What Manner of
Dialogue?
culled from THIS DAY,
January 16, 2005
At last, the
Federal Government appears to have succumbed to pressures on the need to have
Nigerians debate their collective future together. Indeed, agitations for a
national conference have stuck like a sore thumb despite the long held aversion
of the presidency to the idea.
But now that the government has demonstrated a relunctant compliance, its idea
of the issue is turning out to be at variance with the expectations of many
Nigerians. For now, two broad schools of thought on how the conference should be
organized are identifiable: the one holding on to the catch word of 'sovereign'
and insisting on a very minimal role for the government of the day, and the
other already proceeding with an arrangement that seeks to exclude adherents of
the 'sovereign' school as much as possible.
In this report, Tunde Rahman, Lanre Issa-Onilu and Oke
Epia, examine both sides of the spectrum and highlight the issues of
fundamental values particular to each of the two divides.
Background to
A Dialogue
Throughout his first term in office, President Olusegun Obasanjo avoided the
issue of convocation of a national conference like a plague. Every suggestion of
the matter was easily interpreted as an attempted threat against the corporate
unity of Nigeria and was shoved aside quickly.
Not even when ethnic and religious conflicts reigned freely from Sagamu to
Kaduna to Aba and the rest in the early years of that tenure, was the presidency
swayed in its decision not to consider the issue. Incessant cries about the
political imbalances in the federation which manifested in cries for resource
control, rise of ethnic militias, and more recently, the reinforcement of the
settler/indigeneship dichotomy could make the Federal Government have a rethink.
Just like the obvious volte face from anti-confab quarters especially from the
North proved insufficient as reason to allow for the all important discussion
among Nigerians on how they want to live together assuming that is the
consensus.
However, what appeared to be a response to the unending agitations was a mandate
laid on the National Assembly since the last dispensation to address the grey
areas of the 1999 constitution. It became a convenient argument for those
opposed to the idea of a sovereign national conference to say that since the
legislature as the law-making organ of government was constituted by elected
representatives of the people, it could as well appropriate such representative
powers to work out an acceptable constitution for Nigerians. Accordingly, a
joint committee of the National Assembly was put in place since the last
assembly to perform a constitution review exercise. Indeed, there is yet such
existing committee headed by Senator Ibrahim Mantu, Deputy Senate President of
the Senate which is purportedly still carrying out its assignment.
But this arrangement sooner than later became dogged with allegations of pursuit
of a hidden agenda that would usher in continuity of office for the President
and other elected officers across various tiers of government. Incidentally, the
recommendation at a time, of five-year term of office for the President and
State Governors, gave credence to this thinking. Willy-nilly, the constitution
review exercise was interpreted to mean a plot to prepare the grounds for a
third term in office for Obasanjo and the governors of the 36 states.
And once this speculations gained currency among the populace, heavy doubts and
suspicions began to trail whatever moves or intentions, however genuine they may
be, of the National Assembly committees on the review of the constitution.
Connected in this regard, was a surreptitious committee of persons perceived to
be Obasanjo's loyalists who were purportedly working on reforms for the
political system. Yet again, speculations soon began to spread that the
committee headed by Alhaji Mohammed Waziri and which was meeting every Wednesday
at a location in Abuja, was allegedly out to thrust a third term agenda for the
President on Nigerians. And once this became a matter of open suspicion amongst
the populace, that was the end of that effort, at least on the surface.
It is perhaps out of the ashes of these half-hearted and unclear gestures to
address the issue of a national dialogue that the President seems to have had a
change of heart. At least this is the closest in the direction of accummulated
agitations for confab whether or not it is at variance with popular
expectations.
Last December in Aso Rock, the President inaugurated an eight-man committee on
Political Reforms Agenda. Headed by Governor Ahmed Makarfi of Kaduna State, the
committee was charged basically with the responsibility of preparing ground for
what the Obasanjo termed a "national dialogue." Its brief chiefly was to produce
a background paper that would guide the proposed national committee so as to
avoid on a "wild goose chase" as well as fashioning out guidelines to determine
participants at the ënational dialogue.
Membership of the committee include Governor Segun Agagu of Ondo State, Senator
Udoma Udo Udoma, Prof. Jerry Gana, Prof. Aliu Yahaya, Chief Cornelius Adebayo,
Prof. Okwudiba Nnoli and Prof. Joy Ogwu.
