Where are the President’s Men? The Challenges President Jonathan of Nigeria Cannot Ignore.

President George Bush ruled America for eight years, in spite of the much-satirised communication deficiencies. President Bush had the ultra-partisan Vice President (Dick Cheney), a man full of bile and venom and a team of White House operatives who do not have problem slamming members of the opposition and the news media below the belt. And of course, the unconditional support of FOX News Network - the mouthpiece of the conservatives and, by extension, the Republican Party. They succeeded in convincing the American people and Congress that Millionaires deserve a tax break, even when America was fighting two wars. And they made Senator John Kerry - a man who fought for his country and was awarded the Purple Heart - defend his patriotism when he ran unsuccessfully against President Bush in the 2004 Presidential election.

President Clinton had Paul Begala, George Stephanopoulos, Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta, Erskine Bowles, Dee Dee Myers, James Carville, just to name a few. These guys were not Ministers, PhDs or Professors while serving under President Clinton. They were highly dedicated Technocrats and policy wonks who, as die-hard supporters of the President, spat fire and brimstone at political opponents systematically and with devastating precision. They had a firm grasp of how President Clinton’s mind works, his vision for the American people and where he is going. They know the issues, they have the facts, and they are on top of the game. In the height of President Clinton's impeachment trial, Mr. James Carville came out on TV to declare war on Kenneth Starr - the callous Independent Counsel who shamelessly turned the Whitewater investigation into a sex scandal.

Granted, President Jonathan cannot be President Clinton, but his administration certainly needs a mature voice, not press releases or rejoinders, but a policy wonk who has a firm grasp of what the PDP wants to accomplish and where President Jonathan is taking the country.  I want to read Vice President Sambo's view and position on specific issues. I want to read from the Economic Adviser. I want to see the face of the President's Energy Czar on TV, explaining before the nation how the scams that depleted the subsidy regime funds were so easy to execute and how the President and his administration want to fix the problems. Nigerians are tired of Press Releases by the Media Adviser to the President. They want to see action.

The Chief Press Secretary or Media Adviser to the President is what it says it is – he is not a politician or a policy person, he is the voice and spokesperson of the President on developing issues. He is not the economic adviser, and certainly not the energy adviser or energy czar of the administration.

The Director of Communication is the politician, the policy guru, who knows the nitty-gritty of governance and the position of the party on specific issues. He or she manages the flow of information, the talking points within and outside of Aso Rock. Mr. Abati is doing a good job as a media adviser. He is a news analyst – a writer; he is not your Odia Ofeinmu, Duro Onabule, Chinweizu, Stanley Macebuh, Paul Begala, James Carville, or Ari Fleischer.   He is certainly not your Chuba Okadigbo or Uba Ahmed. You don’t have to like these two guys, but they served President Shehu Shagari very well in dealing with members of the opposition. So, where are President Jonathan's men?

I remember in 1993 when President Bill Clinton had to send his Vice President, Al Gore, to CNN's Larry King Live to debate the garrulous Ross Perot. I remember the debate vividly. I was a student in Nigeria. As an unrepentant admirer and supporter of President Bill Clinton, I didn't want to miss any bit of the debate - I went home to watch the debate live because there was no Satellite Cable Receiver in our dormitory at Igbosere, Lagos. I was apprehensive. I honestly thought that President Clinton was committing political suicide for allowing Al Gore to debate Mr. Perot, given what Mr. Perot did to President George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Presidential 3-way debates. I remember staying awake until 3 a.m. Nigeria: Time to be able to watch the debate live in our living room in Lagos, Nigeria, along with the American East Coast audience at 9 p.m. Eastern Time in the USA.

As calculated by President Clinton and his new administration, the debate was the best thing that happened to them in their first year in office. Al Gore decimated Ross Perot beyond redemption. At the end of the debate, I concluded that Mr. Perot is done for good in American politics. As predicted, Mr. Perot disappeared, not only from American politics but from the news media as well.  Not surprisingly, President Clinton and his administration had a fulfilled first term in office.

I am not asking for President Jonathan's men or any President to descend on their political opponents and decimate them, but to raise public awareness of what the administration is doing and where it is going on specific issues that matter to Nigerians the most. Enough of Press Releases. It shows naiveté in public affairs commentary.

