|
KWENU! Our culture, our future |
|
[1] NIGERIA: THE STATE OF THE NATION
PROFESSOR TAM DAVID-WEST
THE 2002 GAMJI ANNUAL CONFERENCE
AREWA HOUSE AUDITORIUM KADUNA
It is an honour and privilege to be invited by the famous GAMJI FORUM to be a Guest Speaker at the 2002 Gamji Annual Conference those theme is "NIGERIA: THE STATE OF THE NATION." I wish to also acknowledge the generous consideration of the organisers to allow me the liberty to speak on "any national topical issue of your choice for twenty minutes." On a rather, perhaps, contentious note I said to myself that TWENTY MINUTES was indeed generous. Because I believe that since strictly speaking there is no nation (The Nation) correspondingly there cannot be “The station of the nation.” Be that as it may since conventionally we often speak of the "Nigerian Nation" I will make my contribution along these lines without prejudice to my reservations. For convenience I will address the following: 1. Nation versus State 2. The National. Question i) National Conference ii) Sovereign National Conference iii) Resource Allocation 3. Northern Domination: Myth Or Reality 4. Of Politicians and Statesmen 5. Of Nascent Democracy and Dividends 6. On Corruption 7. Of Second-Tenure Mania 8. Of Religion and Politics 9. Nigeria 2003: APOCALYPSE
[2] Nigeria v. State John N. Paden in his classic, “Ahmadu Bello Sardauna of Sokoto,” recounted this short but profound dialogue between Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (Leader NCNC) and Alhaji Sir Ahmadu Bello Sardauna of Sokoto (Leader NPC) which took place in the mid-1960s: Zik: “Let us forget our differences….” Ahmadu Bello~ "No, let us understand our differences. I am a Muslim and a Northerner. You are a Christian, an Easterner. By understanding our differences, we can build unity in our country.” I don't believe that harsh as the Sardauna may sound few people (myself included) can fault him. Romanticism and delusionary glossing over of these deeply anchored fundamental differences or unlikeness have over the long years set us on the wrong track towards UNITY-BUILDING. Sir Ahmadu Bello was on the same wavelength as President John F. Kennedy when in a speech in 1963 he had this to say: "Let us not be blind to our differences. But let us also direct our attention to our common interest and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot not end our differences, at least we can help to make the world safer for diversity." In his “Path to Nigerian Freedom” (1947) Chief Obafemi Awolowo made his now often-quoted statement: "Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression.” However, in 1967- 1970 (Civil War) he was in General Yakubu Gcwon’s cabinet which collectively resolved to KEEP NIGERIA ONE.” I shall come back to this later.
In 1948 Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa stated thus in the Legislative Council: “Since 1914 the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and customs and do not show themselves any sign of willingness to unite... Nigerian unity is only a [3] British intention for the country.” In the same Legislative Council he advocated Federalism for the country. Thls came to fruition in 1954. And so as Prime Minister in Parliament in September 1957 Sir Abubakar delivered his "UNITY IN DIVERSITY" speech: “I am pleased to see that we are now all agreed that the Federal system is, under present conditions, the only sure basis on which Nigeria will remain united. We must recognise our diversity and the peculiar conditions under which the different tribal communities live in this country. To us in Nigeria therefore unity in diversity is a source of great strength, and we must do all in our power to see that this federal system of government is strengthened and maintained…. Now is the time when co-operation is most essential. Let us all get together and try to forget our political differences and petty tribal jealousies and work together to create a strong and united country. I am confident that we can do it." Emphasis mine. But the Prime Minister’s palpable optimism seemed not be shared by Margery Perham. At the concluding part of her eight-page Forward to Awolowo's Path to Nigerian Freedom (1947) she wrote no doubt with conviction even if with some cynicism, "The day when Nigeria becomes a true federation, still more a nation, 1s still far away." It is sad that this prognosis still remains valid after the fifty-five years it was made. For instance our vaunted federalism is at best a parody of Federalism. It is to all Intents and purposes Unitarism dressed out in an elegant facade of federalism. For instance, the controversy over Resource Control is primarily because ours is Unitary Government and not Federal Government; or Unitarism and not Federalism.
A number of eminent Nigerians also share these sentiments. Ours 1s "hardly a Federation except in name." (The Guardian 21 March, 1992); Vice-President Alex Ekwueme. [4] “Our Federalism is upside down. We are not practicing Federalism in Nigeria.” (African Concord 5 October, 1992): Chief Michael Ajasin
As for Nationhood is as far as he horizon, or the end of the rainbow. And I am not being morbidly pessimistic. I am simply being realistic.”
