Our position on National Conference, by Afenifere The pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, has been agitating for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) to discuss the basis for peaceful co-existence among the diverse ethnic nationalities for many decades now. Recently President Goodluck Jonathan set up an Advisory Committee to garner suggestions nationwide about modalities of a proposed National Conference or Dialogue. Chief Ayo Adebanjo presented Afenifere position at the stakeholders’ forum organised by the Okurounmu Committee in Akure, Ondo State capital on Monday, October 21, 2013. How do we successfully transit from the current chaos, underdevelopment and disunity in Nigeria to a stable, harmonious and prosperous country? No doubt, we have to create our future in Nigeria and make it happen. Unless we make it happen, it is high time we knew it is not going to happen. The secret is to define nationhood in the Nigerian context and make a successful transition from a pseudo-federal union to a proper federation. And that transition requires leaders who are courageous enough to move Nigeria out of the present intensive care unit where she lies prostrate. If we continued to do things the same old ways, we will continue to get the same old results every time. That is why without conducting a genuine National Conference in Nigeria, there won’t be any stable democracy, development and sustainable peace. We are at a stage where there is no room for error because we are at quarter to midnight. It is either we ‘federalise’ Nigeria and put it on a peace and prosperity footing or it will decay in limbo the way the current structure intends. It is against this background that we welcome the Chairman and members of the Presidential Advisory Committee as you criss-cross Nigeria to take inputs into this onerous task that the God Almighty has used President Goodluck Jonathan to saddle you with. Mark our words, generations down the line would be eternally grateful to you and your names painted on the canvass of history, if you painstakingly carry out this assignment and guide Mr. President properly to give us a genuine National conference. Why a conference? Since the President’s announcement of the proposal for a National Conference, a lot of arguments have ensued which are quite revealing. While there has been popular acceptance of the idea, there have also been a few dissenting voices. The naysayers can be classified into two categories: those who benefit from the present rot and are not ready to give up their privileges and those who genuinely lack sufficient understanding of the need for a National Conference. We must persuade the two groups. The first category should know that whatever they gain at the bend presently will be lost at the round-about if we don’t restructure the country. And for the second group, we must be able to show them the vertical link between the peripheral issues of corruption, lack of infrastructure, unemployment and the unitary structure of Nigeria presently. In this wise, we want to allay the fears of those who have been psychologically programmed to believe that the essence of a National Conference is to break up Nigeria. Rather, a National Conference is the best opportunity at the moment to save Nigeria from a crash land. A National Conference in our context is therefore, a veritable platform to correct the “mistake of 1914.” What is the 1914 mistake? Sir Frederick Lugard, a freelance imperialist, who promoted the scramble for Africa, became Governor-General of the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria and, in 1914, amalgamated the North and the South of the Country, which act was criticised by some British politicians: “After all, these haphazard blocks of scrub and desert, peppered with ill-matched tribes, had neither geographical nor political unity…” See Thomas Pakenham: The Scramble for Africa Page 675 Margery Perham, Lugard’s biographer in her comments on 29 September 1960, regarding Nigeria’s independence published on Page xii of the Times of London said: “But it may be said, whatever the necessity or indeed the brilliance of his achievement as High Commissioner, this should have been no more than a preliminary settlement for the north and that he should not as Governor-General, have imposed it on the south.” Nigeria, which is the name given by Flora Shaw, Lugard’s would be wife, is an amalgam of so many ethnic nationalities, empires, kingdoms etc. the constituents of the amalgam being heterogeneous, were independent nationalities with a number of which the British entered into independent agreements as separate autonomous independent states. Thus, for example, Treaty with Lagos was signed in 1852 for and on behalf of Her Majesty’s the Queen by Commodore H.W. Bruce and John Beecroft Her Majesty’s Consul in the Bights of Benin and Biafra and the King and chiefs of Lagos on the part of themselves and their country. Another treaty with Lagos in 1861. Then, a treaty of 1884 with the Chiefs and people of Asaba requesting the chiefs and their people to refrain from entering into any correspondence, agreement or treaty with any foreign nation or power etc. Also, with Sokoto, a treaty of 1885, another treaty with Sokoto in 1890. Two separate treaties in 1884 with the King and people of Opobo. Then, in 1893, a treaty with Abeokuta. See Sir Alan Burns: History of Nigeria 7th Edition Pages 328-339. All Most Nigerian leaders acknowledged the fact that Nigeria consists of a number of nationalities. In this regard, note what each said: (i) Regarding the 1914 amalgamation as being wrong, Sir Alhaji Ahmadu Bello said: “The mistake of 1914 has come to light and I would like to go on further. I was referring to the amalgamation that took place in that year between the old independent governments of Northern and Southern Nigeria” Sir Ahmadu Bello: My Life Page 133. (ii) “ Since 1914 the British Government had been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but Nigerians themselves were historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and customs and did not show any sign of willingness to unite. So, what it comes to is that Nigerian unity is only a British intention.” See Alhaji Tafawa Balewa: Nigeria Legislative Council Debates, 4 March 1948 page 225. See also O. Arifalo: The Egbe Omo Oduduwa 1945-1965 page 80. (iii) Awolowo referred to “Nigeria” as mere geographical expression. See Obafemi Awolowo: Path to Nigerian Freedom Page 47 (iv) During the first meeting of the Council of Ministers over which Sir John Macpherson presided, he referred to the diversity of Nigeria, saying: “…not only to the diversity of race, religion, language, vegetation, and climate, but also to the differences in stages of development.” See British Documents on the End of Empire Series B Vol.7 Part l, Note 155 co 1039/1 of 26 Jan. 1952 page 439 We may safely add the contribution of General Ibrahim Haruna, Chairman Arewa Consultative