Follower-ship is about trust. People must believe in you. Without that, no amount of paid adverts or press releases would buy public sympathy and acceptance. Even in faraway Nigeria and in the very first year of President Bill Clinton in the US, I could feel his passion for real leadership and his genuine commitment to doing good for the people. Nigerians must feel that you care. In 1992, not wanting to be left out of the Clinton phenomenon, I had to risk my School Fees to buy a Satellite Cable Receiver at Alaba Market and had it installed in my elder brother's house in Lagos. In that case, whenever I am home on the weekend or during the holiday, I always have President Clinton on top of my hand.  Call it fanaticism, if you want, but I call it loyalty.

Growing up, I had to buy every book, magazine, article, journal, etc., written by Chief Obafemi Awolowo as well as those written by other people about him to have an independent knowledge of him besides his accomplishments and public service credentials as told by my Mother - a huge fan and supporter of the sage. I became an admirer of Awo in no time, not letting any opportunity slip by without standing for him, defending him, or setting the record straight, or injecting stories of his accomplishments into discussions, with a convincing pride. It is not fanaticism; it is trust in the man and trust in his leadership.

Governance is a fiduciary responsibility – it connotes a duty of care - an utmost good faith on the part of the elected representatives and their paid special advisers. The President should look inward and ask his men the simple question: Are we living up to our promise, and are we serving the Presidency and the people as expected of a prudent fiduciary? Of what political merit is retaining a Special Adviser if his or her counsel is of little or no relevance in your decision-making process?

This administration has a communication problem, and that, to a significant degree, is responsible for the unguided utterances often credited to the President. Adding to that, President Jonathan does not command the sort of media respect and support that President Obama has. Therefore, it is left to him and his administration to find their voice and find it fast in the crazy cacophony occasioned by Rep Lawan's report on the petroleum subsidy scam.

Granted, it is not humanly possible to guide against gaffe at impromptu press briefings, but only the President, by himself, and himself only, can develop the craftsmanship of President Bill Clinton and the eloquence and audacity of President Barack Obama. It requires constant reading. And it is about knowledge. The New York Times is a must-read for every American President first thing in the morning.

President Jonathan can elevate his game and relevance by skimming at least three Nigerian national newspapers every morning before proceeding to work. Adding to that, a copy of The Economist magazine must always be by his bedside. Not just to keep abreast of the latest developments in the business World at home and abroad, but for an overall philosophical and intellectual enrichment.  The President can also arrange for mock debates, at least once every two months, with his closest confidants on both domestic and international issues as if he is preparing to debate President Barack Obama or planning a tête-à-tête with his number one nemesis - Mr. Sonala Olumhense. I am not being sarcastic; the President should endeavour to embrace the concept of content management and transcribe it into politics and governance; enmesh himself in philosophical reawakening, focusing on the nitty-gritty of political economy and public affairs.

When the President's men are missing, only the President can up his game. There is no shortcut to vision. Right now, something isn't right in Nigeria. And the people are yearning for a change, looking for a great leader to lead and restore hope in a dispirited populace.

It’s all about knowing little about most things; how to communicate, improve on what you know and how to express yourself in simple, yet mature syntax. It's all about awareness of what great leaders do and what they read. Ask President Bill Clinton. President Jonathan has the resources and men and women to transform himself and the mission of his administration and do for Nigeria what President Bill Clinton did for the American people and what Awo did for the Western Region of Nigeria. It's all about the reading because it makes the man.

NB

I also believe that President Obama's men are missing in action. This is the time to stand out and stand partisan. This is the time to put a lie to all the Republican lies and mudslinging. This is the time to talk about Governor Romney's performance, or lack of it, while he was the Governor of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  

A Misguided Judgment: How President Jonathan and His Advisers Squandered a Golden Opportunity

Introduction

Over the years, despite the scepticism or suspended judgment that I have in the petroleum subsidy scheme in Nigeria, I have always resisted the temptation to engage myself in the arithmetic of the funding methodology for an obvious reason: I hate Mathematics. Nevertheless, I am quite familiar with the basic principles of economics and strategic management. In a similar vein, I have a good understanding of the fundamentals of subsidies as they relate to pricing and competitive markets.  Thus, it is reasonable to assume that when the government intervenes in the market and helps to defray the cost of production or part of it, it makes the final product less expensive for the final consumers to buy than it would have been without the intervention or the subsidy. In the area of export, it enhances the competitive edge of similar products by other suppliers in the same market, foreign or domestic, because the subsidised products are cheaper to buy.

