Speeches

By

Attahiru M. Jega

Introduction 

FEDERALISM is the principle, some would say a conceptual or institutional framework, which defines “the division of authority among national and subnational governments” in a given country (Rozell and Wilcox 2019). Such a country is referred to as a federation, or as operating a federal system.  Regardless of whether the subnational governments were priory independent and came voluntarily to form/create a federation, or federal system, or they were compelled by historical circumstances and forced into such a union, the subnational governments have, by legal, constitutional arrangement, become the ‘federating units”, which have coordinate, or shared, responsibilities with the national government.

A major objective of a federal system is non-conflictual management of diversity and sharing of power and resources for stable societal progress and socioeconomic development. Both in law and in practice, most federations  strive, and take care, to ensure equity and justice in the division of authority and  resources among the federating units and in compliance with the rule of law,  because doing this, nurtures a conducive environment for peaceful coexistence,

1

proactively blocks irredentist tendencies, and facilitates stable socioeconomic development, especially in the context of good, democratic, governance.

Thus, technically and substantively, Nigeria is a federation, and operates a  federal system with the states as the federating units. However, among the  federations that currently exist in the world (according to Forum of Federations,  about 25 countries, representing about 40% of the world population), Nigeria is  one of the worst models of political accommodation of diversity, as well as  power and resources sharing.

Of course, there are no perfect federations or for that matter “true federalism”.  Every federation is a product of the dynamics of its historical evolution and inter group (ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural, etc.) relations. However, the better the framework/structure for management of diversity, power and resources  sharing is in a federation, the more stable, peaceful and socioeconomically  developed it would be. What accounts for the difference, the intervening  variables, are: 1) elite consensus; and 2) good, democratic, governance. Without  these, it can be said, a la Horowitz, that federalism would exacerbate rather than  mitigate ethnic and religious conflicts. (1985, 603).

Therefore, for its stability, progress and development as a modern nation-state,  Nigeria’s current federal structure needs refinement and improvement, or some  form of what can be called restructuring. We need elite consensus to bring it  about, and we need good democratic governance to nurture and entrench  political accommodation of diversity, as well as equitable power and resources  sharing. The near absence of the two intervening variables has obstructed the  attainment of the aforementioned desirable objective of a federal system.

2

Contextual Analysis 

Unlike most, relatively stable, federations, the efficacy of Nigeria’s federal  system has been undermined, essentially by an imbalance, as well as inequities in the distribution of power and resources between the national and subnational  units. This imbalance is a product of Nigeria’s colonial experience, subsequent  post-colonial authoritarian military rule, and series of reckless, bad and  essentially undemocratic governance, especially in the 21 years of civil  ‘democratic’ rule.

Although there is a general recognition among the elite that existing imbalance  and inequities, which have characterized the operation of our federal system  are destructive of the essence of the Nigerian federation because, among other  things, they provide the canon-fodder for heightened ethno-religious  mobilization and violence, the faction of the elite that has been dominant in  politics and governance has, basically, refused to be receptive to the vociferous  demands for reforms. This is essentially because being in power and controlling  governance institutions has been primarily for self-serving objectives and  personal aggrandizement, rather than serving the people and the nation  selflessly; or at least with an enlightened self-interest. Paradoxically, this faction  of the elite has a stranglehold on political power, by projecting their access to  power as group (ethnic and religious) representation.

In the Nigerian Fourth Republic, that is, since 1999, there have been two major  undertakings to generate elite, if not national, consensus on how to address  outstanding, burning, national issues, including, primarily, the “national  question” and the undesirable structure of the federation. For example, there  was the “Political Reform Conference” (2006) under the Obasanjo government;  and there was the “National Conference” (2014) under the Jonathan

3

government. The Report of each contained many good, rich recommendations  for addressing persistent national challenges. Regrettably, both have remained  unconsidered/unimplemented by the dominant faction of the elite in  governance.

As governance increasingly becomes poor and bad, as Nigerian politics slides  backward from “democratic” to undemocratic / authoritarian modes of  governance, and consequently as the country is plunged into uncontrolled  ethno-religious violence and other forms of criminality, the demands for  restructuring have become vociferous, with even extremist, irredentist demands for the dismemberment what is now known as Nigeria.

