ABIOLA LAST UNIFIER, JUNE 12 1993 UNCROSSED MILESTONE

Nigeria reached a great milestone in her history on June 12, 1993. Chief M. K. O. Abiola and Alhaji Kingibe his running mate were massively voted for in the freest and best organised presidential election ever recorded in our political history. Prof. Humphrey Nwosu and his OPTION A4 went down in history as Nigeria’s finest. But the military truncated it all. The military created all our 36 States and 774 LGs and bequeathed to us a biased, incongruous, unsustainable structure. The military gave us the 1999 Constitution in which they said “We the people of Nigeria ...” whereas Nigerians never saw the document. Military infamy is Nigeria’s bane. From June 12, 1993 Nigeria became divided irretrievably along ethnic, religious and geographical boundaries. We have not progressed since that date. The only way forward is to restructure. Abiola was a unifier, June 12, 1993 a watershed. In the political time-table of Nigeria today is June 12, 1993, not June 12, 2017. June 12, 2017 remains a dream until we do what we are supposed to do – restructure socially, geographically, economically and politically - and free all Nigerians. Why have all our leaders continued to refuse to listen to us? There are going to be two major upheavals in the political life of Nigeria over the next 18 months. Pray hard. God the Ultimate Unifier, is about to step in.       

WELCOME TO THE CHIBOK 82 BUT. ...

We thank God for the release of these 82 girls from captivity. We appreciate the efforts of the Nigerian Government. However, we must express our concern about the attitude of Government as the 21 girls released three months ago are being shielded. Their family and friends cant see them in private or for any length of time. what happening? What is Government trying to hide? Rumors are already flying around as to what actually happened to the girls. We feel they should be allowed to tell their stories. They owe it posterity to tell the world the experiences they went through. All of us will benefit from the information. 

CHIBOK GIRLS' ABDUCTION: THIRD ANNIVERSARY

Leader of BBOG, Dr. Oby Okwesili, consoling a distraught Chibok mother

To talk about the third anniversary of the abduction of innocent teenage school girls by a mindless gang of demonized persons makes it sound as if we are not in shock and mourning. Nigerians woke up on 14^th April 2014 to the news that 276 girls of the Government Girls Secondary School, Chibok, Bornu State, had been abducted by Boko Haram insurgents. They pillaged the school’s food store, set the dormitories on fire and herded the school girls into rickety trucks and drove them into the bush. Since then, 57 of the girls managed to escape on their own while 24 were released following negotiations with the Islamist group. Lest we forget, 19 parents of these girls have died within the last three years. The events of that day shocked the world and left a scar on humanity.

It has been reported that some of the returnee girls said they were initially kept in houses owned by top politicians for the first eight months. The Nigeria Airforce bombed one of the residents and killed some of them before the rest were taken in the forest and married off to members of the Boko Haram group. The den of the group in Sambisa forest has been raided by Nigerian troops without a trace of the remaining girls. So where are they now?

Harrowing stories of rape, torture, forceful islamisation, forceful marriages, child births and death have also been told by some of the returnees. These all beg the question, what is Government doing about the girls still in captivity? The leadership of the military have become screen models. The faces of the Chief of Defense Staff and the Chief of Air Staff are on seen on national television daily as if television is theater of war. We thought military operations should be covert and discreet until the battle is won or lost.

We must single out the Bring Back Our Girls (BBOG) campaign team for commendation for their dogged stance in mounting pressure on the country’s authorities to live up to their responsibilities and for creating international awareness of the plight of the missing girls and their parents. God will reward them for their humanitarian work.

After three years, none of the missing 195 girls can still the same. Disease, sickness, trauma, confusion, physical and psychological torture must have turned them into angry and confused humans. Their return to civilization is honest wish for them. We ask all people out there to please offer prayers continually until their return.            

