(http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/thumbnail.php?file=Anyaoku_989125953.jpg&size=article_medium)
The call for a form of dialogue by the component units of Nigeria has become stronger in recent times, in the face of fresh challenges to the union. But, there is no consensus on the form. Should it be sovereign? Should it be plain conference? What should be the mode? Deputy Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU, who has followed the debate, reports.
Across the six geo-political zones, it appears that there [/size]are only a few dissenting voices on the need for a fresh conference to debate the future of Nigeria. However, there is a bone of contention. While a section of the stakeholders is rooting for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC), another section is limiting its clamour to the convocation of a National Conference.
[/size]The two groups have not elaborated on the modalities for convoking the conference. They are silent on the number of ethnic nationalities expected to send representatives to the conference, the size of the delegates or how they would be selected, the finance, logistics, tenure and co-ordination. But at the end of the conference, stakeholders expect the fashioning out of a people’s constitution that is truly federal in nature and appeal.Among those calling for a Sovereign National Conference are men of the old order who had witnessed the derailment of the federal structure in the post-First Republic era. They include staunch Awoists and arrowheads of pro-democracy movement; Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi, Dr. Femi Okurounmu, Senator Olabiyi Durojaye, Senator Ayo Fasanmi, Senator Bola Tinubu, Chief Bisi Akande, Chief Olusegun Osoba, Mr. Ayo Opadokun; Chief Arthur Nwankwo, Chief Olu Falae, Prof. Itse Sagay, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, Prof. Akin Oyebode, Dr. Tunji Abayomi, Mr. Femi Falana and Mr. Olisa Agbakoba.However, many compatriots who have endorsed the National Conference idea, instead of SNC, have insisted that, given the nature and current standing of Nigeria, it will be asking for too much to expect the government of the day, including the National Assembly, to surrender power to another sovereign assembly. The most strident voices among the patriotsin this camp in recent times is the former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku. Both groups have the same goal in mind, which is the restoration of true federalism.To the first group, nothing is sacrosanct about Nigeria. At a recent meeting of a pro-conference group, the National Consensus Group, held at Dr. Tunji Braithwaite’s residence, Ikoyi, Lagos, Prof. Oyebode said that “the unity of Nigeria is negotiable”, adding that it has been an artificial creation forcefully lumped together by the British without the agreement and consent of the people. “We can converge to discuss all the matters, including whether Nigeria should or should not remain as an entity”, he canvased.Anyaoku’s intervention may have been premised on the need to save Nigeria from disintegration, the same fear that Adebanjo has always allayed. Adebanjo said: “There is no alternative to SNC to discuss the problems of Nigeria and the basis for peaceful co-existence. A will say its own and B will say its own and if they agree on the terms, they continue together”.Anyaoku shared the main view of the pro-SNC agitators, saying: “To return to true federalism, we need a major restructuring of our current architecture of governance”, adding: “We should aim at getting the national conference to reach a consensus on devolving from the centre to the six federating units responsibility for such areas of governance as internal security, including the police, infrastructure, education, health and economic development.However, Anyaoku quickly added: “I must hasten to say that my support is for a national conference without the epithet of ‘sovereign’. This is because we already have in place an elected structure of governance that includes the Presidency, in which the citizens have, for the time being, vested the sovereignty that truly belongs to them”.His view again aligned with those pushing for SNC in the area of referendum. The former Commonwealth Secretary-General stressed that “in order to give it legitimacy and better chance of enduring, the outcome of the national conference must be submitted to a referendum of the population of the country”.President Goodluck Jonathan does not belong to any of the groups. While baring his mind to Bishop Bolanle Gbonigi’s group at Aso Rock, the seat of power recently, he ruled out the possibility of entertaining the national question for as long as he is in charge, claiming that any threat to national sovereignty is not welcomed. The view, many believe, also tallies with that of the leadership of the National Assembly. Observes believe that bad governance, injustice and inept leadership, especially at the centre are tonics for the intensification of the demand for a national debate to iron out issues