In his autobiography “MY LIFE” Sir Ahmadu Bello described the AMALGAMATION of the Northern and the Southern Provinces as “The mistake of 1914.” But it could be argued that the British were in fact honest in their intentions. First, the 1914 Amalgamation was simply or primarily for the administrative convenience of Sir Frederick Lugard. Secondly, they had no intention to fashion out or create a Nation out of us. The use of the word, Amalgamation, was not perfunctory. It was advisedly used. What they put together was an AMALGAM not a COMPOUND in chemical parlance. An amalgam is an admixture of different constituents; an alloy, easily resolvable into individual components or entities. On the other hand the constituents of a compound are held together by enduring bonds, which are not readily extricable. Thus, metaphorically, a Compound will stand for a Nation.
In his Maiden Broadcast as Head of State on 01 August, 1966 Gowon did say that “The basis of unity is not there.” Yes, “Unity” and not “Unitary Government.” The latter was an inelegant maneuver to get out of a decidedly costly faux pas. The point being made is that strictly speaking Nigeria is not a nation (at least not yet) although some flatter us with the mendacious claim to nationhood. Nigeria is a multi-national state; a conglomeration od Ethnic Nations; an Ethnic Amalgam of different people (over 400) each with its distinctive character and ethos. In short, in Nigeria we have ethnic plurality and polarisations. [5] “Nation” from the Latin “natus” (birth) connotes or conveys ethnograpohic imperatives. However, the modern concept nation may not necessarily imply purity. As an example, the United States of America is a veritable ethnic “Melting Pot.” However, what remains inviolate is that for a nation to emerge and exist there has to emerge and exist there has to be a deep-rooted fundamental urge, spiritual in nature, to come together and live harmoniously with shared visions of "nationhood which manifests itself in a Union. "Social Contract" or "Social Compact," where realities of unavoidable differences or unlikeness are divested of divisive tendencies and channelled to achieving UNITY IN DIVERSITY. Our greatest problem since Independence in 1960 1s how to harmoniously integrate our various ethnic nationalities in a Nation. We are still being haunted by mutual suspicion and fears; insincerity and jealousy; prejudices and bias. Most Nigerians are still ethnic or sectional chauvinists. Walter Schwartz also observed that sectional ethnic nationalism is "felt deep down into bones.” "Basically, the nation,” argued Peter B. Harris "is an emotional or psychological concept." Chief Afe Babalola, SAN delivered the First Amanyanabo (King) Abbi Memorial Lecture at Port Harcourt, Rivers State on November 4, 2001. His chosen topic was "Nigeria In Search of A Nation.” He posited inter alia “…whereas it is easier to create the façade of a “state” within some constitutional or unconstitutional framework so long as such a state is acceptable and recognized as such by the international community and their governments, the question of nationhood cannot be created by the fiat of men however powerful. A nation must evolve from some tortuous natural process of evolution.” [6] As stated earlier more than fifty years ago Chief Obafemi Awolowo held that “Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression.” However, upon closer scrutiny it could be argued that while the first part of the statement (nationhood) remains unchallenged, this cannot be said of the second part)” geographical expression”). After fighting an unfortunate costly internecine civil war (may 30, 1967 – January 14, 1970) to keep the Nigerian State together, and for which we lost over a million of our compatriots we cannot honestly and seriously say that Nigeria is nothing more than a mere “geographical expression” foisted on us by the erstwhile colonial masters (Britain), In short, Nigeria is a “geographical expression” worth dying for. Indeed, the Elder Statesman, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who made the statement in the 1940s served in the Gowon’s Government as Deputy Chairman of the Executive Council. He was also the Minister of Finance. And it was to his good housekeeping as Finance Minister that Nigeria prosecuted the war without external borrowing. The civil war “Mission Slogan” was “To Keep Nigeria One Is A Task That Must Be Done.” Furthermore, Nigeria is no more a “geographical expression” than any other modern state -- England, United States, Canada, Ghana, Gabon, etc. We fought a terrible 30-month civil war which in the end saw victorious Federal Armed Forces. Yes, the noble task “To Keep Nigeria One” was decisively done with the formal unconditional surrender of Lt.-Col. Philip Effiong at 4.40 p.m. on January 12, 1970 followed by the National Broadcast of the Head of State General Yakubu Gowon on January 15, 1970. [7] Then came another sweet slogan, "No Victor No Vanquished." This was quickly followed by another honeyed jingle, id est “The 3 Rs” (Reconciliation, Reconstruction, Rehabilitation). That was a golden opportunity to enter into an honest "Social Contract" to herald Nigerian Nation. But we missed it. We allowed it slip away. Perhaps because outside the sweet slogans there was hardly any ONE unifying COMMON agenda or sincere commitment. Different people; different agenda. Thus, what was consolidated was the Nigerian State: still not yet a Nigerian Nation. For instance, several years back I was horrified to read an entry in the "War Diary" of one of the notable or noticeable was hawks in the eastern Sector or Frontier. He wrote, "Nigeria is not worth dying for.” And the entry was made at the entry was made at the peak of the war. When asked about this obviously treasonable audacity he gave me the reasons. It was most telling that all were personal; about friction with his military superiors at Headquarters.
