MEMORANDUM OUR POSITION ON THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE We, Oodua Foundation, a think-tank organization with members all over the world, and with headquarters in the United States of America, and dedicated to the welfare, progress and prosperity of the Yoruba Nation, welcome the opportunity provided by the National Conference for the nationalities that make up Nigeria to reorder the country that they all belong to. All officers and members of Oodua Foundation in all parts of the world note with great satisfaction that the citizens of our Yoruba Nation back home in Nigeria are responding strongly to the opportunities provided by the National Conference. We are pleased that various Yoruba civil society organizations are hurrying to place their thoughts, suggestions and proposals before the National Conference Advisory Committee chaired by Dr. Femi Okurounmu. And we urge those of our civil society organizations that have not yet come forth with their memoranda to do so expeditiously. Above all, we urge all our Yoruba people wherever they may happen to be currently assigned in the Nigerian Federation to work together, and diligently produce our well-known proposals for the harmonious organization of the Nigerian Federation, and for the sane and stable management of Nigeria’s affairs. We call on all Yoruba leaders and people in the states of the Southwest (Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti States), in Kwara State, in Kogi State, in Delta State, and in Edo State, to work together over the united position that we must, as a nation, present before the National Conference. We urge all our people to shelve partisan party considerations and affiliations and work together over this historic opportunity to pave the way for a better future for our nation and other nations of Nigeria. A. WE YORUBA WANT A CONFERENCE OF NIGERIA’S NATIONALITIES First and foremost, we are greatly satisfied that all our civil society organizations that have already spoken are agreed that this National Conference must be a conference of the nationalities that comprise Nigeria. And we urge our other organizations that are yet to speak out to adopt the same position. This National Conference must fill a fundamental gap in Nigeria’s history. The nationalities that make up Nigeria have never, since independence, had a chance to have a voice in the molding of the country into which the British included all of them about a century ago. This National Conference must fill that gap and give the nationalities the opportunity to decide the structure of their country. Before the British came and included all our nationalities into one country called Nigeria, each of our nationalities existed in its own homeland. Each, large or small, is an organism that has evolved over roughly six thousand years more or less in the homeland where it lives today. Each has inalienable ancestral ownership and right to its homeland. Nothing in the relationship of these nationalities with the British colonial ruler eliminated their rights over their homelands and identities. When British imperialism ended, each Nigerian nationality was thus restored in its full right to its homeland and its right of self-determination. Nothing in the constructive willingness of our nationalities to continue to live together as Nigeria eliminated their ancestral rights. Perversely, however, those who came to the control of Nigeria’s federal power at independence resolved to themselves that Nigeria had the right to take away the rights of Nigeria’s nationalities. In that belief, they proceeded for decades to suppress the nationalities and to expand the powers of the Nigerian Federal establishment over all regions, peripheries and resources – until they ultimately came to a point at which they began to say that the nationalities are, in reality, non-existent, and that all sovereignty, as well as the real identity of all persons who live in Nigeria, inhered only in Nigeria. This aggressive centralizing and integrationist programme has gradually robbed Nigeria of a chance to live in harmony and to fulfill its destiny as a country that is naturally rich in resources. It resulted in a progressively bloated, incompetent and horribly corrupt Federal Government propagating and promoting material, political and moral corruption across the face of Nigeria, and earning for Nigeria a hideous image among the countries of the world. It wrecked the peripheral centers of power (the state governments and local governments) as agencies of development and progress. It destroyed the spirit of local and community development and enterprise, and plunged Nigeria into a culture of poverty, hopelessness, cynicism, vagrancy, dependency, and graft. It nurtured horrific crimes – crimes that turned Nigeria into one of the most unsafe places in peacetime on earth. And all of these plunged Nigeria into inter-ethnic and religious conflicts, acts of genocide, and religious terrorism, to the point that, at some times, Nigeria looks like a country undergoing a process of