Blazing the Trail: Laying the Foundation for True Federalism and Decentralization of Power

December 2011

Culled from "The Search for True Federalism: Balancing Feudal Interests with Southern Greed and Opportunism in Nigeria." 

“The federal character principle enshrined in the 1979 Constitution is predicated upon the view of Nigeria as a house on four pillars, the four pillars being the Hausa/Fulanis, Igbos, Yorubas and the Minorities, and that the edifice will begin to wobble and its stability imperiled if the headship of the federal government is not made to move around these four groups. Nigerian unity demands acceptance and commitment by all to the principle of rotation, i.e., that ordinarily, no two persons from the same group should hold the headship of the federal government in succession. Unless the federal character principle is applied in order to rotate the headship of the federal government among the four groups, its application at the lower levels will not be effective in securing national unity. The danger of disintegration and of demands for a confederal arrangement will continue to stare us in the face.” “The Igbos in the Context of Modern Government and Politics in Nigeria: A Call for Self-Examination and Self-Correction,, By Prof. Ben O. Nwabueze SAN, 1985 Ahiajoku Lecture.

The call for a confederal system of government (Confederacy), or a Sovereign National Conference (SNC), is receiving unprecedented momentum in the blogosphere of late following the upsurge in the bombing spree credited to Boko Haram and its affiliates. The demand is not new. It began with the late Chief Olu Aboderin, seconded by the late Chief Bisi Onabanjo in the 80s, and given a new meaning in the 90s by the late Chief Anthony Enahoro and other prominent social activists, too numerous to mention here.  While Aboderin and Onabanjo called for a confederal system of government (where the component units are more powerful than the central government), Enahoroh and his fellow social cum political activists, originated the concept of a Sovereign National Conference (a dialogue, kind of) after the annulment of June 12, 1993. That election was won by Chief Moshood Abiola, the Aare Onakakanfo of Yoruba land.

Whatever the semantic colouration of SNC, it is an expression of anger motivated in part by the growing disillusionment within the educated elite groups over the inexcusable failure of our elected and unelected leaders in the management of our political system and our oil wealth, especially at the national level. Surprisingly, though, the demand remains an exercise in intellectual voyaging, lacking congressional support and refusing to gain mainstream support or traction in the real world. Cogent as the motives may seem, until the apostles of SNC or confederal arrangement develop a winnable argument and articulate how dismantling this country in line with pre-amalgamation will eradicate corruption and leadership crisis (greed and poverty of ideas), the demand will remain, as it has always been, a futile endeavour.

It is a truism that the reactionary feudal elements in the north and by extension, the military wing of that conservative power block, succeeded in underdeveloping Nigeria because of the persecution complex and willful silence of most of our southern military officers since the Kaduna Nzeogwu’s coup. Followed by the greed and opportunism of the reactionary elements within the South's political establishment since the creation of this country. Most disturbing is the complete absence of southerner academics and intellectuals in the face of blatant, retrogressive, and ethnically motivated socioeconomic policies successively pursued and implemented at the centre by the Jubrin Aminu of the north in cahoots with the faceless Kaduna Mafia and present-day Arewa Consultative Forum. 

While most southern columnists, opinion leaders, and public affairs commentators tend to impress us with their semantic prowess, re-enacting publicly available information as opinion; northern intellectuals and technocrats continued to shape our national policy debate as well as the policy implications of our laws and regulations to suit whatever purpose they deem fit at any given time.

Most often, when southerners are not sleeping on their rights, they are naively or purposely acting out the Northern scripts in the worst form imaginable. They do that not necessarily on account of patriotism, but for self-promotion and greed, or directly based on intellectual puritanism, Dr. Chuba Okadigbo and Dr. Walter Ofanagor, for instance. Northerners set the machinery in motion, only for greedy southern politicians and administrators to turn worthy ambassadors of feudal and retrogressive policies.

Be that as it may, we cannot have a viable union or strong federalism in the absence of some form of physical mechanisms or some kind of general physical structures that every citizen can tap into on an equal basis and at all levels of government, from the clerical to the presidential level. There is no gainsaying the fact that present anger would have been averted or mitigated at least if southern military officers and political leaders who served under the northern-controlled governments showed strength in the face of fire. 

Nevertheless, I would like to add that, time and time again, the north, successively represented at the centre by a coterie of predominantly ethnic chauvinists, with the active support of the vocal and lawless religious extremists at the fringe, has been an unfaithful partner since the amalgamation. It has always been all about the north – what the north wants and what is suitable for the north before what is right for Nigeria. For instance, they receive more money in federal allocations for the education sector than the south, even though they constitute less than 20% of the entire population of students in Nigeria.

It is profoundly ironic that Aguiyi Ironsi died, because he introduced a Unitary System of Government, which is today the norm in Nigeria. Some historians and public affairs commentators consider the promulgation of the Unitary system naive. However, Ironsi and his advisers then firmly believed that, given the mistrust and the volatile political situation generated by the assassination of the Premier, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and the Sadauna of Sokoto, Almadu Bello during Nzeogu's coup, a unitary system of government would facilitate unity, peace, and tranquillity, and ultimately, calm nerves in the north. They were wrong. 