INTERVIEW WITH PROF. ANGO ABDULLAHI: A REJOINDER

We hereby respond to an interview granted the SUN newspaper by Professor Ango Abdullahi and anchored by correspondents Kenny Ashaka and Abdullahi Hassan which was published on 5^th and 12^th February, 2017. Prof. Abdullahi spoke on several contemporary and historical issues. Our Association, which is a socio-political and cultural, feels obliged to respond to some of the things he said. We trust that this rejoinder will be accorded the publicity you gave the interview.

Prof. Ango Abdullahi is not an ordinary Nigerian but a highly educated and experienced elder statesman. He attended the University of Ibadan, was the Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University, is a former Adviser to President Olusegun Obasanjo, a former member of the Northern Elders Forum, has participated in four constitutional conferences and is now 78 years old. In his words, no one needs to educate him on Nigerian history and politics. We comment as follows:

(1)     THE “NORTH” TERMINOLOGY: The Professor referred to the “North” several times. Those who use this term unwittingly attempt to lump very diverse people into one mould. The people of the defunct Northern Region of Nigeria do not have any accepted spokespersons, neither do they all accept or like the terminology. Professor Yusufu Turaki refers to this terminology as “North-ism” and defines as “both an ideology and idolatry which the political class and elites of Northern Nigeria worship … a doctrine which has been formulated and seeks to defend, project, promote and protect the imaginary interests of the ‘North’.” He goes on to establish the fact that the Middle Belt region (whose existence is always denied by ‘northern’ elite like Prof. Ango Abdullahi) does in fact exist, has over 250 ethnic groups, is made up of Muslim-Christian Minorities (MCM Model) and constitutes of a larger population than the core northern Fulani, Hausa and Kanuri ethnic groups put together. A map of Nigeria’s minorities produced by the Willink’s Minorities Commission in 1957 clearly defines the boundaries of northern minorities, who constitute the Middle Belt region. The Northern Protectorate metamorphosed into the now defunct Northern Region in the January 1, 1914 Amalgamation exercise without due regard for both southern and northern minorities. The southern minorities demanded for and were given the Mid-West Region in 1963. However, northern minorities were continuously denied a Region of their own, as large and as distinct as they are.

The Middle Belt political, cultural and ideological identity has been there since the incursion of the British colonialists into Nigerian affairs. This is evidenced in the motion in the Northern Regional House of Assembly for the creation of a Middle Belt Region out of the defunct Northern Region on March 6, 1956 and in the formation of the United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) political party.

(2) RESTRUCTURING, SOVEREIGN NATIONAL CONFERENCE & NIGERIA’S INDIVISIBILITY: Prof. Abdullahi does not see a need for restructuring because Nigeria has tried different structural arrangements. We had the 4 autonomous Regional Governments in the first Federal Republic, then Gen. Ironsi’s Unitary Republic, then Gen. Gowon’s 12-States Federal Republic and today we have a Federal Republic with 36 States and 774 Local Governments. He opined that all these structures failed us and therefore we do not need another restructuring exercise but a full blown Sovereign National Conference at which ethnic nationalities or religious groups or regions should decide whatever they wish, break up not eliminated. We recall that Prof. Abdullahi was reported to have expressed the same opinion in the Punch newspaper of August 31, 2016.

In our opinion, the Professor’s views are rather extreme. His position seems to have been borne out of anger at Nigerians who have consistently blamed his “North” for a number of ills in the fiscal, political and economic arrangements currently in the country. We believe, as many other Nigerians do, that Prof. Abdullahi’s “Northern” military Heads of State selfishly favored their “north” in several ways when they created States and Local Governments and in several contentious provisions in the 1999 Constitution which they foisted us without national debate or referendum. Space will not permit us to do an elaborate analysis here.

Though there is nothing sacrosanct about the Nigerian state, we prefer that we remain as one country because of all the advantages that go with size and diversity. However, our current structure does not allow for the reaping of these benefits. We need to ‘restructure’ if we are to make significant economic, social and political progress. Some have suggested a 6-State/Regional structure, but this will not resolve the Middle Belt question in our opinion.

