Confab Report and Nigeria’s Future ENDING its deliberations last Thursday, after five months of intense bickering and horse-trading among delegates, the curtain finally falls on the National Conference today, as it submits its report to President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja. Nigeria almost exploded on the faces of the delegates, underlining the sharp divisions among its disparate parts. Cascading calls from Nigerians disturbed by events that eerily and steadily undermine national stability, forced the President to convoke the conference. Its objective was quite clear: to develop a guiding document of our national political relationships, which would be more acceptable to all sections of the country. He will receive the report, which includes over 600 draft proposals to amend the 1999 Constitution. The most critical resolutions of the conference are making the states the only federating units; creation of state police; and putting electricity and railways on the Concurrent Legislative List, all in sync with the principles of federalism. Apparently, they are some of the issues central to the question of restructuring the country for effective governance. We applaud the delegates for these bold steps. In our earlier editorials, we had argued very strongly for a return to true federalism. Nigeria has moved thus far with the ghastly 1999 Constitution that, to all intents and purposes, is more unitary than federal. Of all its deficiencies –of which there are a disturbingly great number –its desecration of the federal structure and devolution of power is the most divisive. Our founders envisioned a federal system capable of accommodating many diversities and fostering healthy competition among the federating nations. After all, they fought and won independence from an exploitative colonialism. They recognised all too well the consequences of giving too much power to one individual or a single level of government. They designed a secular, democratic and federal system of government essentially aimed at promoting unity in diversity and protecting the rights of all Nigerians. Unfortunately, through the leprous fingers of the military, the growing power of the centre eroded the well-thought-out federal system and threatened Nigeria’s continued existence. But only devolution can redress the flaws inherent in a centralised state and economy. It is, therefore, noteworthy that the conference was able to make some consequential recommendations aimed at restoring the cherished principle of devolution of power. Other outstanding decisions in the report include the merger of states for those wishing to do so; rotation of the governorship seat among the senatorial zones; limiting federal ministerial appointments to 18, drawn equally from the six geo-political zones; tying the defection of an elected office holder to another party to loss of the seat; constitutional recognition of Excess Crude Account/Sovereign Wealth Fund; Development Commission in each of the six zones; states exploitation of solid mineral in their areas, with Federal Government’s licence; and submission of annual budget to the National Assembly every September, among others. The conference’s weaknesses are, nevertheless, well known: lack of legal powers to write a new constitution and the limitations slammed on it to discuss the viability of Nigeria. But most problematic of all is the conference’s inability to settle, once and for all, the slanted derivation principle/resource control that would have made the country truly federal. Mutual distrust and venomous debates on the issue made it impossible for any consensus to be reached between delegates from the North and South. Despite some drawbacks, the report is an historic compromise among contending interests, particularly between proponents of the status quo and protagonists of modernisation. It is a step forward in the nagging question of restructuring our twisted and unviable federalism. It is, indeed, an essentially effective way of saving Nigeria from a looming destruction. The last five months or so have been so testy, not only for the delegates, but for other informed citizens. Within and without the conference, the delegates have openly and frankly discussed our problems and sought acceptable solutions instead of allowing them to fester and remain sources of perennial conflict as Jonathan had envisaged. For successfully rounding off this national assignment, the delegates have etched their names in history. The cynics can eat humble pie. In reality, the “perennial conflict” is fast turning to a deadly chaos. Nigeria is a very sick and artificial state, hobbled by religious intolerance and insurgency. The destructive influence of ethnic and religious politics has seriously dented social cohesion. The rot in the polity, wreaked by decades of misrule by both the military and civilian elite, is enormous. As the country teeters at the edge of political chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the Nigerian system of government is broken. The anomie of a jihadist tempest ravaging the North, which has resulted in over 15,000 Nigerians being senselessly killed since 2009 by Boko Haram, or where citizens are no longer safe in areas other than their states of origin, is too grave to be ignored. This incubus will continue to gnaw at the soul of Nigeria until it is dealt with. It is either we collectively save it by holding fast to the gains of the conference, or negate the report at our peril. Nations as much challenged as Nigeria, which failed to manage their differences, are now footnotes on the pages of history. What has become of the old Soviet Union in 1990, Sudan and Ethiopia, and now unstable Iraq and Syria, should remind the reactionary elements that Nigerian is not immune to such an apocalyptic fate. From the look of things, it is still unclear whether a worst case scenario can be avoided; but if efforts to prevent the sectarian conflict from escalating into an all-out implosion are to succeed, one of the key measures that will have to be taken is the adoption and immediate implementation of the 2014 National Conference report. Regrettably, there is a critical mass of politicians and others who are benefitting from the current contraption, and you can bet they are all still trying to make sure that nothing changes. This explains why most citizens are worried about how the outcome of the conference will be handled. Will it be another totally pointless endeavour? Thanks to our toxic political environment, it won’t be easy. But it can be done. It requires a strong Presidency and patriotic lawmakers, both at the centre and states, that put the country first. Politically conscious citizens must be vigilant for months to come, develop a strong commitment to effecting change and continually make their voices heard to keep the momentum. We must ensure that the amended constitution has the broad-based legitimacy that foundational documents need for a competitive democracy to thrive. Fortunately, in declaring the National Conference open on March 17, Jonathan said the National Assembly had already introduced the provision for a referendum in the proposed amendment of the Constitution. According to him, this should be relevant for this conference if at the end of the deliberations, the need for a referendum arises. This country has vacillated long enough. Much now depends on Jonathan. His administration needs to act fast before the full cost of our system paralysis comes due, and the National Conference window may be our last chance and surest escape route from horror. Copyright PUNCH. All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH. Contact: editor@punchng
Posted on: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:45:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015