Arthur A. Nwankwo in his book “Nigeria: The Challenge of Biafra” had this to say at the concluding part: "It is true that the basic problems that caused the Nigerian crises remained unresolved…. And there seems to be no consideration for the health of the Federation in the pursuit of individual or group interests -- from the smuggling racket to the huge payoffs in bribery and corruption. “But it is also true that the traumatic bitterness of the war is rich with lessons for toleration and understandings. These lessons are our only guarantee against instab1l1ty for they will serve as a buffer to cushion us through the rough times ahead. The mention of rough times ahead may have set some political noses twitching. But if it 1s realised that the contrad1ctions in Nigeria are yet to e resolved, we will agree that Nigeria has anything but a quiet time to look to.” (Emphasis mine)
The plight of the oil-producing Eastern Minorities (the Ijaws, the Efiks, and the Ibibios especially) clearly mirrors the Nigerian contradictions and ambivalence or insensitivity. They [8] continue to be treated like pawns in a game of chess. There is no question whatsoever that the creation (or the tactfully carving out) of the Rivers State and the then South Eastern State contributed tremendously to the eventual dismantling of “Biafra.” These two “strategic states” were created by Gowon on May 27, 1967.He tactfully beat Ojukwu by only three days for Ojukwu’s formal declaration of secession, which he did at two a.m. on May 30, 1967. In his book “Gowon” J. Isawa Eliagwu agreed that “there is no doubt that it was partially aimed at diluting support for secession…. One of the results of the creation of states was the neutralization of support for secession…. In addition it robbed the [Igbo] of the oil they had hoped would be an asset to the new Republic (of Biafra).” Ojukwu was so disconcerted and piqued he condemned May 27, 1967 as the “darkest dark in the history of freedom and respect for human beings.” After the creation of states their )Ijawa, Efiks, and Ibiios) able young men enlisted in the Federal Armed Forces in their hundreds; most outstanding among these was Major Isaac Adaka Boro, a celebrated young undergraduate Ijaw activist freedom fighter. His death while serving in the Adekunle-led Federal Force (Third Marine Commandos) still remains a knotty mystery. May his soul rest in peace. Amen. Let me once again caution that the restiveness of Ijaw (and other oil-producing area minorities) youths is not likely to abate until reasonable JUSTICE is done to our cause. In the words of Pope Paul VI, “If you want peace work for justice.” This is clearly a much better ethic than that of the Roman’s, “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” (If you want peace prepare for war”). Let me state once again that the Niger Delta Question is going to be one of the greatest challenges for Nigeria in the Twenty-First Century.