Said the President at the inauguration: "The committee is expected to produce a
background paper that will form the basis for dialogue by a broadly composed
national body seen to be constituted to produce a sound political reform agenda
for Nigeria. "To ensure public ownership of the envisaged reform process, the
proposed national committee will reflect the various social forces and
interests, community interests and political tendencies within the nation."
Realising the need for the country to take a second look at its political
framework and practices for it to move forward, Obasanjo said the committee's
work will include determining what reforms are necessary and expected to
complement government's reform programme being prosecuted under the National
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS).
The proposed reforms, according to him, must achieve the following objectives:
Deepen, widen and strengthen the structures, institutions, principles and
processes of democratic good governance; produce, through a review of the 1999
constitution, a sound, relevant, coherent, consistent and well-articulated
constitution that would strengthen national unity and stability, promote
democracy, facilitate good governance and ensure human rights within the rule of
law with citizenís obligations; how best to enforce party discipline and
supremacy, while giving ordinary party members legitimate avenues for seeking
opportunities and seeking redress; the process of constitutional reforms, taking
into consideration the ongoing exercise at the executive and legislative levels;
how to thoroughly refine the electoral system so as to ensure credible
elections, with substantial reduction of cost of elections to both the
government and individual contestants; how to strengthen neutrality and
independence of electoral commission; how to effect judicial reforms in order to
promote quick dispensation of justice, with fairness, equity, and integrity.and
refine the electoral system for the purpose of ensuring the conduct of free,
fair, and credible elections that are cost-effective and ensure level-playing
ground for all political competitors.
Others include to build highly principled, sharply focused, well-organized,
effectively-managed, value-oriented and disciplined political patrons to sustain
democracy; provide a harmonious-system of checks and balances based on the
separation of powers, with transparency, integrity and accountability; how to
effect vital reforms of the structure of governance and relationships between
the various organs and tiers of government, so as to produce rapid development
and service delivery with efficiency, effectiveness and transparency; how to
effectively deal with the hydra-headed issue of corruption at all levels and in
all shapes and forms nationally; how to reorientate Nigeria from politics of
patronage and materialism to politics of service; how to ensure that politically
elected officials and political appointees are held accountable for corruption
and criminal offences while still in office; how to inculcate enduring values
and virtues in the Nigerian society; how to ensure internal party democracy so
as to produce high quality candidates for elective offices and party
leadership;and any other important issues that would contribute immensely to
good governance, human rights and social justice, and sustenance of unity,
stability, security, democracy and development at all levels of governance.
Shortly before the Christmas celebrations, the committee submitted its report
wherein it proposed seven items on the agenda for a National Dialogue. According
to Makarfi, the key issues identified include: constitutional, political
parties, electoral, judicial and civil society reforms as well as reform of the
structures of government and consensus building.
The committee which noted that reforms could only be successful if power was
decentralised within the society recommended that the devolution of power should
be done in such a way that political activities are not monopolised by few
individuals and cliques since "ownership of political institutions such as
parties must be corporate not private."
The Kaduna governor told newsmen that state power should be appropriated along
functional lines to ensure balance of power among the three arms of government,
adding that the committee also recomended the restructuring of power along
special lines at the national, zonal and local levels.
He also said a liberalised political system that would minimise "the enormous
weight of state power" was advocated and stated citizens would be given the
opportunity to participate in public decision making process. And as if there
was some sort of hurry about the whole exercise, the National Council of State (NCS)
last week, approved the convocation of the proposed national conference along
the line of the Presidency's national dialogue, even though with unseemly
decisions on its composition and duration.
The Council which was meeting for the first this year at the State House
resolved that the proposed confab be named National Political Reform. A total of
400 representatives, either to be elected or appointed, are expected to
participate in the dialogue with President Obasanjo empowered to choose about 50
of them from the 36 states and Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Each of the six
geo-political zones would also be expected to ensure balance in ethnic
composition. The meeting, which was chaired by Obasanjo, had in attendance
Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, former President Shehu Shagari, former Heads of
State, Chief Ernest Shonekan, Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar and governors while
Generals Muhammed Buhari and Ibrahim Babangida did not attend the meeting which
lasted over four hours.
Briefing newsmen after the meeting, Makarfi said the council approved the terms
of reference for the conference as well as its composition and time frame and
that the duration of the conference was put at three months but this could be
extended, if need be.