We recommend a 12-Autonomous-Regional-Governments (12-ARG) structure along the boundaries of Gowon’s 1967 12 States. Each of the 12 new Regions/States should write and operate its own individual Constitution. Note that Gowon simply reinstated the appellation of ‘Federal’ to our name when he created his 12 States without reinstating their autonomy via individual Constitutions which Gen. Ironsi abolished by his 1966 Decree 34. Ironsi removed the prefix “Federal” from our country’s name and renamed us simply as the Republic of Nigeria. By not giving back to the 12 States their individual Constitutions, Gowon disingenuously created a false and dysfunctional federation. There were, and there still are, no federating units in Nigeria to justify the prefix of ‘Federal’ in our name. 

(3)   PARLIAMENTARY VERSUS PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS: Three things have bedeviled our States since Gowon’s days as Head of State: (i) the overbearing dominance of the central Government; (ii) the lack of autonomy for the States and, (iii) the adoption of the Presidential system. Just like the Professor, we prefer the parliamentary system of government to the presidential system. The presidential system is very expensive to operate, does not promote representative democracy or genuine opposition with its “winner-takes-all” mentality. We also agree with him that the presidential system has bred an elite political class that is corrupt and bereft of leadership qualities. We therefore recommend a return to the parliamentary system. Thank you.

NIGERIA: LEADERSHIP FAILURE, PROBLEMS & THE IMPERATIVE OF RESTRUCTURING

NIGERIA: LEADERSHIP FAILURE, PROBLEMS & THE IMPERATIVE OF RESTRUCTURING

Background:

A critical review of the leadership styles of past and present Nigerian leaders reveals a common trend – ineptitude in decision making. In agreement with this assertion, Pastor Enoch Adeboye, the leader of Nigeria’s largest church said, “Leadership is at the core of our problems in this nation.” At his age and with the many years of leadership experience of a large organisation under his belt, we would do well to take him seriously. Also, at a meeting with Governor Bello of Kogi State recently, Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi II, the Emir of Kano, is reported by the Nation newspaper to have said that there is failure in some sectors because of the inability of leaders to set their priorities right and that he urged the elite to wake up to their leadership roles.

When faced with urgent and important issues, the country’s leaders have not been able to take appropriate and timely decisions. Once an urgent or an important issue is poorly attended to, or is not to at tended to at all, it soon becomes a national emergency that both the leaders and the led pay dearly for. This assertion was recently corroborated when Governor Kashim Shettima of Bornu State blamed his predecessor’s inaction for the rise of Boko Haram, which has cost us about 100,000 human lives and is estimated to be the world’s deadliest terrorist group today.

The Problem:

American’s 34th President, Dwight Eisenhower, captured the imperative of timely and appropriate decision-making in what has come to be known in academic cycles as the Eisenhower Principle or the Eisenhower Matrix. The Principle recommends that a decision maker places his tasks in one of four quadrants. The four quadrants are labelled (1) Important/Urgent, (2) Important/Not Urgent, (3) Not Important/Urgent, and (4) Not Important/Not Urgent. Quadrant (1) tasks should be attended to first and on time. Tasks in Quadrants (2) and (3) follow in that order but may be delegated to subordinates. Tasks that fall in Quadrant (4) should not be attended to by the leader but delegated. Eisenhower said that important tasks have ‘value’ attached to them while urgent tasks have ‘time constraint’ attached to them. Urgent tasks are not always important and vice versa.

It is my assertion that our past and present leaders have not been able to carry out their functions in line with this principle. They have not undertaken urgent tasks within the time limit or they have failed to do them completely. They have also not accorded the value that their important tasks deserve. I will buttress my assertion by going down the proverbial ‘Memory Lane’ for real life examples.

Pre-Colonial Experience:

Before our Independence in 1960, the country’s minority tribes expressed fear about what their lot might be in a post-Independence Nigeria in the hands of the three major tribes. They were afraid that they might be poorly treated and marginalised. The Queen’s Imperial Government in London therefore decided to set up an investigative Commission in 1957 to visit Nigeria, assess the veracity or otherwise of these fears and report back with recommendations on how to allay them. The five-man Commission was chaired by Mr. Henry Willink. The other four members were Gordon Hadow, Philip Mason, J. B. Shearer and K. J. Hilton (Secretary). The Willink’s Commission Report was submitted to the British Parliament in July 1958.