Forum, to those who have canvassed the fact that Nigeria consists of a number of ethnic nationalities. He said: “The country Nigeria started from being divided. We are never one. It was the process of history that brought us together. The British did not meet us as one country. The country Nigeria started from being divided.” See Compass Newspaper 29 November 2009 Nomenclature There has been a lot of debate on whether the conference should be called a National Conference or Sovereign National Conference. Some have argued that we cannot have a Sovereign National Conference because there is a government in place. We are not anarchists to ask that the existing government structures be dissolved for the people of Nigeria to be able to sit down and talk, even when our stand is that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom the existing government derives all its authority. We seriously need a peoples’ conference. The major contentions with all effort at constitution making in Nigeria since 1922 is that the people have not been allowed to own the process and produce an autochthonous constitution. It is not the business of government to write a constitution, but the people. Democracy does not necessarily produce a government that represents the majority. In fact, the attached document to our memorandum, which gives a statistical analysis of the results of the 2011 elections, graphically shows that most of the governments at different levels in our country were put in place by a little fraction of the population. We have chosen the governorship elections, which is the most popular to show how abysmally low the figures of those who take interest in elections are in Nigeria. If a similar exercise were to be carried out for the results of elections into the National Assembly, the figures would make many of those attempting in vain to rob the peoples of Nigeria of their sovereignty to bury their heads in shame. Be that as it may, we insist on the National Conference with sovereign powers as far as decisions it reached are concerned. The role of the existing government on the decisions of the conference would be only implementation. The only process that would be able to alter any of the decisions reached at the conference is a referendum of the Nigerian peoples. Afenifere right from under the direct leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo being consistent in asking that the nationalities in Nigeria must sit down and discuss their union and agree on a Federal Constitution to guarantee stability, justice ,peace ,real unity and development borne out of autonomy for the constituent units. The Yoruba nations remains the only leg of the “big three” that has never questioned the corporate existence of Nigeria either in form of “Aburi” or “ARABA “, in spite of the many provocations of the events of 1962 and 1993. It is in that spirit that we still ask our compatriots to let us come together at the table of brotherhood to discuss our situation. Now,we speak to issues in your terms of reference: The structure of the conference As Nigeria has failed to attain nationhood fifty three years after independence, it means that the Nationality question is the most urgent business to be resolved. Afenifere therefore asks for a National Conference of Ethnic Nationalities (being the founding entities of the amalgamation) in the main but with accommodation for civil societies, religious leaders, labour, students and other special interests. Delegates to the conference should emerge through elections. For this purpose, we suggest a conference of not more than 700 delegates with 100 delegates from each of the six geo-political zones and the remaining 100 representing special interest groups. The 100 delegates from each of the zones should be elected on the basis of 10 per cent representation for all established ethnic nationalities organizations in the zone while the remaining 90% would emerge from equal number of elected delegates from all senatorial districts representing the traditional ethno-geographical contents of the region. There shall be a Zonal Conference Committee (ZCC) for each zone to supervise the electoral process. The ZCC shall be composed of men and women of proven integrity from within each zone. Legal framework for the conference We accept the fact that the President is the convening authority, he should make the necessary proclamations to give legitimacy to the conference. This is consistent with the order-in-council that promulgated the 1960 Independent Constitution. Duration of the conference We suggest a six-month duration for the conference from inauguration broken down as follows: (i) one month for debates on conference agenda and agreement on how the country should be constituted. (ii) Three months for constitution drafting. (iii) one month for conference to adopt the draft constitution (iv) One month for referendum on the draft constitution to be conducted in all the zones with the wishes of majority of zones being final. Agenda for the conference It is our considered view that to arrive at the agenda for the conference, there is a need for well-crafted and carefully thought-out questions to be discussed very thoroughly at the level of each geo-political zone. The agreed answers at the level of each zonal debate will form the agenda of the conference. Questions to be sent should include but not limited to: (i) Philosophical foundation of the Nigeria State: Federal, Confederal or unitary (ii) Form of government – Presidential or Parliamentary (iii) Structure of the Nigeria State: – Two-tier system – Three-tier system – Four-tier system (iv) Legislative list – Exclusive list – Concurrent – Residual (v) Revenue Generation/Allocation (vi) Law Enforcement, Defence and National Security (vii) Economy (viii) Judiciary Legal procedures on constitutionalising the outcome of the conference The constitution produced shall be promulgated by the National Assembly repealing Decree 24 of 1999 that brought the existing constitution into operation. This is within the law making powers of the National Assembly. There is a precedent for this in the action of Parliament in 1963, when it replaced the 1960 Independence Constitution with the Republican Constitution of 1963. We therefore, propose that the draft constitution from the Conference of Nations within Nigeria shall immediately be taken to a referendum, after which the President will forward an Executive Bill to the National Assembly, which shall enact it into law without tinkering with any of the decisions, since they would be acting as agents of their principals who are the people of Nigeria. Once we have a constitution for the Federation, the federating units would then proceed to write their own constitutions based on the new powers and functions that have been negotiated and devolved to them.
Posted on: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:36:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015