Sadly, those assumptions do not hold water in our (Nigerian) domestic petroleum market in terms of availability and pricing. The more funding our government injects into the petroleum subsidy scheme, the scarcer petroleum products remain and the more expensive the final prices are at the gas pump. In hindsight, what I take away from the petroleum subsidy scam in Nigeria is that before we condemn the usual suspect - international financial institutions that we love to hate. In our reckoning, always recommending deadly economic pills as a panacea for our sluggish economic growth, we must first ask ourselves whether the patients (African countries) administer the drugs as prescribed by Doctors (the international financial institutions).

During the sit-in protest that heralded the reported removal of the petroleum subsidy by President Goodluck Jonathan in January this year, my concern was the long-term implications of the removal. I supported the removal during the "Occupy Nigeria" protest, believing in my mind that something is inherently wrong somewhere in the subsidy regime that is preventing us from reaping the intended reward of the subsidy. The inability of the administration and those before it to eliminate the loopholes in the regulatory framework makes the continuation of the subsidy economically imprudent. No one knows where the money is going. Not even the President.

On that ground, I took a stand in favour of removal and made my position public via my comments on social media. My position was (1), if subsidy must exit, it should be handled by a separate and independent government institution and not private companies as presently the case, and (2) that, economically speaking, it is unwise and unsustainable for the Federal government to continue to subsidize importation of fuel on behalf of private companies, while they reap millions of dollars in profit. Finally, I made a reference to the current trends in the disbursement of student loans in the US, introduced by President Obama - an initiative that has saved the administration billions of dollars in student loans since its inception. Please see my comments at the end of this piece, reproduced courtesy of Sahara Reporters.

Missed Opportunity

In hindsight, if President Jonathan had a firm grasp of his energy policy and governance in general, April 2012 would have been the finest moment in his short but eventful political career. The recent revelation by the House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime, detailing the large-scale fraud in the management of the petroleum subsidy funds by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and the Petroleum Product Price and Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), apparently, is a vindication of President Jonathan. Surprisingly, or maybe naively, the President and his Advisers didn't buy into Representative Farouk Lawan's report. They saw friction instead of triumph and vindication.

The same administration that argued vigorously in January that funding the petroleum subsidy is no longer sustainable because of the existence of a cabal scamming the subsidy regime of available funds, couldn't fathom a nexus between their proposition and the report of the House of Representatives. 

A month after the release of the report by the Speaker of the House, the President and his Advisers were still searching for what to make of the report. They (Attorney General and the President) told the world that the report is a 'fact finding’ and ‘we will react appropriately a soon as the investigation is concluded.’

It remains very troubling that the administration couldn't link their “unproven cabal in the subsidy regime” to the subsequent discovery of massive fraud in the regulatory bodies by the House of Representatives to justify their January argument and convince the Nigerian people that they were right while the demonstrators were wrong. I feel like crying for the inept bunch.

If the administration had taken that stand, Nigerians wouldn't have had a problem connecting the dots, to wit, that the frauds that the President referred to, actually do exist. Thus, making the continuation of the funding inadvisable. They didn't make that argument! Rather, they want to punch holes in the House report with a view to discrediting Farouk and discarding the report.

That is not unusual in Nigeria.  The only difference this time is that Nigerians are not buying the silence. Unless President Jonathan and his Advisers have a good understanding of the subsidy, the scams, and the frauds that the rest of us do not have, I want to conclude that, given what we know so far, the President is not getting the right counsel and certainly not making the right judgment.

Analysis: Blinded Judgment or Shielding the Cabal?

The Farouk Lawan’s report, objectively speaking, vindicates President Jonathan on the issue of cabal scamming the Subsidy regime. Why the administration did not take advantage of the report is beyond my understanding. From all indications, it is either that the attempted removal scheme was haphazardly assembled and no one close to the President comprehends the general import and the underlying economic philosophy, or simply put, the administration lacks depth in communication management. Otherwise, they would have been able to see the nexus between the "unsustainable" argument they made in January and the report of "endemic, sleaze, incompetence, entrenched inefficiency and scam" in the regulatory regime as revealed by the House Committee.

