they: “(a) provide adequate facilities for and encourage free mobility of
people, goods and services throughout the Federation (b) secure full residence
rights for every citizen in all parts of the Federation (c) encourage
inter-marriage among persons from different places of origin, or of different
religious, ethnic or linguistic association or ties, and (d) promote or encourage
the formation of associations that cut across ethnic, linguistic, religious and
or other sectional barriers.” The Constitution, therefore, expressly guarantees
every citizen full residency rights, and encourages dialogue and interaction
among Nigeria’s ethnic groups. Furthermore, these residency rights are not
contingent on indigene status.
The 1999 Constitution states in section
147 (b) that “…the President shall appoint at least one minister from each
state, who shall be an indigene of such state”. This “Indigene Clause” is
problematic in that it uses indigene status as a factor in ministerial
selection, but does not explain what it means to be an indigene of a state.
Further, it leaves open the question of whether citizens who were given birth to
in a state different from their parents’ indigenous community or migrate to a
different community can become indigenes of that community after residing there
for a number of years.
The 1979 Constitution defined an
indigene as someone whose parents or grandparents belonged to an indigenous
community within the state of residence. The current Constitution, however,
omits this definition. Despite this lack of clarity, individuals and
communities use the “Indigene Clause” as justifications for discrimination against
citizens who live in a state other than their state of “origin,” especially
when it relates to those citizens’ ability to participate in the political
process.
Our
Position
For starters, it must be established
that every human being on earth is a settler in whichever community he claims
to hail from since his/her ancestors must have migrated there; only the year of
migration may differ. It is, therefore, fraudulent to call someone who migrated
to your community a settler and refuse accepting him despite that your
ancestors also migrated there, even if it means they were the first to get
there. Does it make sense that what makes you more indigenous to our community
than me is the fact that your ancestors migrated there 1,000 years ago and mine
did the same 100 years ago? One day, my 100 years will become your 1,000 years.
it is our view that due to the very
traditional nature of Nigerians, it may be unrealistic at this time of our
nationhood to remove ‘indigeneship’ from our vocabulary. In view of our earlier
submission that every human being on earth is a settler in whichever community
he claims to hail from since his/her ancestors must have migrated there, we
should therefore define ‘indigeneship’ to include place of birth, place of
marriage and place of residence for a minimum period of 10 years. Government
and private organisations should replace emphasis on state of origin to place
of birth. This will guarantee and promote inclusion amongst the citizenry.
The 1999 Constitution should be
amended. Specifically, a definition of an indigene should be inserted in the
constitution to define an indigene as someone whose parents, grandparents or
himself belonged to an indigenous community by birth, marriage or by residence
for a minimum of 10 years.
However, the issue of ‘indigeneship’
brings a two-way responsibility on you that went into a community and the
people you met there. Be ready to integrate and proudly identify with the
cultures and values you met; the people you met there should also be ready to accept
anyone who genuinely loves to be part of them.
4. Federal
Character
Background
Federal Character Principle is aimed at
the promotion of a sense of belonging in our country by eliminating or at least
minimizing domination resulting from imbalance in appointments and distribution
of government projects and benefits. It is aimed at inclusion.
The Federal Character Principle is
enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria where
it states in Section 14 (3) thus:
“The composition of the government of
the federation, or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be
carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and
the need to promote national unity, and also command national loyalty, thereby
ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or
from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or any of its
agencies”
The Federal Character principle is not
just peculiar to Nigeria, but obtainable in other jurisdictions in Europe,
America, Asia and even other African countries. It may be referred to by other
names (such as Affirmative Action, Quota System, Positive Action, etc.) but the
underlining principle -which is to give everyone a sense of belonging – is the
same. The term ‘affirmative action’ was first used by the American President
J.F. Kennedy in 1961 and later expanded by President Lyndon Johnson.
Our
Position
Whilst we admit the intention of the
draftsmen of the Constitution in including the principle of Federal Character
was lofty and noble, implementers of this principle have so much abused it to
the detriment of merit and professionalism.
It is important to state that Federal
Character does not and should not permit mediocrity or lack of merit. What
Federal Character says is if a particular recruitment programme requires 36
engineers with certain qualification (say Second Class Upper degree), the 36
candidates should be spread across the 36 states instead of employing the 36
applicants from just one or two states which some chief executives do. Federal
Character does not say that just because a state wants to be represented, then
an ND holder will fill a position required for a second class upper degree
holder or that a biology degree holder will now fill a position reserved for an
engineer. That is not what Federal Character is about.
To the extent that Federal Character is
not misused, we recommend that it should be retained in the Constitution.
5. Single
Tenure System
Background
Proponents of the single tenure system
argue that, from the nation’s political experience, the cost of conducting
elections every four years is so enormous that nothing is practically left in
the treasury for national infrastructure development.
The financial burden of contesting
election is so heavy on political office seekers that they spend all the time
in the first two years of office in recouping their investment; rather than
concentrating on the security and general wellbeing of Nigerians.
Worse still, the elected executives at
the three tiers of government hardly settled down to the task of governance
before the scheming for another term in office begins. In the process, there
will be no room for excellent performance in the first term to endear incumbent
officers to the electorate to support their re-election.
Meanwhile, opponents of single tenure
system express the fears that many of the abuses that beset the
country currently may worsen under a single tenure system, as the people would
be left with no electoral remedy against despicable chief executives at all
levels level. This is unlike the present system of four-year renewable term
where the elected official must go back to the electorate to test his
performance and acceptability.
Our
Position
We reject the single tenure proposition
and state that it is laden with more complications and problems than the double
tenure system it seeks to cure.
We support a two term tenure system BUT
one that is NOT CONSECUTIVE. A non-consecutive two tem tenure system checks the
abuse of incumbency factor during elections. An elected official who has
completed a 1st tenure will have to compulsorily set aside but can re-contest
after an intervening tenure by someone else. This keeps the incentive for good
performance by elected official and removes the curse of abusing incumbency by
a sitting official as a do-or-die tactics of seeking re-election.
At this juncture, I must commend
members of my think thank namely Blossom Nnodim, Nasir Galadanchi, Japheth
Omojuwa, Umar Musa Ikhilor, Linus Okorie, Ibrahim Wala, Alexander Mamchika
Atta, Haruna Abdullahi, Ahmed Terab, Audu Maikori, Kola Oyeneyin and Vera Ibe
for their wonderful inputs and in helping collate the opinion polls from the
youth.
—HASSAN RILWAN is a delegate
representing Youth Organisations at the National Conference.
@hassan_rilwan. engagehassan@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment