Special Correspondent, JOE EZUMA, looks at some issues that gave rise to the national conference and how they were attended to…
Amid the euphoria of success, chest-beating and self-adulation by most members of the national conference, many questions remain unanswered, critics insist. Among these is whether the nation has actually moved a notch beyond previous attempts. There is also the concern on whether the delegates succeeded in settling the core issues that informed the clamour by Nigerians for a forum to discuss how they can cohabit in a nation state. Critics also ask if the country is not on the high way to another round of clamour, given the hazy outcome of the current exercise. Why is the Niger Delta, which secured 17 per cent increase in derivation in 2005, be subjected to the harrowing struggle not only to protect 30 per cent but to fight afresh for 18 per cent? many have particularly asked.
Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi
President of the Conference of former Speakers and erstwhile Speaker of Anambra State House of Assembly, Anayo Nnebe, who is equally a delegate to the conference, argues that the conference covered some mileage, insisting that at the end of the conference, “one can clearly say that so far, we have done well. Anybody that takes examination and has opportunity of scoring himself will score himself high. It is left for outsiders to judge.”
He believes that the major thing is that the conference did not derail. “We had done well. The conference had been focusing on the issues concerning the common man.”
But there are Nigerians who believe that though the conference was focused during its debates, it still succumbed to booby traps which have always caught Southern leaders and their people in their dealings with their Northern counterparts. These analysts readily identify the core issues of restructuring, true federalism revenue allocation formula or resource control, as fundamental issues facing conference.
They note, however, that it was the issue of resource control, the plank on which true federalism rests, that was pushed back to President Goodluck Jonathan to take final decision on.
Supporters of the president, thus, argue that if the current exercise fails, it should not be blamed on him but on Nigeria’s politics of North-South divide.
When on October 1, 2013 Jonathan announced his readiness to organise a national conference for the people to discuss how they could live together peacefully and followed it up with the setting up of the Senator Femi Okorunmu Presidential Advisory Committee (PAC) to set the agenda, there was pronounced opposition to the initiative mostly from the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and some South West elements, especially of Pro-National Conference (PRONACO) and National Democratic coalition (NADECO) tendencies. Among the fiercest critics of the agenda was former Lagos State governor and APC national leader, Bola Tinubu.
The opposition accused the president of having a hidden agenda. They also pointed out that it was very close to the 2015 election and could be manipulated and be disruptive.
But those who had faith in the conference disagreed.
Significantly, after the Aburi Accord on which the Nigerian Government had reneged in the build up to the 1967-1970 civil war, the loudest call in the post-war Nigeria for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) had emanated from the western part of the country, seconded by the people of the former Eastern Region on account of marginalisation from the centres of political power and economic control.
And because the driving force for the call for SNC has been structural refinement of a highly skewed federation that had seen some sections of the country dominating power while others remain permanently shut out of power, opposition to national conference had come from the North.
Expressing his surprise at Tinubu’s opposition to President Jonathan‘s national dialogue, Ijaw leader, Edwin Clark, noted that the Yoruba are the originators of SNC or national conference.
In similar vein, after initially voicing their opposition to it, Northern critics of the conference and in fact the entire North endorsed the exercise. This unusual positive approach by the North, which had either truncated previous attempts or spurned dialogue completely, had raised some suspicion that the conference might be ambushed as it progressed.
What Nigerians have been clamouring for, especially in the wake of the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election won by Moshood K.O. Abiola, has been a comprehensive review of the nation’s constitution to provide for a loose federation or true federalism including state police, more revenue allocation to states or resource control, and less allocation to the federal government.
Ironically, the above demands were among the issues tabled at Aburi, Ghana, and agreed upon by Nigerian leaders. The Aburi agreement even provided measures against any head of Nigerian government abusing the use of security forces and misusing of security votes for personal reasons.
The initial opposition to the conference notwithstanding, it was thought at the beginning that the North and South were united in seeking the way forward.
The underlying principle that informs the need for national dialogue is to foster equity, justice, fairness and unity, to avert national disintegration. To concerned citizens, the greatest task Nigerians can give themselves is to strive to resolve her national question permanently and not biker over 2015.
Fears over realisation of confab aims
But there are fears over implementation of decisions reached by the delegates at the conference. The fears arose from constitutional hindrance, Northern opposition and politics of regional advantage. Observers saw the fear as a carry-over of the politics at the skewed National Assembly where the same North has numerical advantage and has tried to maximise its advantages in deliberations.
This may explain the initial rowdiness and tension that characterised the proceedings until the conference chairman, Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, and his team restored order through maturity, diplomatic savvy, tolerance and soundness of mind.
Buba Galadima, a trustee of the defunct Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) and a delegate to the conference, said he was dragged to the conference.
“Frankly speaking, I was dragged to this conference. So in actual sense, whatever I do is reacting to situations as they arise,” he said shortly before the conference wound up.
At the conference, there was strenuous argument over mode of voting and percentage that would carry decision. But eventually, 70 per cent was arrived at.
Many have since argued that the decisions arrived at would have to go through national referendum. But constitutional experts have pointed that there was no provision for that in the 1999 Constitution, and that the National Assembly would have to amend the constitution to create room for referendum before it could be applied.
This uncertainty has thus raised the fear that the usual politics that had neutralised or killed previous attempts will rear its ugly head again. It was baffling to many that politicians have rather concentrated efforts in scheming for 2015. Some politicians, it has been noted, are attaching more importance to 2015 election than resolution of the national question as shown by the attitude of the opposition to the conference and conduct of some vested interests at the proceedings, a fact which has exposed their penchant for politicising everything to the detriment of national interest and the insincerity with which previous attempts were approached and their failures.
Why Nigerians must consolidate covered ground
Experts have argued that what have always led to controversies on elections and census are rooted in the structural imbalance of the country, including such factors as ethnicity and ethnocentrism, insincerity as well as mutual mistrust which arises from these. They note that if Nigerians are really sincere and have interest in a united Nigeria, they should strive to avert the predictions of the country’s disintegration by 2015.
This realisation, it has been argued, may have propelled two groups, PRONACO and Consensus Group of Project Nigeria, to step out to be counted. According to Olawale Okunmiyi, one of its drivers, the common stand after an extensive consultation, among Nigerians, was that only a credible confab would save the nation from political strife and possible break-up. What this suggests is that politicians and elder statesmen should strive to actualise the few areas already agreed at the conference to ensure their successful implementation than on 2015.
But are they likely to heed this suggestion? Analysts argue that the next few months will prove whether Nigerians want to advance from the current confab. The coming months, it is also stressed, will also show whether Nigerian leaders prefer the ephemeral grandeur of political power than the survival of the country as a nation. This is especially as the confab, despite initial opposition, still had endorsement from eminent Nigerians which many say may have explained why the confab debates were largely nationalistic and devoid of insincerity and deception that had marred previous attempts, especially the IBB reform of the 1980s, the Abacha constitutional conference of 1994/95 which gave rise to the much resented 1999 Constitution and the deceptive Olusegun Obasanjo National Political Reform Conference (NPRC) of 2005.
Former Minister for Information, Tony Momoh, while approving the idea of a confab, however, observed that the timing was wrong as 2014 was a year of preparing for 2015 election.
The spread of its support by other Nigerians was also phenomenal and a source of succour for national conference agitators. Former governor of Abia State, Orji Uzor Kalu, while speaking on the issue, had urged Nigerians to strive to sustain the plurality of Nigeria because of its advantage.
Kalu noted that “under Britain, Nigerians were more concerned about self-rule (Independence), while in Aburi the opportunity was lost because we were insincere. Now, we can fix our country, so that the law does not grind the poor. No more monkey dey work, baboon dey chop. Nigeria belongs to Ayo, Amaka as much as it belongs to Amina and Dokubo.”
The former governor, who cautioned that Nigeria cannot afford to break up, advised Nigerians to look the way of developed countries such as Germany and the United States to fashion unity and stability for the country.
Similarly, former Finance Minister and eminent economist, Dr. Idika Kalu, had estimated the conference and its success as more important than 2015 elections. He had said that the key issue of the conference would be the structural balance that would give the nation maximum growth, arguing that no sacrifice would be too much to achieve this objective.
“Whether as governors, senators or members of the House, let’s take a look at the structure that is going to give this nation maximum growth and development. That is more important than rushing to another election,” he had advised.
On his own, former Vice President, Dr. Alex Ekwueme, who championed the current six zonal structure for the country, had noted that the post-Independence three regional structure of Nigeria had drawbacks in the sense that the Northern region was bigger than the other two regions put together. He observed that with the situation under the parliamentary system, if all the members of parliament voted together, as was then obtainable, they would always produce Prime Minister.
“This means that some parts of the country will consider themselves as second class citizens if they cannot aspire to the highest office in the land,” he emphasised, noting that that was the major shortcoming of that structure.
Former Aviation Minister and defunct Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) Director of Organization and Publicity, Ebenezer Babatope, had similarly advised Nigerians to grab the opportunity offered by Mr. President in accepting to organise the confab, describing the development as a divine intervention.
“There is the hand of God in this. We have, for the first time, a president that believes in the national conference. Others played politics,” he had remarked.
The question critics ask, however, is how far the just concluded confab would give Nigerians the expected satisfaction in handling the core issues that had necessitated the gathering.
