By Jaye Gaskia
The contrived crisis
which blew up and raised sensational storm over the report of the committee on
devolution of powers at the recently concluded national conference brings to
light in clear relief the fixation of the ruling elites and its various
factions on unfettered access to the treasury in order to enable their treasury
looting capabilities and dispensation.
What was the crisis
really about? And why did I describe it as contrived, and deliberately
self-made? First, some necessary clarifications; when Nigeria’s ruling class
describes Political Restructuring and Devolution of Powers as contentious
issues, they do not have in mind the interests of ordinary citizens; rather
they have in mind, the renewed antagonistic contention over access to the
treasury, and therefore to our collective wealth, which any changes to the
structure or the nature of power relations will engender among the various
factions and fractions of the ruling class.
So for instance, when
the issue of Local Government Autonomy is discussed, it is never about whether
LGAs are enough, enabled to perform their duties etc, but more about whether
any changes to the Local Government process and structure from in terms of
numbers and functions will translate into more or lesser resources allocated
from the Federal center to the ruling elites. So the question becomes will
these mean fewer resources to the Federal government and the State governments;
and more resources available to those who control the state government and the
politics of the state including who becomes Local Government officials?
Let us explore this
local government autonomy issue further. A Federation is always a relationship
between two tiers of government, who constitute the Federating Units and the
Federal Government; it does not limit the number of administrative levels to
these two tiers, but implies the existence of further administrative levels
particularly within the Federating Units, in this case the states.
It is in this light
that for instance there is no contradiction between supporting Local Government
Autonomy [within the federating units], and insisting that our federation must
be a proper federation, whose relationships are defined between the Federal
Center and the federating units, that is the two tiers of government within the
federation.
That is why those who
seek a radical transformation of our country in the interests of our people,
pushed for the National Conference to adopt the two tier federation, with the
states as the federating units, while also ensuring the retention and further
strengthening of constitutional guarantees for the existence of a system of
democratically elected local government within states as the federating units.
Section 7 of the
present constitution already guarantees local government existence and
autonomy, although it has always been observed in the breach by the ruling
elites. This constitutional breach has been made possible because there are no
constitutionally guaranteed penalties.
Conference has now proposed provisions
for such penalties, including not being able to access state allocation from
the federation account where a state has no system of local governments, and or
where such systems exist but are not democratically elected. Furthermore it
also makes absence of a system of democratically elected local government
system an impeachable offence, while also making section 7 with its new
provisions justiciable.
So contrary to the
claims of those among the elites who wish to deliberately misinform in order to
continue to protect their control over the resource allocation process [which
is presently three tiered] which the listing of the 774 LGAs in the present
constitution makes possible for them; the decisions of conference after stiff
opposition, not only ensures the guaranteed existence of local governments, but
also ensures that states can easily create as many local governments as a state
may require without this being dependent on the federal allocation formula or
on the concurrence of other states, since federal allocation will no longer be
tied to the number of LGAs existing in a state and listed in the constitution.
A new or
fundamentally amended constitution dealing with this structural problem will
also include provisions which provides that every state must by law establish a
revenue mobilization and allocation committee, which shall determine the
allocation formula between the state and its local governments, and which shall
oversee the disbursement of this allocation; with the proviso that no state
shall allocate less than 40% of the total revenue accruing to it for its local
governments.
Nothing in this new
proposed structure excludes the states from creating any number of
administrative levels below the local government structure including in fact
having community governments if they so desire.
To buttress the point
that the establishing the appropriate structure of governance within the
federation and the appropriate nature of power to be given to each tier of
government and level of administration is not as contentious as the fight by
the elites over the resources accruing to the federation and its units; it is
important to note that resolutions had already been adopted on establishment of
state police, state court of appeal as apex court at state level, removal of a
number of issues either from the exclusive [federal list] to the concurrent
[joint state and federal list] as well as to the residual [exclusive state
list]. The import of all of these is that the polity will be significantly
restructured and power within the federation significantly devolved.
So it was really such
a self-serving contradiction introduced by the elite over the derivation and
revenue sharing formulas, or over what I have consistently described as the
appropriate and acceptable treasury looting formula for the ruling elites and
its various factions and fractions.