The way things are going, Nigerians in general and the elite in particular, need  to engage with the issue of restructuring more seriously and purposefully and  begin to address it. I say ‘begin to address it’ because, regrettably, we have  allowed things to be so bad for so long that it would require concerted,  systematic effort over a carefully defined time-frame, to be able to successfully,  permanently solve the challenges, which bedevil Nigeria, especially those, which  have given rise to the intense demands and agitations for ‘restructuring’.

To my mind, there is no doubt that, understood properly, without grand  standing and brinkmanship, restructuring is necessary and the time to begin to  concretely commence it is NOW. But there should be no doubt, also, that although restructuring is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for stability,  progress and socioeconomic development in Nigeria. It would have to be  combined with good democratic governance predicated on justice, equity and  equality of opportunity for all citizens, for it to yield dividends in meeting the  needs and aspirations of Nigerians. The other dimensions of national challenges,  such as insecurity; poverty; poor access to, and poor quality of, education;

4

unemployment; and denial of equality of opportunity to women, the physically  challenged and so-called settlers; all these cannot be effectively and urgently  addressed, without good democratic governance, driven by selfless, focused  and patriotic leaders.

Nigeria had in the past (e.g. under the 1954 Lyttleton Constitution; as well as  subsequently the Independence and republican Constitutions of 1960 and 1963) practised a better federal arrangement than what we have now. The experience  of the First Republic in 1960s is being celebrated now as the period of “true  federalism”, to which some would want to drag Nigeria back to. Better as that  period may be perceived to be in comparison to what obtains now, we cannot  move into the future by going back to the past. What the past offers are lessons  on how to avoid its pitfalls as we move into the future. Rather than going back  in time to the past, we should move into the future by reforming / restructuring  Nigeria’s federal system drawing upon not only lessons from the past, but also  and especially current good practices from other federal systems globally, in  terms of how to infuse a fair distribution of power and resources between the  national and subnational units, predicated on justice and equity; and how to  protect and defend citizenship rights guaranteed by the constitution.

As I observed some years back, the challenge of restructuring in Nigeria is

on how to address the issue of restructuring the Nigerian federal system  without upsetting the apple-chart; that is, how to add value to the  structure and systemic efficacy of the federal arrangement, without  unleashing instability occasioned by the mobilization of ethnic, regional  and religious sentiments and identities” (Jega, 2017:1).

Given the preceding introduction and contextual analysis, how are we to  proceed with restructuring: Why restructuring? What should restructuring

5

entail? how do we restructure? and when? I now turn these pertinent  questions.

Why Demands for Restructuring? 

There are continuous and vociferous demands for restructuring because of the  following:

1. Heightened mobilization and politicization of ethnic, regional and  religious identities by politicians generally and so-called opinion leaders  especially.
2. Actual cases and illustrations, as well as deep rooted perceptions, of  marginalization and inequities in the management of the affairs of the  country by successive governments/ regimes at the federal level
3. Bad governance: driven by incompetent, inept, inefficient and self-serving  leadership, at both federal, state and local government levels 4. Failure of governance to satisfy the needs and aspirations of citizens 5. Increasing devastating poverty and deteriorating socioeconomic  conditions of the citizens
4. Political brinksmanship by some elite, especially politicians and/or ethno religious ‘war lords’

What restructuring should entail 

A review of the debates, discourses and advocacy on the subject matter suggests  that to many, restructuring may mean any, a combination, or all of the following:

1. A return to “true federalism”; described as re-establishing the regional  structure of the 1960-1966, with the division of powers and allocation of  resources as defined in the independence and republican constitutions of  that period

6

2. Creation of 6 regions, akin to the so-called 6 geo-political zones, to replace  the current 36 states structure
3. A return to the 12 states structure of 1967 – 1976
4. ‘Resources control’, whether in a new regional structure or under the  current states structure, granting the subnational units the absolute  control of all resources under of above their geographical territorials or  territorial waters
5. Equitable redistribution of power and resources from the federal  government to the subnational governments/ units (i.e. from federal  government to State governments, to LGAs)
6. Opportunity to replace the federal system with a confederation 7. Opportunity for any subnational unit, or groupings of subnational units,  to withdraw from the Nigerian federation and assert their sovereignty on  the basis of an (essentially fabricated) ethnic identity.