Though the minorities of the then existing three Regions presented their case to the Commission, the dominant major ethnic groups countered with factual inexactitudes and insincere assurances that they would be fair to all after the departure of the colonial overlords. Willink and his team believed the majority tribes and refused to recommend the creation of states as demanded by the minorities. After Independence we saw the need to meet the yearnings of some minorities and so created the Mid-West Region out of the Western Region in June 1963.

Demands for the creation of a Middle Belt Region raged on throughout the 1950s but were rebuffed by leaders from the north. Earlier on in 1956, Mr. R. S. Hudson had recommended a Provincialization Scheme for the Northern Region in which the Northern Regional government was supposed to divest some powers to the provinces in the north in order to douse the separatist agitations of northern minorities. The leaders of the larger northern tribes pretended to buy into the Scheme but tactically threw it out later because it was going to diminish their lordship of the Northern Region, which covered two-thirds of Nigeria’s land mass. An urgent task that needed prompt action was sacrificed on the altar of sectional political expediency. We are living witnesses today of the cost of that leadership error – far slower economic growth compared to the south, high rate of youth unemployment, educational backwardness, religious extremism and upheavals, armed robbery and cattle rustling, inter tribal clashes, religious tension, herdsmen/farmer clashes and the monstrous settler/indigene syndrome.

Military Era:

Another example can be found in Gen. Ironsi’s Decree 5 in 1966, which effectively abolished the then four-regional structure of the country and put in place a unitary system, which we vainly refer to as a Federal Republic. Gen. Gowon created 12 States in 1967 but did not give them the same powers and semi-autonomy that the former Regions had. Today’s 36-State structure is still the Gowon model in which the States are hamstrung and cannot exploit their natural resources, nor can they survive without pitiable handouts from the mighty Federal government. Our military regimes were neither prepared for, nor were the soldiers trained in the art of civil administration. They effectively ‘killed’ the Nigerian political state and garrisoned us into a regimented military hierarchy of command that does not permit initiative and autonomy of the States or the 774 Local Governments. The central government has 68 items on the Exclusive Legislative List and only 30 on a Concurrent List in the 1999 Constitution (As amended). State Governors are referred to as Chief Security Officers of their States whereas they do not command even a Boys’ Scout let alone a Police Constable. We are underdeveloped today because military leader didn’t solve the urgent national issues they seized power to address. Instead, they bequeathed to us an unsustainable and stifling fake federal republic.  On a visit to Nigeria in 2011 as US Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, said of dysfunctional governmental structure, “The most immediate source of the disconnect between Nigeria’s wealth and its poverty is a failure of governance at the federal, state and local levels.”  

The various Military administrations also treated another important national matter without bothering to accord it the importance it deserves. Our current 36 States and 774 Local Government Areas were created recklessly. Their creators threw caution to the wind and put in place and incongruity that portends great danger for peaceful coexistence. Let us interrogate the monstrosity we refer to as the third tier of government as presented in the table below.

Table 1: Timeline for the Creation of Regions, States and Local Governments in Nigeria

Year	Number of Regions or States	Number of Local Government Areas	Regime
1954	3  (Regions)	0	Prior to Independence
1963	4  (Regions)	0	Sir Tafawa Balewa
1967	12	0	Gen. Yakubu Gowon
1976	19	301	Gen. Mohammed Murtala
1987	21	453	Gen. Ibrahim Babangida
1991	30	589	Gen. Ibrahim Babangida
1996	36	774	Gen. Sani Abacha

                        Source: Survey

All 774 LGAs were created by four military rulers, Murtala Mohammed - 301, Ibrahim Babangida - 288 and Sani Abacha – 185. What was the criterion used by Murtala when he created the first 301 LGAs? What was Babangida’s yardstick when he created another 288 LGAs in some States and not in others? What informed Gen. Abacha to give the country another 185 LGAs more, again, in some States and not in others? Why was Lagos State given 20 LGAs in the first exercise and no more, whereas the number was doubled and even tripled in some States?

