Essay
Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN
Introduction
LAST week, we focused our discourse on the views of notable scholars after which we went ahead deal with the odyssey of good governance and National Integration in Nigeria, its challenges (our ethnic/regional religious diversity), political instances, economic disparities, Resources Control/allocation, lack of trust and poor state-non political institutions. In today’s treaty, we shall x-ray the interactive mechanisms for achieving same vide amalgamation, federalism, indigenization/Nigerianization, Creation of States, the Land use Act, etc. We shall then review non-performing Government functionaries in the forgoing. Read on.
.
Integrative Mechanism in Nigeria
African and other countries in the world have since recognized the importance of putting in place strategic programmes and avenue to promote Integration and ensure nation-building. Bandyopadhyay & Green, identify some strategies as: Changing state names like Gilbert Islands to Kiribati, Ceylon and Burma to Sri Lanka and Myanmar respectively, Dahomey to Benin, Democratic Republic of Congo to Zaire, Gold Coast to Ghana and so on; changing capital cities’ names and locations; changing national currencies; conscription and national service; Religious and Linguistic Homogenization; Republican and centralization policies; establishing National parties; Land nationalization among others.
Nigeria, being a group of unwilling people foisted on each other with only geographical consciousness, have also tried to develop some programmes fostering Good Governance and National Integration – even before independence.
Amalgamation
After Nigeria became a protectorate to the British government, the diversity in ethnic and religious colouration was still glaring. There was need to bring to the people together in oneness and solidarity, therefore, Sir Lord Lugard amalgamated the Northern and Southern protectorate to birth one Nation. Irrespective of the fact that, many hold the view that the amalgamation did not take cognizance of the existing disparities, same birthed a new entity with the purpose of living together.
Nigerianization/Indigenization
The policy of Nigerianization and Indigenization grew from the natural instinct of the people, as a leverage to take part and indeed, acquire full ownership and management of the administration of the entity. Nigerianization/Indigenization is the process making someone, or something more Nigerian. It is simply the process of domineering. The policy grew exponentially during the 1960’s and 70’s as radical replacement of the British was realized by Nigerians in many sectors especially – the Public Service.
Federalism
National Integration and Good Governance have also been engendered by the introduction of a new system of government – federalism vide the Littleton Constitution of 1954. It was the opinion of the colonialists that federalism was the best option to blur the diversity of the people. Osaghae noted: whenever events seemed to demand that a compromise be effected between the necessity for unity and co-operation on a wide territorial basis on one hand, and the need to accommodate the legitimate claims of sub-national groups for self-rule on the other, “the temptation is to proffer a catch-all management formula such as federalism.” While federalism has been applauded as a silver bullet to the ethnicity problem in Nigeria, the skewness and perversion of this typology of governance has frustrated the benefits it could have provided the nation.
Creation of States
One of the major strategies put in place to ensure National Integration and Good Governance, was the creation of states immediately before the Nigerian Civil War. The three regions were almost self sufficient, expressing powers and authority peculiar to their existence. The national spirit was dead, and the regions wheeled more imprimatur than the central government which was becoming weaker. General Yakubu Gowon believed the creation of states would decentralize the powers an influence of the regions. Consequently, 12 states were created in 1967. It was observed that, some majority became minority, and some minority became majority. Between 1960 and 1996, creation of states continued within the federal System: 3 regions (1960); 4 regions (1963); 12 states (1967); 19 states (1976); 21 states (1987); 30 states (1991) and 36 states in 1996. Bulama rejoiced thus: the old regional hegemony by the three major tribes in their respective regions is now a thing of the past. Today, some states comprise of so many mixtures of ethnicity. For instance, a single state may have over 50 ethnic groups, like Cross River State. But how far has been the success of National Integration since the creation of all this states?.
The Land Use Decree (ACT)
The Land Use Decree was another major instrument of National Integration. The Decree vested the ownership of all lands in a state on the Governor to hold same in trust, for the use and common benefit of Nigerians. The target goal was to enable the Governor allocate land to any Nigerian citizen irrespective of the state of origin. However, it has been observed that people are still being discriminated during allocation.