germane to stability and happiness of the diverse component units. At issue is the foisting of what Tinubu described as a “unitary empire” on a supposedly federal state.The slain Attorney- General and Minister of Justice, Chief Bola Ige, delved into the heart of the national question about two decades ago. He asked: “Do we still want to live together as a country?” If the answer is yes, he again asked: how? To him, a debate was actually necessary to deliberate on terms for unity among the component units that are coordinate with the central government.In 1947, Awolowo, in his book titled: Path to Nigeria’s Freedom, pointed out that only true fedealism was the answer. It was an understatement. Governor Hugh Clifford, who took over from Lord Fredrick Lugard as governor of Nigeria was alarmed by the sheer fusion of the vast plural society. In his reckoning, the fundamental elements of plurality, including diverse languages, customs, traditions, and religions, would harbour the ultimate potentials of shaping their reactions and perceptions of the socio-economic and political milieu.As the country was on the lane to independence, the reality stared the first set of indigenous leaders in the face. Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, during the protracted constitutional conferences had said to the late Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello: “Let us forget our differences”. But Bello disagreed, saying: “We must understand our differences”.At independence, Nigeria stood on a tripod -West, East and North. Each developed at its pace, relying on God-given resources. The founding fathers of Nigeria settled for federalism and regionalism, with the advantage of healthy competition that went with the options. Later, the military dismantled the federal structure.The early strain manifested in the three years of avoidable civil war. When states and local governments were created in response to the elite’s scramble for power and relevance, the distribution by the military was lopsided, thereby engendering bitterness. The military nationalised the regions’ assets and formula for equitable, just and fair distribution of the commonwealth. The principles of derivation, need and national interest were turned upside down and the goose that lays the golden eggs was inflicted with the burden of neglect and denial, prompting violent protests in the Niger Delta.Gone also were the community and state police, which made security accessible in the earlier saner era. Up came the Land Use Act, the emasculation of the state and local governments, hijack of value added tax, and full concentration of power in the tiny federal apparatus.When it was apparent that military rule was old fashioned, the departing soldiers and their civilian collaborators bequeathed the flawed 1999 Constitution, a fraudulent document which the late Chief Rotimi Williams (SAN) said lied against itself.Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who ruled between 1999 and 2011, approached the sensitive issue of constitution review with lip service. The hypocritical commitment has continued under his successors. The 2005 National Political reform Conference that he set up, with its “no-go areas”, collapsed with his third term ambition. Lamenting the fate of the wobbling country, Adebanjo said SNC has been made elusive by the enemies of Nigeria. He warned that the fledgling federation may continue to be assailed by tension, religious crisis, flexing of muscles over derivation and gross insecurity.‘ Southeast-Southsouth Professionals’ led by Emeka Ugwu-Oju, said, whether SNC or National Conference, the future is due for debate. He urged the federal government to buy the idea, noting that, if a conference starts today, peace would return to Nigeria. “When there was a national conference in Abuja and PRONACO in Lagos, there was no single case of violence in the Niger Delta for the whole year”, he pointed out. Ugwu-Oju urged speed, warning that delay may be dangerous. He said: “If we don’t want Nigeria to disintegrate as predicted that international agencies, the ethnic nationalities should agree on terms for living together”.Reiterating his call for SNC, Tunji Abayomi, who spoke on the flaws of the 1999 Constitution said: “The foundation of this country is not clear. There is no agreement by the ethnic groups about Nigeria. Until there is an agreement on the basis for co-existence, there will be no nation. It will be worse for our children in the future.“The military gave the power to make law to itself under its decrees. But, it lacked the power to make a constitution for Nigeria. The people delegated to the National Assembly their power to make laws. Let them make a law that will give power to the people to make a peoples’ constitution. Yoruba, Ijaw, Boko Haram would meet. Yoruba may want agriculture. Ijaw know what they want. Boko Haram say they don’t want education. All these issues would be discussed. We will decide the way forward at the conference. We should agree on the terms for co-existence”.
TheNation