He said on the composition: "Six persons will be elected from each state so
that, as much as possible the ethnic composition from each state could be
covered," adding that various interest groups like religious bodies, civil
society, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) and religious bodies, among others, would
be included.
The Governor also noted that participants would be nominated based on political
parties, senatorial districts and religious groups with each state nominating
its representatives. But in Lagos Thursday, representatives of ethnic
nationalities began a crucial meeting expected to agree on modalities for their
convocation of a "Peoples National Conference" with elder statesman, Chief
Anthony Enahoro proposing 480 delegates for the conference.
And just the next day also in Lagos, proponents of a Sovereign National
Conference (SNC) under the aegis of Pro-National Conference Organizations (PRONACO),
met and restated their opposition to a Federal Government organized dialogue.
The group led by Enahoro and nobel laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, stated that
it would mobilize Nigerians enmasse to participate in its own organized SNC.
Said Soyinka: "We are mobilizing all Nigerians so that they can see this
conference as their own and rise up and defend it in such a way that, without
carrying guns, they will overwhelm whatever disruptive actions the government
might wish to take. Everybody is speaking about 2007. The programme of PRONACO
will become the basis for that election. It will be a document that those
seeking election in 2007 will have to sign before being chosen because we are
returning power to the people."
But touching directly on issues expected to be discussed at the conference,
Enahoro suggested that the present revenue sharing formula be reviewed to
increase derivation fund to 50 per cent as against 13 per cent in the existing
formula. The elderstatesman also allayed fears that the conference would not
result in the break up of the country.
The conference proposal which was submitted by the Movement for National
Reformation (MNR) headed by Enahoro, identified 12 mono nationality groups in
Nigeria which it said, should have 20 representatives each totalling 240
delegates while the six multiple nationality groups should elect 40 delegates
bringing the number to 240 delegates.
The identified groups are Ibibio, Igbo, Edo, Nupe, Gbagyi, Fulani, Ijaw, Urhobo,
Yoruba, Tiv, Hausa and Kanuri. The six multiple nationality groups, however,
would be drawn from Cross River and Akwa Ibom states, Rivers and Bayelsa states,
Delta State, West Middle Belt, Central Middle Belt and East Middle Belt.
The MNR also suggested that 144 delegates or 30 per cent of the 480 delegates
should be women while stating that delegates would consider reducing the current
36 states structure to the old four regions, or the present six geo-political
zones or 18 regions as earlier proposed by the MNR.
Other items listed on the agenda include power sharing among all tiers of
government and fiscal federalism, while decisions reached at the Conference
would form draft constitution that would be ratified by Nigerians in a
referendum.
Those present at Thursday's meeting included Senator Ayo Fasanmi, Deputy
National Leader of Afenifere, the pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Dr.
Beko Ransome Kuti of the Citizens Forum, Prof. Jadesola Akande, former
Vice-Chancellor of Lagos State University (LASU), Dr. Frederick Fasehun and Mr.
Gani Adams founder and leader of Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) and Chief Sunny
Uche Momah, President General Igbo Speaking Community Lagos.
Others are Chief (Mrs.) Remi Adiukwu Bakare, Lagos State Commissioner for Local
Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, the Middle Belt Forum, the Ijaw National
Congress, the National Association of Nigerian Students, and the United Action
for Democracy (UAD) among other organisations.
...Faced
with Selection Hurdle
As in the past, when this kind of conference was organised, the process through
which members of the National Political Reforms Conference are to be determined
is bound to create fresh problems.
The National Council of State had midweek approved that over 400 Nigerians are
to participate in the proposed conference.
The president will select about 50 of these members, while each state will pick
about six members. The Council of State also approved the recommendation of the
Kaduna Governor Ahmed Makarfi committee on political reforms that all elected or
appointed persons currently in government, whether at the national , state or
local government levels will not be eligible to participate in the conference.
The essence of this on one hand as Makarfi noted is to give other Nigerians the
opportunity to point out what is wrong with Nigeria, with the hope that those
currently in government might find some useful outcomes to pick from the
conference.
The other reason is to ensure that as much as possible, ethnic composition of
each state can be accommodated at the conference.
Beside the fact that this arrangement falls far below the expectations of
agitators for the national conference, there is the obvious problem that may
emanate in the process of selecting members.
For instance, the president is expected to select 50 members, probably from
political parties, religious groups, student bodies, professional associations,
civil societies, special interest groups like manufacturers association and the
disabled. the critical issue here is whether these groups will be asked to send
their own nominations or the president will take it upon himself to choose for
the groups.