The National Youth Service Corp (NYSC)
The National Youth Service Corp was another major policy programme introduced by the government to foster unity (Decree No. 24 May 22). The service is designated for young Nigerian graduates for a period of 1 year. During the service, graduates are made to serve in states other than states of their origin in other to learn, adapt and imbibe the peculiarities of the other people. This is beneficial to the tomorrow leaders who should then know how to tackle wide range issues and societal problems due to their early experience.
That programme – in its over 50 odd years of existence – has been an enduring legacy of the Military’s attempt to ensure that the suspicious and provincial mind-set which sowed the seeds of the civil war( between 1967 and 1970) no longer permeate the psyche of the average Nigerian and instead, and replaced by a pan-Nigerian patriotic outlook.
As Obadare observed, “the immediate challenge of the post-war period was how to engage in delibrate social engineering, designing programmes and pursuing policies meant to promote national unity, de-emphasize points of discord among constituent groups and foster greater inter-ethnic understanding and harmony.
However, the scheme has been fraught with ethnic consideration, favoritism and cronyism in the posting of corps members, exposure of these youths to security risks as was seen during the 2011 General Elections where many corps members of Southern descent were butchered by some angry northern youths, corruption and misappropriation of funds. Even in the just concluded 2023 general elections, we saw how some innocent corpers were maimed by mobs and ballot box hijackers. This is not healthy for our existence at all.
Ojo submitted on the NYSC problem as follows: “another dimension to the problem facing the thriving of the NYSC in Nigeria is the problematic nature of citizenship, indigeneship and settler status in Nigeria. In this sense, many Nigerian youths have experienced more of frustration rather than integration because after serving in a particular state other than theirs, they do not expect to get jobs where they have thanklessly undergone the NYSC programme because in many cases, they would be tagged as non-indigenes and will be forced to go back to their states of origin to avoid being discriminated against. Even when they are employed, it is on a contract basis”. However, this is one scheme that attacks disintegration yearly and frenzily.
The Constitution
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is built on the concept of federalism. It declares that “Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of states and a Federal Capital Territory (Section 2(2)). Those states are thirty-six altogether (Section 3(1)) and in turn, they consist of 768 local government areas (Section 3(6)). Political power is divided under the Constitution between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature (Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Constitution). Each arm is designed to check the excesses of the other, with the executive implementing the laws made by the legislature while the judiciary interprets the laws. In addition, the legislature exercises oversight functions over the executive (Sections 88, 89,128 and 129). To ensure good governance by preventing abuse of power, the Constitution subjects the power of appointment and removal of certain persons (Judges, Auditors-General, members, and chairmen of INEC, the National Population Commission, Code of Conduct Bureau, National Judicial Council and the National Police Council, amongst other to confirmation by the Senate and the National Council of State: Sections 86, 87, 154, 157, 231, 238(1), 250(1), 256(1), 261(1), and 266(1). These are in relation to the President. Similar provisions are contained in the Constitution in respect of state Governors vis-à-vis their powers of appointment and removal namely, Sections 126(1), 127, 271(1), 276(1), 281(1): such appointment and removals are subject to confirmation by State Houses of Assembly.
Non-Performing Government Functionaries
The Constitution also provides for the removal of all non-performing members of all the three arms of government in specified circumstances following clearly down procedures: Section 143 (the President/Vice President);
Section 188 (Governors /their Deputies); Section 292(1)( Judicial officers of both Federal and State courts): The same applies to members of the Legislative houses: Sections 68(1) and Section 69 (National Assembly) and Sections 109 and 110 (State Houses of Assembly. It is self-evident that these will facilitate good governance as they are obviously aimed at ensuring justice, fair play, purposeful representation, and achieving optimum service delivery with specific focus on the Judiciary. It’s role as the arbiter of disputes between all manner of persons (big and small) cannot be over-emphasized. It is often said to be the last hope of the common man. It may be argued, however, that this includes the not-so-common man. Hence the Constitutional provisions which enable the Judiciary to play this role cannot but be in the interest of good governance. (To be continued).
Thought for the week
“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom”. (John Locke).
A.
-Nov. 30, 2023 @ 11:27 GMT |
Tags: John Locke Prof. Mike Ozekhome
