Restructuring Nigeria (III)

Part of the poor luck of our country is that its problems follow it like the shadow. One of these lingering problems is, of course, the form of governmental or physical structure best suited to our peculiar social, economic, political and ethnic interests. When our champions of independence from British colonial rule opted for a federation, they were convinced it was wheat we needed because in a classical sense, it is a system built on a certain degree of flexibility in managing the centre and the constituent units of the federation.

It appears it has not quite worked for us, hence the strong centrifugal forces still trying to put us asunder. True federalism, fiscal federalism and even confederation have all been offered, each as the solution to this lingering problem. These recipes are indications that there is still much work to do and more challenges we must confront before we can sleep with our two eyes closed as citizens of one country in which no one, with fond hopes, is oppressed.

Political restructuring is the latest in our basket of demands being made on the country to re-examine itself and do the needful to save itself. In a paper, entitled Issues in Restructuring Corporate Nigeria, presented at the National Conference on the 1999 Constitution at Arewa House, Kaduna, September 11 to 12, 1999, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, then of the United Bank for Africa, and now the emir of Kano, argued that “…restructuring is primarily about providing a constitutional framework, a formula for sharing the spoils of power. It is about ensuring that the spoils of office do not go to Mohammed, Abubakar, Musa and Umar but to Mohammed, Obafemi, Chukwuma, Ishaya and Ekpenyong.”

You may think he was being cynical and simplistic. But it helps to examine his argument in the context of the intelligent name of a proposed political party during the Babangida transition programme, You Chop I Chop Party. Certainly, there are fundamental issues rocking the nation but the first rule in collective survival is to let everyone chop. General Alani Akinrinade, former chief of Army Staff and our first Chief of Defence Staff, is one of the robust voices in the agitation to put things right. He has repeatedly warned that “Nigeria is going nowhere without restructuring.” (See My Dialogue with Nigeria, page 361). The general was a member of the National Conference.

So,whatdidthataugustbodycome up with in terms of restructuring? It seems the recommendations and the resolutions of the conference must be taken as a whole to appreciate its views on political restructuring. For many people, however, there are two fundamental changes that would make for at least the basic political restructuring of the federation as the first steps towards finding that needle hidden in the haystack.

I suggest we view restructuring in terms of redefining the nature and practice of our federalism as opposed to the current military federalism in which the detritus of military rule militates against the full flowering of true federalism. Among the fundamental changes people expect are state police and fiscal federalism. Both have been playing in the public space for quite sometime now. And both have strong proponents and robust opponents.

The wisdom in state police as opposed to the current single federal police is to give back to the states the primary responsibility of providing their own security assisted by the Nigeria Police Force where the need arises. This is the practice in all federal systems. The regional governments in the First Republic had Native Authority police, recruited, trained and funded by the native authorities. The stupid argument, and one can’t put it delicately, that the country is not ripe for a state police is nonsense in capital letters.

Fiscal federalism should provide a financial breather for the constituent units of the federation. There is wisdom in allowing them to enjoy a measure of fiscal autonomy to be able to take care of their basic social and developmental needs. The sight of state commissioners of finance trooping to Abuja every month, begging bowl in hand, to receive their monthly share from the federation account reinforces the fact that the states are treated like administrative units of the centre.

With all earnings going to the centre and one police force policing the entire country, it is no use arguing this: the states are not just weak; they are also thoroughly weakened. Again, this military wisdom is anathema to the proper running of a federal system. It is defective and needs to be thrown out.

I was surprised, shocked is the word, to see that the conference was mealy-mouthed about these two fundamentals of federalism. On state police, it recommended that “both the federal and state governments should share responsibility for security and the maintenance of law and order. Thus, conference recommends a second tier level policing in addition to the federal police.”(Emphasis added).

And on fiscal federalism, it recommended the “creation of the office of the Accountant-General (Director-General) of the Federation as a distinct and separate office from the Office of the Accountant-General and the Federation. The Office of the Accountant-General shall oversee the accruals of revenue into and disbursement from the Federation Account as and when due….” Is this fiscal federalism? Beats me. Where do we go from here? The fate of the report blows in the wind. The Buhari administration would not likely bother itself with it. The poor luck of the report is that we expect it to be implemented by those whose political and other interests might be affected by some of its radical recommendations. Had the National Conference been vested with sovereign powers by an act of parliament, I think it would have had better luck. It is a thousand pities that this fine work, and it is fine and comprehensive by all standards, would be wasted, a victim of fear, mutual suspicion and the shenanigans of politics. Ignoring the report leaves our country for ever groaning under the weight of a military federalism that is crippling, stifling and inimical to our collective interests.