Ambode’s Case for Devolution of Power
The urge to unleash the potentials of Lagos State is behind the state governor, Akinwunmi Ambode’s craving for devolution of powers, writes Gboyega Akinsanmi
The debate for a restructured Nigeria reached a high point last week. Three main positions by critical actors attested to the necessity of a truly negotiated restructured Nigeria, which former Vice-President, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar said, was a fundamental condition for economic growth and political stability. The first position was made by the Southern Leaders’ Forum. The forum comprises notable socio-political figures in the South-west, South-east and South-south. At a meeting n Lagos the forum rejected President Muhammadu Buhari’s standpoint on restruturing.
The forum argued that Buhari’s attempt “to play down the demand for the renegotiation of Nigeria is untenable.” It, thus, said only restructuring “will guarantee the unity, peace and development of Nigeria.” It also strongly cautioned the president against the use of force to address public dissent.
The second position emanated from the resolution of the Southern Leaders of Thought after a meeting also held in Lagos. The group comprises such leaders as Prof. Ben Nwabueze, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, Prof. Akin Oyebode, Prof. Pat Utomi, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Obong Victor Attah, Admiral Ndubisi Kanu, Chief Donald Duke, Gen. Alani Akinrinade, Prof. Kimse Okoko and Chief Tola Adeniyi among others.
Like the forum, the group demanded a negotiated restructuring implemented through a new constitution, which it described as the best assurance for the realisation of collective desire for one Nigeria. It, therefore, rejected Buhari’s proposal that the National Assembly and Council of States “are the two legitimate bodies to people’s demand for political restructuring.”
It equally warned against imminent trouble. It said the trouble would ensue if the federal government “fails to accede to people’s yearning for a new political order that equity, fairness and justice.” It warned that the trouble would not erupt because people “are demanding a negotiated restructuring.” Rather, it argued, the trouble would ensure because the present leaders did not honour people’s will.
Undoubtedly, the two groups have been active in the political space in the last two years, ardently demanding a new political order and disputing the claim that the unity of Nigeria is not negotiated.
Amid the debates on the positions of the two groups, last week, the Lagos State Government reeled out its own position on restructuring on two different occasions. And its position was the high point in the demand for a negotiated restructured Nigeria. It was the high point because Lagos was the first federating unit to publicly declare its standpoints in the debate for a fair federal order. The first occasion was at the 57th Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) held in Lagos. At its opening session, the state governor, Mr. Akinwunmi Ambode urged legal practitioners “to support the demand for devolution of power and fiscal federalism.” He demanded a review of the subsisting revenue allocation regime, which according to him, put the national government at advantage. In a rather radical manner, Ambode declared the conference open with the demand for a true federal democracy, which he believed, would redress all the aberrations created by the military. These aberrations, he argued, had stunted and inhibited the capacity of the federating units “to harness the huge potentials of our nation.” Aside, he said, the demands were to create an enabling environment that would accelerate development in all parts of Nigeria. After Ambode had declared the conference open, the Secretary to the State Government, Mr. Tunji Bello also addressed a session that focused on Lagos. Bello, also an attorney, noted that Lagos could “have been the African version of a Hong Kong. However, the challenge before us is first to overcome the obstacles posed by the present federalist structure.”
At the session, Bello pointed out aberrations inherent in the current federal order one after the other. First, he observed, the current federal practice “is skewed and military in nature.” Second, he rejected a proposal that would give the power to conduct local government elections to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Third, he disapproved a regime that currently “allows the federal government to take 52.68% from the Federation Accounts, leaving 26.72% and 20.60% respectively for state and local governments.”
Even by logic, he argued, a federation derives its strength from its constituents. He cited the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, which he said, largely guaranteed the constituents some level of autonomy and independence. Under the regimes, Bello noted that the founding fathers of Nigeria “obliged us with constitutions that guaranteed that each region kept 50% of its natural resources.
“Each region contributed 20% to the federal government, and the remaining 30% was shared by all the regions on the basis of need. Unfortunately, today, our nation has unwittingly locked up itself and it urgently needs to free itself so that the full potential of our country in its entirety can blossom. It is time to move forward and truly practise what is just for a true federation.” He therefore, canvassed the need to institutionalise the principles of true federalism, which he said, formed the core attributes of the 1960 and 1963 constitutions. By implication, he explained the essence of true federalism, which according to him, is “to exploit the untapped and hidden potentials of each state, create employment opportunities for the large army of unemployed youths and guarantee a better future for us all.”