Let me explain further;
in proposing significant levels of political restructuring [including
provisions for states to merge and for states to be created], as well as for
sharing power among the tiers of government within the federation by
significantly devolving power from the center to the federating units;
conference already envisaged and proposed altered revenue allocation formula
between the federation and its federating units. Thus from its present share of
52%, the committee proposed a reduction to 42%, while other proposals also came
during the debate to reduce this further to 40% or in fact 35% as the share of
the federal government.
The implication of
this is that what will now accrue to the federating units [in this case the
states] will be either 58%, 60% or 65%; all with the proviso that no state
shall allocate less than 40% of its total share of revenue from the federation
account to its democratically elected system of local governments.
This point is
important, because it means more resources will flow to states and less will be
retained by the federal government which is performing less functions.
Now in comes the
controversy over the Derivation percentage from proceeds of exploitation of oil
and gas resources. Conference already affirmed that the derivation principle
apply to all minerals whether solid, liquid or gaseous; and had furthermore
already resolved that the provisions of the Minerals’ Act which are more
progressive should apply to all minerals including petroleum resources.
To ease solid
minerals development conference had also recommended increasing the
constitutionally established solid minerals development fund from its present
1.68% of the federation account to 5%., with proviso for state counterpart
funding at a level to be agreed between states and the federal government for
states to access the funds. Again this means more resources deployed to be used
at the state levels, giving that solid minerals have now been proposed to be
moved from the exclusive to the concurrent list.
The agitation for increase
in the level of derivation from its current 13% is therefore to be understood
also within this context. Conference had reached an initial consensus proposal
for a 5% increase to 18%. And this would have been okay, because the reduction
in the amount of funds available in the federation account for allocation to
states arising from this proposed 5% increase would have been offset by the
more than 10% increase in the allocation to states, as well as by the nearly 4%
increase in the solid minerals development fund.
Besides, over time,
and with the development of solid minerals exploitation across the country, a
situation will be created whereby states will be able to earn significant
incomes from solid minerals and would all be in a position to increase the
level of revenue accruing to them through increased quantity of the funds
coming in through derivation.
Significantly too,
the proposal to increase the National Stabilisation fund from the present 1.5%
of the share accruing to the federal government from the federation account to
5%, and its disbursement to meet the challenges posed by instability and
insurgency in the North East and other parts of the country would also have
meant more resources available to states.
In proposing increase
in derivation fund from 13% to 18% conference had also proposed that no less
than 40 to 50% of funds accruing to states through the derivation fund must be
spent on the communities where the exploitation is taking place and affected by
the exploitation of the resources.
One would therefore
have thought that these compromises in the interests of citizens would have
been acceptable to the various factions of the ruling elites; but alas blinded
by their own greed and selfish interests, motivated only by their own calculations
of immediate gains or losses to treasuries over which they had absolute looting
control, they were unable to agree to these forward looking and people centered
consensus.
Even those who
claimed to be agitating for increase in the derivation percentage on behalf of
the people would not agree to, and recoiled from agreeing to a structure and
process that will ensure that communities directly benefitted, and not just the
elites cohering around the state government apparatuses.
It is this acrimonious
contestation and inability to agree to these allocation principles and
percentage shares, that is revealed it its entirety the humongous scope and
scale of the gluttonous greed, rapacious selfishness, and light-fingered
brigandage of this congenitally corrupt
and administratively inept ruling class.
It is why we are once
again forced to reach the conclusion that this ruling class is incapable of
transforming this country, that it is historically incapable for making a
success of the Nation building project, and that our survival as a viable
nation depends entirely on the overthrowing and supplanting from power of this
unpatriotic and un nationalistic ruling class, and the overturning of the self-enriching
system over which it presides.
It is why we must
hasten to take steps to Take Back Nigeria, by building a platform that can
ensure our Transition From Protest To Power.
It is our Country,
Damn It; Let us organise and mobilise ourselves to Take It Back From These
Bands of Pyrates.
Follow
me on Twitter: @jayegaskia & @[DPSR]protesttopower; and interact with me on
FaceBook: Jaye Gaskia & Take Back Nigeria.
No comments:
Post a Comment