After a critical evaluation of the benefits versus the costs of each of these  notions of restructuring, I believe that the starting point of desirable and serious,  even realistic, restructuring, is no.5, namely, equitable redistribution of power  and resources from the federal government to the subnational governments/  units (i.e. from federal government to State governments, and from states to  LGAs).

Dismantling the current States structure, and reconfiguring the states into pre 1966 regions, or into 6 geo-political regions, or even into 12 States of 1976/7, is  at worst an unrealistic, romantic, pipe-dream; and at best easier said than done.  The social and political costs of such an undertaking would by far out-weigh the  benefits. In many fundamental respects, creation of states has gone a long way  to mitigate real and imagined/perceived marginalization of minorities; although  given Nigeria’s complex diversity, the more states created, the more their

7

economic viability is threatened; and the more new ‘majorities’ and ‘minorities’  emerged, with fresh demands by the ‘new minorities’ for their own states.

The challenges and tensions that would unfold in any attempt to regroup states  into regions or into mega 12 states, given that their people have tasted relative  autonomy, could only best be imagined. Relative autonomy once gained, is  difficult if not near impossible to voluntarily surrender. If the major argument  against the current 36 state structure is that many seem economically unviable,  there are other better ways to address that and make them more viable.  Improved, (or good democratic) governance, with efficient allocation and  utilization of resources, with curtailed corruption, and with greater effort at  internal revenue generation, would make virtually all the seemingly unviable  states, viable and sustainable.

If, in addition to improved governance, more powers are taken from the federal  government, by sanitizing items on the Federal Legislative List and the  Concurrent List, in line with global best practices, and given to the states, with  commensurate additional allocation of resources, the states would not only be  viable but would move in the desirable direction of competitive federalism, in  which they would try to out-do each other in the design and execution of  beneficial, people-oriented programs and projects for the benefits of their  residents.

Why Restructure? 

The potential benefits of restructuring as conceptualized in this presentation,  i.e. as de-concentration and redistribution of power and resources from the  national to the subordinate units, are enormous and can be summarized as  follows:

8

1. To bring about stability in the Nigerian nation, and make the environment  amenable to accelerated socioeconomic development
2. To expand the scope, as well as strengthen, unity in diversity 3. To ensure peaceful co-existence, with equity, justice and equality of  opportunity for all citizens throughout the Nigerian nation
3. To make existing states and local governments more functional and more  viable as governance entities
4. To protect and defend the rights of all citizens throughout Nigeria, by  giving primacy to citizenship and residency over and above so-called  indigenes
5. To create a sense of national belonging to all, as Nigerian citizens,  regardless of communal and ethno-religious identities
6. To eliminate or at least drastically reduce deep-seated mutual suspicions  and fears, and perceptions marginalization amongst Nigerians, which  have undermined national cohesion, unity and integration

If and when Nigeria is ‘restructured’ and managed well, along the lines as  suggested, the benefits to the citizens of remaining together in one united  country would by far out- weigh the costs of separation into smaller ethno religious entities.

How to Restructure 

The best way to restructure the Nigerian federation is to pursue systematic,  incremental positive changes and avoid “once for all”, wholesale, undertakings,  because they are time consuming, energy sapping, and constraining. The  National Assembly’s efforts to do constitutional Amendments since 1999, “all at  a go!”, consequently with little value addition, has lessons for us to draw from.

Specifically, the best way to go about it would be to:

9

1. Reduce powers and resources of the federal government specified in the  Federal and Concurrent Legislative Lists
2. Increase powers and resources of the state governments on the State  Legislative List
3. Devolve powers and resources from the states to the local governments 4. Require the states to create “Development Areas”, as the lower level tier  of governance at the grassroots level, below the LGAs
4. Accordingly, review the resources allocation / revenue sharing formula  between federal, states (and local governments) taking into consideration  the new sharing of power and responsibilities.

For example, what could be termed as the global best practices in federal  systems is that, unlike what obtains in Nigeria, healthcare provisioning,  education provisioning, agriculture, housing and urban development, are all  state responsibilities, with the role of the federal government in these matters  limited to setting standards, regulatory framework, and incentive structures in  form of grants-in-aid and so on to ensure balanced and even development  throughout the country. In this context, there would be no need for behemoth  Federal Ministries of education, health, housing and urban development, rural  development, etc., controlling resources, which ordinarily should go to the  states. Even the role of the federal government in roads and transportation  could be limited to Highways, which promote inter-state commerce in the  federation, while many of the so called “Trunk A” that are within states urban  areas, or linking towns within the states, should be made the responsibility of  the States.