Let us compare the some demographic data on Lagos State and Kano State. Lagos State with a population density of 2,695/sq. km and GDP of $91.00 as at 2006 was allocated just 20 LGAs. Kano State with a population density of only 454/sq. km and GDP of $12.39 was given a whopping 44 LGAs. What could be responsible for the over 100% difference in their LGA numbers? Another data shows that both States have the same number of Federal constituencies - 24 (which translates to 24 seats in the House of Representatives). Why should these two States have the same number of seats in Parliament? Also, 22% of the country’s revenue is shared according to the number of LGAs. Therefore, Lagos State receives less than half what Kano State receives as their share of centrally accrued revenue.

More comparisons can be done across the country that will expose glaring injustices embedded in our LGA numbers. What were our leaders thinking as they created these LGAs? No rational person can argue for their retention. The fiscal structure we are currently operating is fundamentally flawed. It is no wonder that the 2014 National Conference delegates recommended the outright scrapping of the Local Government system.

Political Arrangement:

Our leaders have been told uncountable times that our so-called ‘Independent’ National Electoral Commission (INEC) is nothing but independent. We know how best to make this important political institution independent, but our present and past leaders prefer to maintain the status quo for purposes best known to them. Our electoral system leaves a lot to be desired:

(1) Our President can emerge by winning just a quarter of the votes cast in two thirds of the 36 States plus the FCT, irrespective of the total population of the country or the number of registered voters. This formula is bound to produce some of the most unpopular presidents in the world. For example, our current President came into office with the votes of just over 15 million Nigerians, which is about 21% of our 70 million registered voters and about 9% of our estimated total population of 170 million people.

Supporters of runners up in all our elections are completely disregarded. They are not entitled to representation in government commensurate to the quantum of their votes. For example, the 12 million Nigerians who voted for the runner up in the last presidential elections are totally disenfranchised. This is not how representative democracy should be practised. It is no wonder that the last President is quoted to have once said that he was the most vilified President in the world. We need electoral processes that will produce popular leaders rather than minimal winners. We need strong electoral institutions rather that will command respect rather than one that ends up with hundreds of elections petitions at election tribunals or tens of inconclusive elections. All contestants should have a proportional representation in government, thus deepening true representative democracy.

The 2008 Justice Mohammed Uwais Committee on Electoral Reforms did a fantastic job. It made excellent recommendations that must not be consigned to the archives but implemented forthwith. They recommended the amendment of the Constitution to remove powers of the President to appoint all Board members of INEC and transfer the responsibility to the National Judicial Council (NJC). Also, only the National Assembly should have the powers to remove these officers. The Board’s funding should not be from the Presidency but directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federation. Delineation of electoral wards should not be INEC’s function but that of a separate Commission. Registration and regulation of political parties cease to be INEC’s job but another separate Commission. No one should be sworn into office while a petition against his election is still being heard in a law court.

Unfortunately, the current government went ahead in October 2016 to inaugurate the 24-member Ken Nnamani Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee. This Committee has since reviewed the Uwais Committee report and submitted its recommendations to government. Why this review was necessary beats my imagination. Was it set up to water-down the Uwais report? Another leadership failure may be in the offing.    

Constitutional Conundrums:

The 1999 Constitution (as amended) has a number of ambiguities. One of such ambiguities is provisions for the practice of religion in the country. While several sections provide for freedom of speech, association and choice of religion, others provide for possible variants that completely contradict the earlier provisions. The evidence of this can be seen in those States that have adopted State religions and the use of public funds to run various States religious agencies without a query from the Attorney General of the Federation.