The pitfalls in the president selecting for the groups are too apparent. And it
is almost certain that such cannot be acceptable to them. In the first place,
several civil societies are already dissociating themselves from what the
Federal Government is doing. Given the option of choosing their own
representatives themselves, these groups are not likely to respond.
The allocation of six participants to each state is bound to create a different
kind of complications. Contrary to Makarfi's position that the six members from
each state will allow for as much representation as possible among the various
ethnic groups, the obvious pitfalls are many. The role of state governments in
the whole exercise is not well spelt out. What is known from the proposed
arrangement is that state governments are going to be involved in the selection
r election of these members.
This would have defeated the impression the Federal Government is trying to
create that government will play little role in the selection of participants to
the conference. The fact that the 36 state governments are still going to
determine the methods of selecting these six people may make a nonsense of the
promise that people that are currently in government will not be part of the
conference.
If the state governments will play this kind of role, it is believed, will lead
to the selection of government people who are though not holding political
office.
Another fear being expressed by people is about the influence the PDP will have
on the conference. With the party controlling 28 of the 36 states in the
country, it feared that most of those who will ,eventually be selected may be
members of the party, but from different ethnic groups. There is the possibility
that most of these people may end up represent the position of the PDP or
Federal Government or even the state government that nominate them. This it is
believed will jeopardise the interests of the ethnic groups they are supposed be
representing.
Another implication of the arrangement for the selection of participants is the
lack of clear guideline on selection process. The fact that each state is
expected to determine its own method will leave room for manipulation of
minority ethnic groups within the state. Interestingly, Kaduna State, whose
governor chairs the committee that worked on this arrangement presents a good
example of this kind of problem. Kaduna State is variously divided into two or
three politically depending on which side the pendulum tilts.
For the minorities in the Kaduna South, Kaduna State is divided along Kaduna
North and Kaduna South, but the Hausa-Fulani who reside in the northern part of
the state often classifies the state along the three senatorial districts. This
is one problem Makarfi will have to face in selecting or deciding in the method
of selecting the six participants from Kaduna State. The other side to the
Kaduna problem is the complexities in the Kaduna South where there are not less
than 11 ethnic groups. Each of these groups will prefer to send its own
representative to the conference instead of one vocal or influential ethnic
group representing them. Now that there will not be an opportunity for all
ethnic groups to send representation, it is doubtful if Makarfi will be able to
satisfy all the interests in Kaduna State.
This same scenario applies to several other states where there is bound to be
difficulty in balancing the interests of the various ethnic groups. The obvious
trend may be for some smaller minorities losing out in the selection process.
Then the possibility that the conference will produce a nationally acceptable
result doesn't look real.
The process of picking the six members from each state may be one big hurdle
that may make the smooth composition of the confab a lot difficult. This in
itself may further erode the credibility of the conference.
The problem of selection has always been the undoing of similar conferences past
governments had established. For instance, in 1988-1989 when the former military
president, General Ibrahim Babangida organised a national conference, of the
total membership of 563, the Federal Government nominated 113, while 450 were
elected via electoral college. But the credibility lied in how fair the
elections were across the state.
Similarly, the regime of the late General Sani Abacha in 1995 staged another
national conference with a total membership of 380. The Federal Government again
nominated 94 members, while 273 were elected by secret balloting. The problem
again was in the Federal Government denying the conference the free hand in
reaching decisions for the country.
It is in this light that the present effort of president Obasanjo administration
is being viewed. And the cumbersome method to be used in picking the about 400
participants for the conference is one sure way of nailing the conference to
failure before it takes off.
Why Do We Need to Talk?
It is an idea whose time has since come. Not today but since yesterday. Many
discerning minds have continued to say that Nigeria will surely come to that
inescapable conclusion some day. They insist that Nigerians sooner than later
will have to sit down to discuss their future, to discuss how they intend to be
governed. President Olusegun Obasanjo has always been opposed to the idea of a
conference of any sort whether sovereign or just national conference. He has
always said the elected representatives of the people are there on ground to
discuss the problems of Nigeria.
But the agitation for a National Conference to address the perceived imbalance
in the Nigeria federal structure has simply refused to go away. Some vocal
Nigerians have been talking about the need for the various ethnic nationalities
to sit down and negotiate their stake in the Nigeria project since the early
90ís.The call for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference however
became strident after the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election
by the General Ibrahim Babangida military junta.
