What hope from National Confab resolutions? ReporteronJul 20, 2014 The National Conference President Goodluck Jonathan inaugurated on March 17, 2014 is gliding to a dramatic end. Though its form might have fallen below the expectations of some critical segments of the society, like civil society groups, for example, that have stridently clamoured for a sovereign national conference, we dare say that many Nigerians keyed into the vision, believing it could be used to address the nation’s obvious multifaceted challenges. For 16 weeks, 492 ‘wise men and women’, who were stupendously mobilised for the assignment, toiled under a most emotive ambience to redesign for the consideration of the federal authorities, a new grundnorm for the country. It is to the credit of the maturity of the delegates, though, that in spite of their sharp differences and mindsets, the conference never witnessed the type of walk-outs that characterised some of the past ones. However, do the wide range of issues discussed by the delegates with all robustness, profundity and vigour at the confab be interpreted as the nation’s iron-cast commitment to a larger and better national cause? From our privileged observatory, we did not see a genuine national dialogue conducted in the spirit of give-and-take, with larger national interest as the goal. Rather, what we witnessed mostly was extreme geopolitical jingoism, as if a maniacal spirit of ruthless self-centredness took control of many of the delegates. The dialogue was conducted as if nothing was learned from the country’s past political history. A new Nigeria not deeply rooted in the principle of fiscal federalism and political federalism cannot address our current reality. The undue politicisation of the issue of resource control was very unsettling, to say the least. For a balanced federation to exist, the economic component of federalism cannot be subsumed under primordial considerations. The surreptitiously negotiated derivation weight increase from the current 13 per cent to 18 per cent for oil-producing states, five per cent allocation for solid minerals development, and five per cent for the North-East by the Elders Committee on Derivation Funds, for instance, amounts to nothing but a grandiose balancing act that cannot stand the test of time. This development will be a permanent sore in the fiscal relations among the federating units. Whatever interventionist measures needed to tackle the pervasive poverty up North should have been left at the discretion of the Presidency. However, one salutary recommendation of the conference is conceding an additional state to the South-East “in the spirit of reconciliation, equity and justice” to bring it at par with four other geopolitical zones in the country. But the pragmatism of the gesture is rubbished by the recommendation of additional 18 states for the country. Nigeria does not need additional states that would further compromise its federal character and reduce the states to mere administrative centres devoted to only the payment of salaries. The proposed fiscal financial autonomy for local government councils and the safeguard put in place to ensure they are democratically ruled deserve commendation. Stopping the statutory allocations of councils not administered by democratically elected officials will surely stop the dubious pastime of some state governors to run councils with their cronies christened as caretaker committees. But one very shortsighted recommendation is that on scrapping State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIECs). The implication is that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would henceforth be conducting elections into local government councils. The question is why must a federal institution supervise elections into local government councils? We think the responsibility should be left to states, notwithstanding their imperfections. Equally curious is the recommendation that in the event of the death of a sitting President, the Vice-President shall only act for 90 days, after which there must be an election to fill the void. The recommendation does not conform to international best political practices. We see it as a panic reaction to our recent past. But commendable is the rejection of single six-year tenure for the office of the President. The rejection will save the country from rapacious and banal leaders that would mindlessly rape the country blue because they will not need any second term endorsement from the electorate. And there is nothing home-made in the recommended modified presidential system of government preferred by the conference, as is the practice in France, for example. If Nigeria wants a cost effective system, the ‘modification’, so-called, cannot guarantee it.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:17:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015