Another ambiguity in our Constitution is in regard to the age of majority for Nigerian married women. This ambiguity is further compounded by stipulations in international Conventions that we are signatories to. An attempt to address this anomaly during the currency of the 7^th National Assembly was opposed by some legislators and the issue was dropped. Once again, our leaders shied away from living up to their responsibilities in an important national matter.

The inclusion of the highly contentious Land Use Act (LUA) in the 1999 Constitution is doing us a lot of harm. Recollect that the LUA was initially a military Decree and not a popularly passed act of parliament. In one fell swoop it changed our age-old land tenure systems to an obnoxious one. Its provisions gave State Governors the enormous powers of granting Certificates of Occupancy and Consents to Mortgage. Governors have used these powers as political weapons against their opponents while some of them have simply not understood the implications of these powers. It is estimated that we presently have a 17 million housing shortage for which the LUA has largely to blame. Property development and creation of legal mortgages have been greatly hampered by this law. It needs to be reviewed but it cannot until after it has been excised from the Constitution via a tedious constitutional amendment process. This is yet another very urgent and very important matter mater that has been toyed with and is still being toyed with at a very high cost to living standards of our people. This is yet another area of gross leadership failure.

The federating units (if we could refer to 36 States as such) have highly limited powers. Their Chief Executives, the State Governors are their Chief Security Officers but they do not command even a Boys Scout or Boys Brigade recruit. The Exclusive Federal Legislative List is more than twice the length of the Concurrent List.

A low housing index is a reflection of several other poor living indices like unemployment, health, etc. From such a huge housing deficit, we shall not be wrong to guess that we are suffering from high unemployment, poor medical facilities, paucity of clean drinking water, etc. Government is supposed to protect the lives and properties of its citizens and to raise their living standards. Our past and present governments stand indicted in these areas. 

Cost of Governance:

Most Nigerians are agreed that our cost of governance is unnecessarily high. The size of the Federal government is big with about 263 Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). Many of these have duplicated functions. We have whole Ministries that could comfortable be reduced to mere Departments in other Ministries. For example, the Aviation Ministry can be an agency in the Transport ministry. The Ministry for Women Affairs is an unnecessary drain pipe that should be a department in the Ministry of Youth Sports and Culture. As advanced as the Federal Republic of Germany is, it has just 14 ministers and one federal house of Parliament.

Coupled with a big central government, we have a wasteful duplication of functions in the 36 States’ governments. Most of the 36 States have extravagant emperors as Governors and over bloated personnel portfolios. The exorbitant recurrent expenditure of the 36 States, which is about N2 Trillion, can be shrank to a small fraction of this amount if we merge our States in a restructuring exercise into 12 States/Regions. At the moment, only 8 States are economically viable. Lagos State’s Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) of N290 billion in 2016 was more than that of all the 19 States in the northern half of the country. Such a huge inequality calls for urgent review and correction.

We must also question the rationale in having two legislative houses in the National Assembly in view of the high cost of running them. Their annual budgetary allocation has reached N150 billion in the past. This figure is far in excess of the entire budgets of many States in the country that have millions of citizens to cater for. Many of our 469 federal legislators complete their four-year tenure without much to show for it. It is my firm belief that one chamber with only one-third of the current number can comfortably perform the legislation functions of the National Assembly at one-tenth of their current budgetary allocation, that is N15 Billion. Recall that Gambia recently adopted a unicameral parliament because the $15 Million the former two chambers were costing the Government was considered a waste.    

We should all agree that the wasteful duplication of duties and high numbers of personnel in our country’s public service has arisen due to the desire of political office holders to accommodate their political associates. Government therefore does have to be so large and expensive. The report of the Oronsanye Presidential Committee on the Rationalisation and Restructuring of Federal Government Parastatals and Commissions submitted in June 2012 contains excellent recommendations for addressing this malaise. The 800-page Report prepared for the Jonathan administration should not be overlooked. It recommended the merger or scrapping of some of the current 263 MDAs to 161. To the contrary, the current NASS is proposing to create 25 new agencies, if newspaper reports are to be relied on.