To a reasonable administration, the report, no doubt, presents reasonable grounds for reasonable talking points for the President to create a superior public policy mindset that is presently a challenge for Mr. President. And then, leverage that to develop a coherent narrative for eventual removal of the subsidy in future, if ever the need arises. They never did.

Twice, the President and his Advisers failed in the petroleum subsidy debate.

First, they couldn't frame plausible arguments for the removal, and second, when the outcome of an investigation of the House of Representatives that they were not a party to and did not approve of seemingly lent weight to their position, they developed cold feet and backed away. Unbelievable.

Without missing words, it is politically and strategically naive, and patently timid on the part of the President’s men not to dwell on the removal debacle and the "Occupy Nigeria" crusade that took place in January as well as the subsequent discovery of frauds in the regulatory regime to elevate the credibility of the Presidency at home and abroad. Unless the President is telling the whole World that he never really had a genuine reason to gamble with the subsidy removal as he did in January 2012.

According to the AGF, the report of the House of Representatives is simply a ‘fact-finding’ investigation and therefore, not conclusive of any criminal conduct on the part of marketers to warrant expedited response from the Presidency. Calling the House report a fact-finding exercise is a systematic calculation to trivialise it for eventual rejection.  Why do we have a court system in the country? Why do we have a separation of powers? The AGF and EFCC, on the one hand, and the Executive (the Presidency), on the other, do not need to wait for the Senate to act or conclude its investigation before initiating their own investigation or making an arrest.

If AGF cannot see anything of value in the House report, then it is reasonable to conclude that the President and his negotiation team lied to the country when they claimed in January that there is a cabal frustrating the subsidy initiative. On the other hand, if the seeming rejection is to protect the same "cabal" that the President vilified in January, then this administration wasted a golden opportunity to shine.

The credibility of the President is at stake. And whatever energy was left in the President's commitment to the war against corruption has been dissipated. As events unfold as predicted - failing to indict the thieves - the administration should brace for an outrage from Nigerians at home and abroad.

Furthermore, failing to make an arrest, or at least, suspend some of the top personnel at NNPC and PPPRA, given the magnitude of the scam and the egregious nature of the profligacy in the two departments, is an indictment on the part of the Presidency. And it manifests complicity. The burden of proof is now on the President to convince Nigerians that he or his administration is not part of the scam.

Conclusion:

The importance of a subsidy cannot be overemphasised. The economic and social benefits are enormous if the funds are judiciously managed. Prices of petroleum and related products are always on the rise because the funds meant to stabilise the market and lower prices at the gas pump are either stolen or diverted to spurious use by the management and staff of NNPC and PPPRA in collaboration with bogus petroleum marketers. Therefore, it is incumbent on the part of this administration to arrest and prosecute those who made the realisation of the intent and purposes of the petroleum subsidy in Nigeria, unreachable.

The argument by AGF that they do not want a repeat of what happened in the trial of some rogue Bankers is indirectly an indictment of EFCC, the Police, and ICPC. Because the report of the House of Representatives is well-detailed, thorough and conclusive of malfeasance.

Mr. President, orientation is over, and it’s time to govern. Your Presidency says something is wrong with the management of petroleum subsidy funds, yet EFCC, Justice Department, SSS, Ministry of Petroleum and Finance didn't consider it prudent to initiate an investigation since January. 

The truth is that, if the House of Representatives had not intervened, the Presidency would not have considered investigating the cabal a political priority. That is the Nigerian story since the Second Republic and throughout the successive military regimes. The outcome of the ongoing investigation of the subsidy scam is what will make or mar President Jonathan's Presidency. The President must choose the part of righteousness, the part of glory; stay on the side of the people and cooperate with EFCC to rid NNPC/PPPRA of corruption and shenanigans. The President has nothing to lose by following the part of righteousness. Let the revolution be televised. If the Presidency does that, the entire Armed Forces, the Police, the Security agencies, and the Nigerian people will stand by it. It is a choice between good and evil.

Addendum:

My posts on SAHARA REPORTERS during the Subsidy Protest.