[9] The National Question Reduced to the barest rhetoric the National Question seeks to address how we can peacefully Co-EXIST in one country or state, NIGERIA. In short, what are (or is) the best socio-political models (or model) for this envisaged social contract within the backdrop of the reality of our ethnic heterogeneity or plurality. There is no question that preponderant majority of Nigerians want to be together under one Flag -- The Nigeria Flag. But the QUESTION 1s how? This in short, is the kernel of the National Question. The Constitution is the fundamental document of the state (or nation) in which are enshrined the basic principles and laws of the state (or nation). It is supreme. In our chequered history of exploring models of governance and co-existence we have tried a number of constitutions since Independence on October 1, 1960: 1963, 1979, 1989, 1995, and 1999. This works out to be one constitution every eight years on the average. This is not good enough. The American Constitution has lasted for 215 years (1787 – 2002); and with very few Amendments. Some have suggested that the ephemerality {or instab1lity) of our Constitutions is because they are not the “Peoples’ Constitution” (whatever this means). The mere fact that they were during military regimes is to my mind a bland argument. I therefore hold that the "Peoples' Constitution" argument is at best sophism, and at the worst balderdash. Do we all gather in a "polis” to fashion out the so-called "Peoples' Constitution”? Does a Constitution become “Peoples’ Constitution" simply because it was put together by so-called or questioned Representatives of the people in Parliament? We all know how some of these so-called Representatives got there in the first place. In a word, through all forms and shades of Election Rigging. [10] The 1979 Constitution 1s acclaimed by Constitution Scholars and Jurists both within and outside the country. In fact, the 1999 Constitution is a virtual carbon copy of the 1979 Constitution. And this was not an imposition by the military. It was the general consensus of opinion of Nigerians at home and abroad arrived at through public hearings, seminars, workshops, and conferences (Reference page A855 of the 1999 Constitution). For the 1979 Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) 50 of us, cutting across cross-section of the country were assembled. The Chairman was no less a legal colossus than Chief F.R.A. Williams, SAN (QC). There was NO military officer. All the 50 of us were CIVILIANS. Two from each state of the Federation plus professional experts. The list included such notables (among many) as, Alhaji Abdul Razaq, Chief Richard Akinjide, Chief Bola Ige, Alhaji Aminu Kano, Alhaji. S. M. Liberty (Attorney General, Bornu State), Dr K. 0. Mbadiwe, Professor Ben Nwabueze (Expert in Constitutional Law), Dr Pius Okigbo, Alhaji Femi Okunu, Alhaji Ahmed Talib." Incidentally, Chief Obafemi Awolowo declined to serve on the CDC. Some have suggested, perhaps uncharitably, that he did not want to serve under Chief Rotimi Williams. Still on the National Question, we have experimented with Parliamentary System; then later Presidential System. By far the most popularly articulated debate on how to address the National Question is on the National Conference -- Sovereign National Conference controversy. I have been consistently opposed to Sovereign National Conference. However, I must be quick to say that my opposition is not on the same plank on which the President based his own opposition. For instance, President Obasanjo is opposed to Sovereign National Conference because according to him there are already [11] “Sovereigns” on the ground, which he argued are the Executive and Legislative branch of government. In an Essay captioned "President: You are Wrong… Very Wrong” (Weekend Concord April 8, 2000) I argued, with due respect, that there are some misconceptions on the part of the President on “Sovereign National Conference” and on "Confederation” (The President says that anyone who talks about "Confederation” commits Treason. Haba!) On the question of Sovereignty, in Liberal Democracy belongs to the PEOPLE simpliciter. The agents in government are only Trustees of the People. This point is lucidly made by John Locke in his “Treaties of Government.” The point Locke makes is that the PEOPLE retain their sovereignty in a social contract of governance. And the people exercise their sovereignty through the legislative, executive and judiciary powers they establish. The following extract on "Sovereignty of Parliament” (In: The British Approach To Politics (1961) by Michael Stewart, is illuminating: "The first fact about the Constitution is that Parliament is sovereign…. But when it is said that Parliament is sovereign it is necessary to understand what the word ‘Parliament’ means. People always say ‘Parliament’ when they mean the House of Commons, or perhaps the Lords and Commons. Legally, however, Parliament means the Queen, Lords and Commons acting together, and to be exact, the Sovereign is ‘the Queen in Parliament.’ For this reason Acts of Parliament begin with the phrase ‘Be it enacted by Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament as8embled, and by the authority of the same as follows...' ...the phrase 'Parliament is Sovereign' means simply that it cannot be overthrown by any legal means. But if Parliament is Sovereign, what is the position of the people?... the Sovereignty of Parliament is limited by the fact that everyone expects Parliament is limited by the fact everyone expects Parliament to be periodically [12] dissolved and re-elected, so that the last word shall rest with the people" (Emphasis mine).
I oppose Sovereign National Conference because it confers on its members the INFALLIBILITY of The Almighty Himself. I believe that this [is] blasphemous to say the least. The point being made is that the outcome or decisions of Sovereign National Conference are sacrosanct or as hallowed [as] the Holy Books, The Bible or The Koran. These are INFALLIBLE Books of Faith. In other words, the members of Sovereign National Conference are like Plato's Philosopher-Guardians or Philosopher-Kings: Infallible. The repository of consummate WISDOM, to think for the rest of us, and to prescribe for the collectivity WITHOUT any questioning. This runs foul of all democratic tenets. It is like returning to the ancient days of power absolutism (Absolute Monarchy). “Power,” maintained Colton, "will intoxicate the best hearts, as wine the strongest heads. No man is wise enough nor good enough to be entrusted with unlimited power." But, our delegates to Sovereign National Conference, are by implication "wise enough and good enough to be vested with “unlimited power.” And what is even more monstrous anything they decide on (their decisions) are FINALITY. UNTOUCHABLE. INVOLATE. Not only is this an affront and havoc on the present generation, and also on future generations.