Conclusion:

From the foregoing, the following four conclusions have been drawn:

1.      The failure of past leaders to administer the country well has bequeathed to us a faulty substructure which cannot be sustained much longer. The unequal and baseless distribution of administrative units, revenue, seats in parliament, employment to public offices, etc, have resulted in feelings of marginalisation in a large segment of the polity, militant agitations for fairer sharing of the national cake, marginalisation of minority groups, avoidable underdevelopment in some regions, and the emergence of an elite political class that is lording it over others. This faulty substructure and the resultant state of affairs need to be redressed quickly.  

2.      Democratic practice in Nigeria has glaring inadequacies. The elite and the rich dominate. The poor are being taken for a ride. Our electoral laws do not permit the most popular and most credible candidates to run for elective offices but only  the well-connected, the rich and the corrupt.  Representative democracy is also absent in our system of winner-takes-all. We will continue to produce weak and corrupt leaders if we do not overhaul our electoral system.

3.      Constitutionalism exists in Nigeria only in theory. The Constitution was written by a clique that had put parochial interests above everything else. This document was also not subjected to a general referendum for Nigerians to have an input in it. Many sections are contradictory, controversial, vexations and outright retrogressive. Attempting to amend these many sections will not yield desired result. An entirely new Constitution should be written in line with the aspirations of all Nigerians.

4.      The cost of running all three tiers of government in Nigeria is far too high. Recurrent expenditure takes up most of our revenues. The present level of capital expenditure of about 20% of the annual budget is too low for rapid development. Standards of living are very low with up 70% below the United Nation’s poverty line. There is therefore the need to drastically prune down the size of government in order to achieve sustained economic growth.

Recommendations:

In view of the many urgent and important matters of state that past and present administrations have badly addressed or refused to address, which has resulted in insecurity, underdevelopment, non-representative democracy, bloated governments, bad governance, etc, there is only one option left for Nigeria. We need to restructure our substructure. Several ordinary and prominent Nigerians have already made this call.

Restructuring the country has been called for by not a few prominent Nigerians. Some of these are Dr. Alex Ekwueme, former Vice President of Nigeria, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, former Vice President of Nigeria, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Prof. Jerry Gana, Chairman of the Middle Belt Forum and former Minister, Prof. Yusufu Turaki, ECWA Theological Seminary, Chief Sehinde Arogbofa, Secretary General of Afenifere, Barr. Agbakoba, former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, former Governor of Kaduna State and Senator Shehu Sani, 8^th National Assembly. Their perceptions of what restructuring entails are certainly varied. However, to me it means the following things:

1.      Ending the current administrative and fiscal arrangement of having a large and powerful Federal Government, 36 powerless States and 774 Local Governments. These should be replaced by a Federal Government that is lean and having fewer roles and 12 semi-autonomous States/Regions identical to Gowon’s 1967 12 States. These 12 States/Regions will have greater roles and responsibilities than the current 36 States. The Local Government system as third tier of government should be abolished.  

2.      Shortening the Exclusive Legislative List and lengthening the Concurrent List. Items such as Military, External Affairs, Immigration, etc, should remain on the exclusive preserve of the Federal Government while items such as Police, Prisons, Roads, Railways, Power generation, etc, should move to the Concurrent List.

3.      Each of the 12 State/Regional governments should have separate Constitutions that spell out their peculiar circumstances and preferences, but which are subservient to a new Federal Constitution to be written and submitted to a national referendum.

4.      Write an entirely new Constitution for the Federal Government that will put into place the arrangements described in (1), (2) and (3) above and be approved by the Nigerian people in a referendum.    

The fine details of these recommendations should be worked out at a round table conference by representatives of the 12 States created by Gen. Gowon’s administration in 1967. All matters that these representatives wish to discuss shall be placed on the agenda. No areas shall be ‘no-go’ areas.  Decisions of this conference shall also be final and binding. The conference shall therefore have sovereign powers.

Rev. James Pam, PIIMA