In a news report by SaharaReporters.com, titled “Sorry Nigerians, But The Fuel Price Increase Has Come To Stay – Government”, published January 4, 2012 - 21:40, I posted this comment.

Submitted by Hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com (not verified) on January 5, 2012 - 16:12.

“Hitherto, in the US, Uncle Sam used to provide grants and loans to university students through the banks – they guarantee the loan, while the banks reap the interest accruing from the loans. That is no longer the case; the Department of Education, through the Financial Aid Offices in all the universities, now prepare the loans and grants and disburses them directly to students. If Uncle Sam and the Department of Education are to bear the cost and forbearance of the loans or, in the case of default by borrowing students, they should as well take advantage of the interest being paid on the loans by students.” “It is economically stupid for the Federal government to continue to subsidise the importation of fuel for people in the private sector, while they reap millions of dollars in profit.”

The following day, I posted a similar message on Saharareporters discussion board, titled, ‘There is Sense in the Removal.” In it, I urged President Jonathan to emulate President Obama’s new regulation in the disbursement and management of student loans in the US, adding that it is uneconomical for our government to continue the subsidy funding while private companies are in charge.

A few minutes later, another blogger responded to my post and questioned the effectiveness of special advisers to the President in the subsidy debate. Below, you will find just the title of the article originally written by Dr. Reuben Abati for the Guardian Newspaper, when he was not in government, reproduced by Sahara Reporters to lampoon him, as well as my post and that of the blogger mentioned earlier.

“We Shall Start Stoning The Economists In Official Corridors.” – By Reuben Abati In 2009 Posted: January 5, 2012 - 01:34 by Sahara Reporters

See Part I and Part 11 of my post, below:

"There is sense in the Removal" - Part 1

Submitted by Hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com (not verified) on January 5, 2012 - 16:07.

"Hitherto, in the US, Uncle Sam used to provide grants and loans to university students through the banks – they guarantee the loan, while the banks reap the interest accruing from the loans. That is no longer the case; the Department of Education, through the Financial Aid Offices in all the universities, now prepare the loans and grants and disburses them directly to students. If Uncle Sam and the Department of Education are to bear the cost and forbearance of the loans, or in the case of default by borrowing students, they should also take advantage of the interest being paid on the loans by students. Our Federal Government has problems with communication - we speak complex English in Nigeria, even when we are sending a message to a wider audience, It is economically stupid for the Federal government to continue to subsidize importation of fuel for the people in the private sectors, while they reap millions of dollars in profit."

"There is sense in the Removal" - Part 2

Submitted by Hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com (not verified) on January 5, 2012 - 16:06.

"What the Fed must do, therefore, is to transfer the importation to NNPC or government agencies, so that the profit going to the private oil importers, as published by the Senate last year,  would go to the government. The money saved should be reinvested in the sector. That is the only way that the Nigerian people will benefit from the removal. Removing the subsidy and leaving the importation in the hands of the same private sectors is economically disastrous."

A few minutes later, another blogger sent this feedback, reacting to my post above.

Re: "There is sense in the removal."

Submitted by dere (not verified) on January 5, 2012 - 19:13.

“Your piece makes sense, but what beats me is whether our so-called advisers don't drill deep to consider all options to proffer the best option for the people and the nation! Why do we have special advisers who are not specialists in their field? May the Lord help us indeed!” - dere

There is no doubt; the subsidy regime is economically beneficial if well managed. Because this government has not shown (1) the gravitas and rectitude to ensure transparency in the management of the subsidy funding, and (2) the legal muscle to prosecute the marketers who perpetrate scam and the staffs of NNPC and PPPRA who facilitated the scam as revealed by the House of Representative, continuing the subsidy regime would constitute further drain on our lean financial resources.