ripping apart, or a country destined to rip violently apart. Our nationalities, as nationalities, must now, at last, have their chance to make their voices heard, and to negotiate and fashion out the harmonious federation that will meet their desires – the country of orderly and open politics, the home of economic opportunities for all, the land of hope and ambition, and the country that other countries of the world can respect and happily do business with. B. WE YORUBA WANT A RATIONAL FEDERATION i. Rational Federating Units Since the debate started in 1946 over the best structure for the federation of Nigeria, the elite of the Yoruba nation have consistently advocated that the best way to make the Nigerian federation orderly, peaceful, strong and prosperous, is to accord due recognition to the fundamental units of Nigeria – that is the various nationalities or peoples of Nigeria. Our then leading elite organization, Egbe Omo Oduduwa, wrote a detailed and highly respectable paper on this in 1949 for the consideration of Nigeria’s British rulers. Since then, various agencies of Yoruba leadership, even of different political persuasions and parties among us, have repeated the same principles – even if in slightly different ways. When the Federal Government convened a Political Reform Conference in 2005, the Yoruba Position Paper, put together by Yoruba elite of various political persuasions, and presented at the conference, stated the same principles unequivocally. Tens, perhaps even hundreds, of the persons we regard as the fathers of our Yoruba nation today, belonging to various professions, and representing all political parties and persuasions among us, have contributed their voices to the call for a rational and orderly federation in Nigeria. Members of the Yoruba elite living in the Diaspora have restated the same over and over again. In 2005, a leading Yoruba intellectual in the Diaspora summed up the Yoruba position simply as follows: “The simple answer to the question “what do the Yoruba want?” is this: The Yoruba want a Nigerian State which respects its multinational character and gives adequate recognition to the inviolability of its federating nationalities, no matter how small or big, a Nigerian State that promotes equal justice for all its citizens and makes a sacred commitment to the secularity of its character. - - - - The Yoruba have always wanted a Nigeria that practices and is committed to the principles of true federalism”. We, the Yoruba nation, have been stating and restating this principle because we are absolutely convinced that only it has the capability to make the peoples of Nigeria live in reasonable harmony together. It aims at giving each people some leeway to manage much of their own unique needs and concerns in the context of the Nigerian federation. It proposes the outcome that each people will thus be able to make its own kind of contribution to the overall progress and prosperity of Nigeria. This principle is not directed at hurting, and it cannot possibly hurt, any of the peoples of Nigeria. On the contrary, it is a principle that can be enormously beneficial to every Nigerian people and to Nigeria as a whole. Towards a rational federation based on the nationalities, respecting the integrity of each nationality, and preserving each nationality intact in the state to which it belongs, we propose the following order of federating units in the Nigerian Federation – a total of 18 Federating Units: a. Twelve Federating Units each consisting of one compact nationality 1. Edo Federating Unit 2. Fulah (or Fulani) Federating Unit 3. Gbagyi (or Gwari) Federating Unit 4. Hausa Federating Unit 5. Ibibio Federating Unit 6. Igbo Federating Unit (consisting of the Igbo east of the Lower Niger and the Igbo in Asaba and Agbor west of the Lower Niger ) 7. Ijaw Federating Unit 8. Kanuri Federating Unit 9. Nupe Federating Unit 10. Tiv Federating Unit 11. Urhobo Federating Unit 12. Yoruba Federating Unit (including the current six Yoruba states of the Southwest, plus the Yoruba in Kwara, Kogi and Edo States and the Itshekiri in Delta State). b. Six Federating Units each consisting of multiple contiguous nationalities 13. Akwa Ibom and Cross River Federating Unit (Annang, Bekwara, Boki, Efik, Ejagham, Eket, Ibeno, Korop, Oron, Yakurr and Yala) 14. Bayelsa and Rivers Federating Unit (Andoni, Ekipeye, Eleme, Engeni, Etchei,Ikwere, Ogba, Ndoni and Ogoni) 15. Delta Federating Unit (Ika, Isoko, Ndokwa) 16. Central Middle Belt Federating Unit (the Ebira Group – Ebira, Bassa-Nge, Ebira-Mozun, Ebira-Panda, Ebira-Ugu, Etuno-Igarra, Uku; the Igala Group – Alago, Arum, Bassa-Komu, Eggon, Gwandara, Kakanda, Mada, Mighili, Ninzom; the Nok Group – Atyap, Bajju, Ham, Hori, Ikullu, Kahugu, Kamanton, Kwasam, Ninkyop, Ninzam). 