Northern Domination: Myth or Reality Let me say right away that the so-called and much peddled NORTHERN DOMINATION does not in fact exist. It IS a myth; not a reality. It is a convenient alibi concocted by some Southern politicians, and even some intellectuals to try and explain off the continued occupation or the Federal seat of power. [13] "Northern ‘domination’ or ‘monopoly’ of the Presidency is far from being due to a nebulous divine dispensation. It is the South’s constant and decisive support to a Northern domination or control. And so the South should stop blaming the North? (David-West, The Guardian On Sunday July 31, 1994). I intend to use at least three evidence to buttress my thesis: 1. The 1993 Party Primaries for a presidential candidate. 2. The results of the 1979 Presidential Election 3. The Resolution of the controversy over 2/3 of 19.
I must make the point that the data or statistics I am presenting here today are not simply put together on the spur of the moment to soothe the ears of The Gamji Forum, or the Arewa Consultative Forum or the North. I have used them in other fora like this where I was invited as a Guest Speaker. I have also published them before. i) The Zik-Gowon National Symposium on Nigeria, Mosun Centre Lagos on March 23, 1994. ii) The Guardian On Sunday March 13, 1994. iii) The Guardian On Sunday July 31, 1994 iv) In London June 6, 1996 under the auspices of "Nigerian Patriots Overseas.” i
1993 Party Primaries (Presidential) [] Shehu Yar'Adua easily trashed Olu Falae in Oyo State. He also made very impressive showing in almost all the Southern states. At Ibadan, he even defeated a son of the soil, Layi Balogun.
1979 Presidential Election Rivers State Cross Rivers: [14] Anambra: Imo: Ogun: Ondo: Oyo: Sokoto: * In his State, LOWER than Rivers (72.7%)
The above statistics are eloquent testimonies of the “State of the Nation.” The “atomic” analysis should give us cause to worry in terms of Ethnic Politics and ethnic loyalties especially in the case of Zik and Awo. [15] And for Shagari, during his official v1sit to R1vers State as President my brother, Governor Melford Okilo, was so delighted with Hausa-Fulani, or in this case perhaps Fulani-Hausa domination that he "donated" two innocent beautiful Rivers State damsels to President Shagari. And this was in addition to the Rivers State giving more votes (72.7%) to Shagari; even more than his state, Sokoto (66.6%). Now, by our Constitution (1979 and also 1999) to be elected President the candidate must satisfy the following concurrent conditions: 1. Poll more votes than the other contestants. 2. National spread of votes: to obtain at least 25% of “votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the Federation." It is, thus, abundantly clear that there can be no Northern President WITHOUT the co-operation of the South: vice versa a Southern President. This is because we have about equal number of states in the North as well as in the South. For instance, in 1979 we had 10 states North; 9 states South (Now, we have 19 states North and 17 states South).
2/3 of 19 States Controversy It was the legal-mathematical wizardry of a YORUBA (South) legal luminary, Chief Richard Akinjide, which finally sealed Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s YORUBA (South) protestations and legal challenge of Shagari being declared the winner. And so Chief Awolowo later passed on simply with the cold comfort of "The best president Nigeria never had" (Ojukwu). Akinjide was at the time the Legal Adviser to Shagari's party, the NPN. He was later appointed Attorney General and Minister of Justice by President Shehu Sbagari. Why not? The eclat and encomium over this legal-mathematical feat were so profound and sustained even well after 1979 (in fact up to now) that another YORUBA legal luminary, Chief Niyi Akintola, had to come out to tarnish, sort of, all the praises being showered on Akinjide. [1] In an article titled “I Installed Shagari As President” (Daily Sketch May 4, 1993 Page 5) Niyi made the startling disclosure that in fact it was himself who originated the now widely acclaimed Akinjide’s legal interpretation of 2/3 of 19 States. Niyi was miffed, indeed very upset, that Akinjide never gave him any credit for the feat; when in fact he acknowledged the letter he sent to him (Akinjide) on the interpretation of “2/3 of 19 States.” In somewhat disguised way he said that he cherished “inner joy” as Chief Richard Akinjide.
|
|
www.kwenu.com: Simply surprise yourself yonder! |