 Mr. Alex Aidaghese

Vice Presidential Succession, State of Origin, and Federal Character in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: A Case for Amendment:

INTRODUCTION

The 1999 constitution under review has some sections with fundamental flaws requiring judicial review and amendment. Chief among them is Section 146 (3), which vests in the President the power of appointment of the Vice President in the event of a vacancy in that office. My humble opinion is that the next in line to occupy the vacated office of the Vice President or Deputy Governor, as the case may be, should be clearly defined and ascertainable in the constitution. It makes for transparency and consistency in the governing process. The next troubling section is Section 14 (3), which covers Federal Character, which emphasises unity and loyalty of the subjects to the nation-state.  To all intents and purposes, Federal Character was actually designed to protect minority interests and to ensure equitable distribution of political power among the various ethnic groups. Sadly, Section 14 (3), as consistently and selfishly interpreted and applied, engenders in one region or three dominant tribes a sense of misplaced arrogance and entitlement - a protected right, so to speak. Consequently, exacerbates mistrust within the citizenry and disinterest in national pride and values. Next is Section 15(2) that promotes social integration and prohibits discrimination based on race and places of origin. For a fact, Nigerians are not so much aware of the existence of this section in our constitution, because its exact opposite suffices in every facet of our public engagement. No Nigeria today is a citizen of his or her place of residence; the state of his or her village is where he or she belongs, contrary to the intent and purposes of Section 15 (2). The rationale of this section was to promote unity and cohesion in the body politic.  Similarly, children born in a particular state to parents who are not native-born of that same state are considered non-natives like their parents for purposes of University admission, government employment, and enlistment into the Nigerian Armed Forces and the Nigerian Police Force. Section 15 (2) was designed to promote social integration and not disintegration.

I will address each section in detail and in sequence from a public policy perspective.

(1) VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT:

Section 146 (3) provides:

Where the office of Vice-President becomes vacant:-

(a) Because of death or resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or removal by section 143 or 144 of this Constitution;

(b) By his assumption of the office of President by subsection (1) of this section; or

(c) For any other reason, the President shall nominate and, with the approval of each House of the National Assembly, appoint a new Vice-President.

I became aware of the existence of Section 146 (3) (C) of the constitution following the death of President Yar’Adua when the newly installed President eventually selected Governor Sambo of Kaduna State as his Vice President. I was not amused about the selection process; I honestly thought that the President acted illegally, believing that David Mark, the Senate President, is next in line to step into the vacated office of the Vice President. However, after consulting my constitution, my brief research taught me that the new President acted within his constitutional limitations.

The Unreasonableness of the Legislative Intent of Section 143:

The fact that an action is legal doesn't make it objectively right or reasonable. The political merit and the underlying legislative intent of Section 146(3) is to safeguard and perpetuate the tribal or regional background of the occupant of the office of the Vice President to the extent that in the event of any vacancy therein, the President, in filling the vacancy, would not go beyond the tribe or region of the previous occupant.  That was the mission of the drafters of that section in reserving the power of appointment in the Presidency, knowing full well that the President will not dare go beyond the tribe or region of the former Vice President in the event of a vacancy in the office, or go beyond the tribe of the President, assuming the President died, impeached or stepped down and the incumbent Vice President steps in. A similar problem also exists at the state level concerning filling a vacant position in the office of the Deputy Governor. The 1999 constitution, as amended, does not name the successor in the hierarchy of power.

Nigeria has come of age. Therefore, our constitution should be free of ambiguities on the issue of the person next in line to occupy the office of the Vice President in the event of vacancy under Section 146 (3) (a) and (b) of the 1999 constitution. In that case, filling the position should not be by appointment or arbitrary selection by the President. It should be by a succession process, succinctly articulated in the constitution, and the designated individual known to every Nigerian. The same standard should apply concerning the selection of the Deputy Governor.

Also, that selection right vested in the Presidency by Section 146(3) (c) is subject to abuse, because the President has unfettered discretion in the exercise of that power. Even though we profess a federal system of government, here, the constitution is bequeathing the Presidency and the Governor with so much power. And as John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton and most students of Government would say: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Furthermore, given the corruption and pervasive greed, remarkable of most members of the National Assembly, reserving in them the right of approval of the candidate nominated by the President is a luxury of time and money that we cannot risk or afford.

Nigeria is not a dictatorship or a one-party state. Granted, the constitution was written and promulgated under a Military administration, we should realise that we are multi-ethnic with numerous political parties. Once the President and the Vice President are elected, they become Nigerian President and Vice President, respectively. In other words, once they are sworn, they are no longer candidates for election, subject to the zoning rules and regulations of their political party. So, if, for instance, a vacancy surfaces, let the constitution determine the next in line. There shouldn’t be any recourse to the zoning law or the selection process adopted by the political party during its primaries.