17. East Middle Belt Federating Unit (the Plateau Group – Afizere, Amu, Ankwei, Berom, Geomai, Mavo-Jukun, Ngas, Pem, Tarok, Yovin; the Taraba Group – Abakwa, Chamba, Jukun, Kaanab, Kona, Kunni, Kuteb, Mambila, Ndoro, Yububen; the Savannah Group – Bachama, Burra, Bwazza, Kilba, Mangbi, Mbula, Mwanna, Tangale-Waja, Yungur) 18. West Middle Belt Federating Unit (Angamo, Bariba, Bola, Bussa, Funne, Kambari, Karekare, Ngizim, Zuru). NOTE: The names here used for the last six Federating Units (the Federating Units with multiple nationalities) is descriptive only. It is left to each Federating Unit to adopt an appropriate name for itself). ii. Power Configuration in the Nigerian Federation The other facet of the principle of rational federation demands that the excessive powers taken away from the federating units of the Nigerian federation and loaded onto the Federal Government by the successive military dictatorships (from 1966 to 1998) should be reviewed. 1. We need to give back to the federating units of the Nigerian Federation the powers that the Regions had at independence in 1960. 2. We need to shift back to the federating units the duty of development in their homelands. No federal government anywhere in the world can develop all regions and localities of its country. We need to return our federation to the kind of internal balance of powers and responsibilities that it had by 1960. 3. We need to make the Local Governments of each federating unit part of the development machinery of its federating unit again – as in 1952-66. 4. We must equip the government of each federating unit with its own internal security and police system. 5. We need to review resource control and revenue allocation systems to harmonize with the share of powers and responsibilities in the federation. 6. We need to eliminate by law the power, hitherto exercised by the Federal Government, to interfere with the legitimate functioning of the authorities of the federating units or to declare emergencies in the federating units, suspend their governments and appoint emergency administrators over them. 7. Each Federating Unit shall make its own constitution. 8. Elections to the governments of each Federating Unit and its Local Governments shall be the responsibility of the electoral body established by the constitution of the Federating Unit. iii. System of Government. We Nigerians have experienced two different systems of government. We started off in 1952 with the British Parliamentary System – of elected parliamentarians who then, on the floor of the parliament, elect the Prime Minister (in the case of the Nigerian House of Representatives), or Premier (in the case of the Regional or State House of Assembly). The Prime Minister or Premier then nominates his ministers for his colleagues in parliament to elect. In this system, a Minister is responsible for the management of his Ministry, the Council of Ministers is jointly responsible for the direction of affairs, and the Chief Executive (Prime Minister or Premier) is just First Among Equals. The Council of Ministers considers and approves the plans and programmes of Ministers, and ensures the place and harmony of such plans and programmes in the over-all direction of the government. Each Minister presents and defends his plans and programmes (that have been approved by the Council of Ministers) on the floor of parliament, usually with additional backing by the Prime Minister or Premier. The Prime Minister or Premier, as well as the Ministers, are responsible for making programmes and plans acceptable to the legislature, and are usually subjected to questioning by the legislators trying to satisfy themselves before giving approval. They are also responsible for presenting the reports of the executive government to the legislature. To ensure success in parliament, the Prime Minister or Premier and his Ministers must keep their party members in parliament well informed about, and satisfied with, their plans and programmes. On the whole, this is a system characterized by joint responsibilities, systemic accountability, informing and persuading – with built-in capabilities for limiting whims and caprices and corrupt practices. But in the 1970s, under the thick shadow of Military Rulers and heavy influence of Military Rule, Nigeria’s leading politicians gathered in Lagos and chose the American Presidential System for our country. We did not know the nuances and possible pitfalls of this system then; but now we know. For one thing, it makes the political process, with countrywide presidential elections and statewide gubernatorial elections and Senatorial elections, far too expensive. No Nigerian who has taken part in the system, who has been through its heavy expenses and usually heavy debts, can deny that these enormously expensive elections have been a major factor in the nurturing of corruption in our political life. For another, the system concentrates power and responsibilities too heavily in the hands of the President or Governor. It has had the effect of turning our Presidents and Governors into virtual autocrats, their colleagues in the executive arm of government into mere waiters-on, and legislators into glorified outsiders. Some Nigerian intellectuals have just completed a joint book in which they have pooled together their various and widespread studies