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.