Ambode had earlier captured it graphically in a position paper he presented before the Constitutional Amendment Committee of the National Assembly on July 14 when he described the defining feature of federalism “as the autonomy and recognition of the separateness and independence of each government that makes up the Federation.”
Founded on this premise, thus, Ambode asked five salient questions, which he said, should shape the push for a new federal order. The questions include: “Why states should be precluded from performing several important constitutional responsibilities? Why does the federal government hold legislative and executive powers on matters of local concern which over-stretch its administrative and supervisory abilities? Why should the Land Use Act, NYSC Act, Code of Conduct Act form part of the 1999 Constitution? Other questions are: “Should we not have a sharing formula that ensures that state and local governments are empowered to discharge their constitutional responsibilities? Should our constitution not confer power on state houses of assembly to establish state police with clear jurisdiction and well-articulated protocols for the regulation of its relationship with the federal police?” In a nutshell, Ambode identified five major areas Lagos State “wants amendment to the 1999 Constitution.” First, he cited devolution of powers based on the principle of appropriateness, which he said, should guide the sharing of powers between the federal and state governments. He deplored an arrangement that guaranteed the national government both legislative and executive powers on matters of local concern.
He explained that the country’s political experience and long era of military rule “has resulted in the Exclusive Legislative List being tilted heavily in favour of the federal government at the expense of the state governments. The effect is that while the states are precluded from performing several important constitutional responsibilities, the federal government is equally unable to function effectively.”
Second, Ambode demanded the removal of the Land Use Act from the constitution, which he said, was an aberration in any federal practice. He said it was the position of Lagos State that the Land Use Act “be separated from the constitution and made applicable only to the Federal Capital Territory. Land has always been and should remain a residual matter for the state houses of assembly to legislate upon, hence the Land Use Act should become Land Use Law of the states.”
Third, he demanded a new revenue allocation regime. He said the current revenue allocation formula “has created a glaring and unacceptable imbalance in the financial resources of the three tiers of government.” The implication of the current allocation regime is huge. He then canvassed a fair revenue allocation regime, which he proposed, should be limited “to federal and state governments. Since local governments are to come under the purview of the states, allocations to them should be shared to states as they can have as many local governments as they wish. The 774 formula is inequitable.”
As the former federal capital territory of Nigeria and its economic nerve centre, Ambode proposed an amendment that would accord Lagos State a special status. Across the world, he argued, it is a standard practice taking into cognisance of its high population density and the influx of citizens from all geo-political zones into the state by the day. The case of Lagos, he said, should not be different.
Fourth, he cited the inability of the federal government “to prioritise and provide the resources that are necessary to pay, equip and train policemen to the level required by the challenges they face.” He provided a graphic illustration to support his demand for state police. Across the federation, he said, security challenges have constituted grave threat to lives and property. He explained that the Nigeria Police “has only 300,000 officers compared to a population of 186 million.”
By analysis, a police officer has a duty to provide security for 620 citizens daily. As Ambode argued, this analysis obviously shows that Nigeria is grossly under-policed. Aside, he said the inadequacy “is most keenly felt in the more populated areas of Nigeria like Lagos and in spite of a growing army of educated job seekers flocking the cities. This inadequacy in the number of policemen has not been remedied due to funding constraints and administrative inefficiencies of the Nigeria Police itself.”
Ambode’s last demand centres much on the need to scrap the Federal Land Registry. His request was based on a federalist argument that the national government “can only exercise in reality some powers or responsibilities that the federating units are willing to surrender or let go for the purpose of national defence, foreign policy, common currency, international trade and immigration…”
He argued that it was an aberration for the federal government “to continue to operate land registry in Lagos State. The Federal Land Registry which was established when Lagos was Federal Capital Territory ought to have been closed down and all title therein moved to the Lagos State Land Registry.”
In a rather radical manner, Ambode declared the conference open with the demand for a true federal democracy, which he believed, would redress all the aberrations created by the military