of the steadily growing impotence of legislatures, the growing dictatorial tendencies of Presidents and Governors, and the enormous influence of President’s and Governors’ whims and caprices, in our governmental system. Because Presidents and Governors tend to view their administrations as their exclusive personal mandates, our country has been sustaining heavy financial losses through poorly digested, unreasonably chosen, and inadequately discussed programs and projects, through Presidents’ and Governors’ temptations to insist on showing their personal footmarks on governance, and through thoughtless abandonment of programmes and projects initiated by predecessors. The system has made the position of President or Governor so eminently desirable for politicians, that the quest for it has become a major source of conflicts and confusion in our political system. On the whole, finally, it has contributed greatly to the destruction of the professional quality of our civil service and bureaucrats – and this has been a major factor in the general decline of the quality of governance in our country. This concentration of power in the hands of Chief Executives has proved culturally difficult for some Nigerian peoples to live happily with. Left to choose their own system of government, there are Nigerian nationalities that would hardly ever choose the presidential system – peoples (like our own Yoruba nation) who are used, in their history and political traditions, to shared responsibilities, mutual respect, and accountability, among the rulers of society. But, in Nigeria’s nation building experience, the predominant tendency has been to impose uniformity in all things on all segments of Nigeria. We now propose that, in the restructured Nigerian Federation, Nigeria should return to the parliamentary system at the federal center, each Federating Unit shall make its own constitution, and each Federating Unit shall adopt its own preferred system. Those Federating Units that desire, for instance, a Sharia system of laws, will therefore be able to adopt it without seeming to be doing anything wrong or defiant among us. There are variations in system among the states of the United States of America, the states of the Indian Union, and the cantons of the Swiss Federation. C. MODALITIES OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE i. Selection of Nationalities’ Delegations We believe that prescribing a uniform mode of selection for the delegations of all the nationalities is too ambitious. Virtually every nationality has its own traditional procedures for things of this nature – especially since partisan political considerations will not be involved. The nationalities sent delegations to the Obasanjo Political Reform Conference in 2005. They can, and will, do so for this Conference too. We would propose that all that the Committee should do in this matter is to set a deadline for the nationalities to submit the names of their delegates. ii. Production and Submission of Nationalities’ Positions Concerning the production of the position papers of each nationality, we propose the same procedure that we propose above for the selection of delegations. In 2005, the Yoruba position presentation to the Obasanjo Political Reform Conference was produced by Yoruba leaders of various political affiliations and persuasions working together. The same can, and will, happen for the Yoruba nation for the current Conference, and should happen for all the other nationalities too. iii. Duration of Conference The processes of the National Conference began on the day President Jonathan swore in the Okurounmu Committee. From that date, the Conference should complete its work in not more than seven months. This should consist of two months for the Committee to do the preparations, four months for the Conference to meet and produce the draft constitution for Nigeria, and one month for the processes that involve the National Assembly and the President of Nigeria iv. How should the Delegates be Paid? Since the delegates are representing their nationalities, they should be paid and provided for by their nationalities. Involving the Nigerian government in this matter has a strong potential of confusion and development of scandals and conflicts. iv. Destination of the National Conference Report The work of the National Conference should be deemed completed after the Conference has produced a Draft Constitution. The Conference should pass a resolution making the result of the Conference a sovereign decision. Such a procedure would affirm and underline the sovereignty of the nationalities and of their Conference. The Constitution should then pass through the same process as the 1963 Republican Constitution – which would involve passage by the National Assembly and proclamation by the President of Nigeria. Oodua Foundation Chairman Prof Adeniran Adeboye Secretary Dr Dejo Ogunwande Patron Prof (Senator) Banji Akintoye
Posted on: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:10:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015