That election was adjudged free and fair and was believed to have been won by
the late business mogul, Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola from Abeokuta in Ogun State.
Since then, the demand for SNC has been on auto gear. The more the authorities
show their disdain for it the more strident the agitation becomes. In fact, the
rank of those agitating for SNC has continued to swell. Prominent elite in the
North have also joined the fray. The more audacious Nigerians however have been
giving vent to the agitation through other means including the perpetration of
violence.
This is perhaps why some say the rise in the number of ethnic militia in the
country is due to the prevarication of the authorities over the convocation of a
National Conference so that Nigerians can discuss their future. Indeed, there
have been more ethno-religious conflicts resulting in deaths of hundreds of
Nigerians and destruction of valuable properties under the Obasanjo regime than
under any other government before it.
Nigerians indeed love to talk about their future. Their leaders have been the
ones that have always taken them for a ride. In spite of the debauchery of the
Abacha period, Nigerians still embraced the Constitutional Conference foisted on
it by that regime. Even though the Abacha military government nominated more
members than the elected delegates, debate at that talks held between 1994 and
1995 was sometimes passionate and electrifying. Some of the delegates perhaps
felt that that constitutional talk would resolve some of the knotty issues of
the Nigeria federalism. But since the agenda of that military junta was
completely different, the whole thing ended the way it ended. Just like the
other talks, the 1988/89 Constituent Assembly, convened by the Babangida regime
that came before it.
Even now, despite the fact that the Political Reform Conference proposed by the
Obasanjo regime fell short of the expectations of most Nigerians, preparations
towards it in some quarters have been feverish, perhaps if only for the
opportunity to let out some steam that it will provide. After all, the elected
representatives at the National Assembly in Abuja, as some say, are only busy
paying lip service to the need to address the perceived lopsidedness in the
federal structure. The proposed conference has also help in reawakening calls
for the convocation of an SNC. Only last Thursday, some pro-democracy activists
under the aegis of Pro- National Conference elite rejected the Federal
Government's Political Reforms Conference and agreed to go ahead with its own
planned SNC. The arrowheads of the group included elder statesman, Chief Anthony
Enahoro and Dr. Beko Ransome- Kuti.
In a communique which emerged after a two-day session of the group in Lagos,
PRONACO said the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) led government had no legitimacy
and therefore lacked the moral authority to organize a conference that would
make fundamental changes in the country.
What are these areas that require fundamental changes? What are the fundamental
issues that the National Conference or what have you should address? In other
words, why do Nigerians need to talk?
The demands of those canvassing the convocation of an SNC are legion. But there
is one chord holding them all. True federalism.
Nigerians are yearning for true federalism where the country will be
restructured in such a way that the various constituent units will have their
autonomy; where there will be proper devolution of power to the units. The
center as presently constituted has too much power and that is why there is
always a titanic battle among the Nigerian ruling elites to occupy it. There is
therefore a need to make the centre less attractive and make the other
constituent units centers of power.
This was the situation in the First Republic where the three regions of that
time had full autonomy. That explains why those clamouring for true federalism
have always called for a reversal to the 1963 constitution that was operated in
the First Republic with some modifications. The constituent units should have
full autonomy in matters relating to the control of their resources, finance,
Police and security, etc while the Federal Government should be confined to
areas like the defence of the country against external aggression, foreign
policy and internal affairs among others.
A member of the planning committee of PRONACO, Mr. Edet Uno put the demands of
those clamouring for the convocation of SNC succinctly last week while welcoming
delegates to the group's meeting. According to him, "the journey since
Nigeria's formal independence in 1960 has not propelled our country into the
level of development to which our founding fathers aspired.
"To achieve the objectives of our founding fathers, our nationalities have to
covenant in a constitution, the form of federating units and a federal authority
suitable for multi-national democratic states.
"Devolution of power, fiscal federalism and a whole gamut of rights will be
fundamental constitutional requirements of the new and stronger association we
all dream of," Uno said.
But what is at issue is the basis for representation at the proposed SNC. How
will the delegates to such talks be picked? Is it on the basis of the various
ethnic nationalities in the country or on the present states structure that is
said to be defective? If its on the basis of ethnic nationalities, how many
ethnic nationalities does the country have? Who will do the picking of the
delegates, who will preside at the conference? Questions, questions, and more
questions.