The north, represented by the often-referred-to 'young military officers,' thought otherwise; they considered a unitary system of government another form of dominance, introduced by the Ironsi regime to silence and colonise the north. Who would blame them? Zik ran away, and the Premier of the Eastern Region was in a safe location, while Balewa, Sadauna, and Akintola were killed. I am not a historian; nevertheless, I have no doubt concluding that that was never Nzeogu's intention. Somebody somewhere betrayed Nzeogu and his friends, thereby defeating the purpose and essence of the coup. If, on the other hand, Nzeogu and his friends provided cover for Zik and Okpara to evade the assassin bullets, but went ahead and killed Balewa, Akintola, and Sadauna, then the coup was nothing but a sectional campaign designed to propagate Igbos' dominance. I live that to Historians. 

Today, we are supposedly a federation, or allegedly, a federal system, but in reality, we are operating a unitary system of government (what Ironsi died for). The centralised model was conceived by the government headed by northern military officers through the creation of more states, states that cannot fend for themselves and states that substantially depend on the government at the centre for their survival.  That is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they developed and settled for the concept of a Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Must we now turn around and accuse IBB and Abacha of creating more (weak) states and local governments to develop a stronger and domineering central government to subjugate the south, as argued by the young northern military officers when Ironsi introduced a unitary arrangement? Truth is, their intention was not to dominate, but to redistribute wealth in favour of the northern region - the more the number of local governments and states created in a particular area, the more national wealth that goes to that specific region monthly.  

One could also argue that they intended to bring the government closer to the people and facilitate grassroots development. Whatever your interpretation is or was, one thing remains apparent: the unintended consequence turned out to be structurally and politically devastating to the entire fabric of our federal system. The process eroded the genuine concept of federalism because the new states and local governments created, as well as the old states, cannot stand on their own, without the direct support of the now powerful central government. That is an indisputable fact. And that is now our reality - a unitary model at its finest - a development that Southerners now find very unsettling.

True federalism is about equal distribution of power and responsibilities between the government at the centre and the semi-independent component states and the local councils at the lowest end of the political ladder. That is one of the fundamental elements of a federal system of government. In sum, the ability of the component states to manage their own affairs and resources and regulate for the security and well-being of those within their geographical and political boundaries is one of the primary attributes of a federal system of government.

Today, states are like local governments or counties - they collect taxes, levies, and fines from market women and motor park operators, and no more. States within a federal system do more than collect levies and fees; they are mini-nations, with all the power and privileges that come with it. They control, exploit, and manage the mineral resources in their domain in collaboration with the federal government in licensing, permitting, and regulatory aspects. That is what is missing in Nigeria. The states cannot perform, and the central government is becoming more and more powerful and domineering.

Federalism was at its best in Nigeria before the discovery of oil in the Niger Delta. Then, we had groundnut pyramids, timber, rubber, palm oil, cocoa, cotton, and coal, just to name a few. They were our major foreign exchange earners. As long as we have free money flowing from crude oil to the central government, we will never have true federalism in Nigeria.

The apparent truth is that, if the northern political leaders and the military elite groups had judiciously utilized the wealth they cornered for the development, training, and education of the majority of the children within the Northern region since the end of the civil war, the mass illiteracy, lawlessness, and hopelessness ravaging that part of the country today would have been adequately contained by now. And by extension, the principle of federal character and the quota system (that created inequality in our political order, which southerners resent) would have been avoided, and religious bigotry would not have been that rampant.

In spite of everything, the north is not an Eldorado – not everyone is a beneficiary of the stolen wealth or the stolen governments. The Northern poor and the generality of talakawa are victims of the system, just as those of us in the south. They need help. We all need help. This country should not divide. We need a new attitude. That is why I started this blog. I will mention the name(s) and point the finger where possible because I have the facts.

The deafening silence from prominent leaders of thought in the north and the nonchalant approach exhibited by the vocal Arewa Consultative Forum since the emergence of Boko Haram support the argument that the answer that we seek is not in disintegration, but in leadership change. Reason: The victims of the carnage are on their own. ACF members are more interested in building a family empire - a business empire for the privileged few, not for the vulnerable talakawa who congregate at places easily targeted by Boko Haram.

Now is the time for a new start, to reminisce and take stock of what we did not do right as individuals and as a group and as a race. And to develop a framework for a new beginning, for equal rights and protection, and for impartial deliberations to serve one great purpose – the greatness of Nigeria.

I reject the ‘destroying this temple’ (Nigeria) narrative of our bloggers, opinion leaders, and writers. I would rather we focus on a unifying and nation-building story - doing precisely what Chief Obafemi Awolowo did – educate everyone and provide for everyone the right incentives for empowerment, for industrialisation, and entrepreneurship. And simultaneously, do precisely what Mallam Nassir El’Ruffai did at FCT- clean up the Temples, without regard to race, religion, and class and make it (Nigeria) WHOLE again, without bloodshed.