The section was influenced by the ethnic and geographical factors adopted, but the drafters did not take into account the maturity of Nigerian people and our willingness to embrace political changes.  Whereas Section 15(4) of the 1999 Constitution emphasises national interests over sectional interests, Section 146 (3) tends to promote regional allegiance. Section 15(4) provides: “The State shall foster a feeling of belonging and of involvement among the various people of the Federation, to the end that loyalty to the nation shall override sectional loyalties.”

If that is the case, why must the drafter of Section 146 (3) be so particular about the race and region of origin of our President or Vice President? Our constitution must be definitive regarding the succession process by giving effect to our national interests, rather than imposing on us the benefits of a political party in selecting a Vice President in the event of a vacancy.

Adding to that, knowing the person next in line, not only eliminates the abuse of process, but it also makes governing more transparent and the succession process smooth and free of grafts and drama. To that effect, either the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives should be constitutionally recognised as the next in line to assume the position of the Vice President in the event of a vacancy.

In conclusion, the legislative intent of Section 146 (3) did not take into account that Nigeria is a very robust and very dynamic society. Because the section was written to serve ethnic and narrow interests at the expense of unity and national integration, it must be rejected by discerning minds. Empowering the President to make that selection, and reserving in the patently corrupt National Assembly the power of final approval of the selected candidate is a license that does not augur well for our democracy. We should look beyond ethnic considerations in our appointment process and leadership choices.

(2) STATE OF ORIGIN CONCEPT:

Section 15 (1), (2), (3), and (4) provide:

(1) The motto of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be Unity and Faith, Peace, and Progress.

(2) Accordingly, national integration shall be actively encouraged, whilst discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties shall be prohibited.

(3) To promote national integration, it shall be the duty of the State to:

(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.

Today, and as it has always been, Section 15(3) (b) is not given effect consistent with the legislative intent of the drafters. In Nigeria, a child born and nurtured in Lagos State, or River State, or Sokoto State, whose parent migrated from Either Imo, Ogun or Edo State is not considered a native of River, Lagos, or Sokoto State as the case may be. For instance, why must a child who has never spent more than a weekend at Esan, or Abeokuta, or Owerri, where his parents originally came from, be made to write Edo, Imo, or Ogun State as his State of origin during competitive exams? By doing so, that child is going to be assessed using the same benchmark as students born and schooled at Esan, Abeokuta, and Owerri who sat for the same exams and happened to be products of higher education standards available in those cities.

Unless the argument for the introduction of state of origin in our admission application is a generic/biological factor, which, to all intents and purposes, was not. If a particular state is educationally disadvantaged, for instance, Lagos State, invariably, every student or candidate from the state, no matter the state of origin of his or her parents, is a product of the quality of education available in Lagos State. Therefore, such a student or candidate or job applicant should be assessed by the standard reserved for Lagos State, and not by the standard applicable in the state of origin of his or her parents, for instance, Edo, Imo, or Ogun.

Adding to that, Section 15 (3) (b) provides automatic citizenship cover or protection to every Nigerian anywhere in the country, irrespective of his or her original place of birth. In reality, that is not the case in Nigeria today. Prospective employees or job applicants, whether in the private sector or in government, are made to enter, not their state of residence, but the state of origin of their parents. Why should a child who is applying to the Nigerian Police Force be made to get a letter from the Traditional Ruler and the Local Government Council of his or her parents? The appropriate requirements should be proof of residency and verification of address in that particular state of residence, and not proof of the state of origin of the child’s parent.

(3) FEDERAL CHARACTER:

Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides:

“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 to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few State or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies.”

No doubt, the Federal Character and Quota System have outlived its usefulness. In light of the growing demand for disintegration and the near-collapse of most of our federal institutions, no citizen or group of citizens should be made to suffer legislative deprivations on account of the place of birth or state of origin.

For the purpose of record, the legislative intent or the constitutional purpose of Federal Character was to protect minority groups from the dominance of the three major ethnic groups. But as it is today, Federal Character has been selfishly interpreted to perpetuate the dominance of one of the major ethnic groups over the rest of us. It was never designed or intended to protect the interests of Yoruba, Hausa/Fulani, and Ndigbo at the expense of other tribes or regions.

Adding to that, granted that the educational gap between Western Region, Eastern Region, and Northern Region in early 1950 to mid-60 and now, supports the ‘reverse racism’ approach in its interpretation by successive governments at the center, but to the extent that it is seen as absolutely safe to celebrate constitutional deprivations and mediocrity, it becomes abnormal and a violation of our social conscience. Therefore, it should be rejected.

That we should promote merit in our hiring process and in enlistment into the Police Force and into the Federal Armed Forces, into Unity Schools, and admission into higher institutions of learning is a long overdue demand. Therefore, every Nigerian applying for a job or sitting for competitive exams, no matter his or her state of origin and place of residence, should be judged without regard to his or her race, state of birth, or geographical location. A situation where it was reasonably permissible for a University to reject a candidate because the candidate was 5 points short of the required points set for the few spots reserved for that candidate’s state of origin, even when the candidate’s score was 15 points higher than the cut-off marks that were applied in admitting candidates from all other states in the federation should be a thing of the past. In Nigeria, Federal Character, Affirmative Action, Quota System, Catchment Areas, and Geographical Spread are more divisive than unifying.

Also, there is no tribe or region in Nigeria known to have suffered any social or economic deprivation inflicted by an act of the nation-state, which would justify or support the argument that Federal Character and Quota Systems principles are necessary for Nigeria. There is no doubt, the educational gap between the South and North is pervasive and poses a severe risk to our national integration. However, the disparity still exist due to choices made by the affected groups and political leaders in the affected region and not because of partisan or socioeconomic deprivations rooted in racism suffered by Northerners or based on skin color as it was the case in the United States of America regarding Slavery and political persecution of African American. No doubt, the state of education in the north needs improvement, but not by denying eligible candidates positions that they rightly deserve as Nigerian citizens, concerning admission and employment.

(I do not want to be misunderstood here; what I am saying is known to every Nigerian. I am not writing this because I am against the people of the Northern Region of Nigeria. The fact that no one is saying it in an open discussion or forum of this nature is a different story. The educational problem in the Northern Region is politically and ideologically based. It is not financial or funding-related. The political leaders there are only interested in educating the ten per cent who know and appreciate the value of education or Western education. The more significant majority are left unattended to educationally, even though these groups were taken into account in the national budget concerning the allocation of funds for education. As is always the case, the fewer students in school or willing to go to school, the more money available to those ready to go, and the more money left unspent and at the disposal of State Governors and those managing the educational sector in the Northern Region.

Finally, because of Federal Character did not serve the intended purpose, and because it has outlived its usefulness in the form in which it has been interpreted by political leaders and administrators, its continuation will exacerbate the harms it has already created and ultimately, jeopardize our collective quest for unity, peace, and progress. Given the preceding facts, Federal Character should be expunged from our constitution by the delegates.

CONCLUSION:

The legislative intent of vesting the power of appointment and approval of the new Vice President on the President and the National Assembly, respectively, did not take into account the dynamic nature of the Nigerian state and the willingness of our people to embrace changes. Adding to that, given the blatant abuse and subversion of the letter and intent of the principle of Federal Character and the state of origin concept, there is a valid case for review and amendment, where appropriate by the delegates at the National Conference to eradicate celebration of mediocrity at the expense of excellence and credibility. The state of origin concept as practised in Nigeria today is antithetical to the legislative intent and the overall purposes of Section 15 (3) (b). Every child should be able to answer the name of the state of his or her birth as a state of origin and not the state of origin of his or her parents. A Nigerian living and working anywhere in Nigeria should be able to claim citizenship of that state, without condition, because that is what the constitution says.  We don't have to wait for a SOVEREIGN National Conference to be convened before amending constitutional provisions that catalyse divisiveness and impede true federalism. The Committee should remain elastic in its mandate to address and modify the troubling national malaise. Every Nigerian is inherently and naturally gifted and smart; our government should not use the constitution to divide us or make some tribes more equal than others.

April 03, 2012

Blogger's Comment of December 02, 2019
You may also want to read "Vice Presidential Succession and the Futility of Osinbajo's Exit Debate,"  of November 16, 2019.