The major responsibilities of the federal government should be limited to Inter state Commerce, national banking, currencies, foreign relations,  communications, aviation, seaports, foreign loans, armed forces and security

 

services, postal services and telecommunications, mining and such. States  should have a role in policing, which should be on the Concurrent Legislative  List.

Given issues relating to capacity and competence, the handing over of these  powers and responsibilities should be phased, in accordance with the  imperatives of systematic, incremental positive changes.

When to Restructure 

In accordance with the principle of “incremental positive changes,” a three phased restructuring agenda, is proposed as follows:

1.Short term – 2021 to 2023 

1.1 the federal government should set up a compact but broadly representative  technical committee to review the reports of the Political Reform  Conference and the National Conference and Synthesize and prioritize their  recommendations for implementation in accordance with the 3 phases of  short-, medium- and long term

1.2 Review the Federal Legislative List and begin the process of constitutional  review together with the National Assembly to hand over power and  resources to states in the following subject matters: Basic education;  primary and secondary healthcare; Agriculture and rural development;  Police; Housing and Urban development; and appropriately adjusting the  revenue sharing formula between federal and state governments.

1.3 The federal government should set up a Department of or Agency for  Intergovernmental relations, which should facilitate, coordinate, nurture  and strengthen state federal inter-relations

1.4 The federal and state governments should introduce governance reforms to  improve efficiency and effectiveness of governance at all levels as well as

11

drastically reduce the cost of governance. A lot can be done in this regard,  within the extant legal framework, using executive orders and without the  necessity of constitutional reforms. For example, frivolous foreign trips  should be curtailed, our relatively liberal /generous estacodes and DTAs for  legislatures and high public officials should be drastically reduced, “security  votes” for chief executives should be reduced and accountability made more  transparent. Also, entertainment and meeting expenditures should be  drastically reduced. Executives at both federal and state levels should pay  for their own upkeep, thereby reducing costs of running the Villa and  governors’ lodges, or those of heads of legislative organs of government. The  unethical humongous pensions of governors should be stopped, the number  of PAs, SAs, SSAs, etc., as well as the number of vehicles in conveys of public  officials should be reduced.

1.5 Other cost saving measures to reduce the cost of governance should include  either reducing the size and composition of Legislative bodies 1.6 All governments should introduce and/or strengthen checks and balances  that would curtail unrestrained use, misuse and abuse of power and  resources in all the three arms of government. In regard, in addition to  Internal Audit Departments, MDAs at both federal and state levels should  establish relatively autonomous Inspectorate units, with Inspectors General to be saddled with administrative audits for administrative transparency and  accountability, and monitor compliance with constitutional provisions,  parliamentary Acts and extant rules and regulations.

1.7 Reposition the anti-corruption agencies and intensify the anti-corruption campaigns, especially at the states and local government levels. 1.8 All governments should comply with, and ensure respect for, the Rule of Law.

 

2. Medium term – 2023 to 2027 

Implement the prioritized recommendations of the technical committee, and hand over more responsibilities and resources to the states, which by then  would have developed greater capacity and competence to shoulder these.  Such powers relating to sea and airports; judiciary, pensions, Postal services and telecommunications, etc., can be handed over to the states

3. Long term – Beyond 2027  

Other pertinent constitutional and administrative reforms as may become necessary in order to keep improving the efficacy of the Nigerian federal system and governance processes.

If by this time redistribution of power and responsibilities to the states has not made them viable, or efficient and effective in the delivery of public goods to the citizens, then other measures, should be contemplated.

Conclusion 

Effort and energies need to be devoted to generating an elite, if not a national,  consensus on the necessity of restructuring, defined as a redistribution of power and resources from the federal to the state governments, to be embarked upon before 2023. The embedded imbalance, inequities, and perceived injustices in the current federal system in Nigeria have to be addressed as soon as possible to enable Nigeria and Nigerians to acquire the requisite stability and peaceful coexistence amenable to accelerated, sustainable socio-economic development.  The best strategy for success is the pursuit of systematic, incremental positive changes through constitutional amendments, in phases, commencing with a review and sanitizing of the Federal and Concurrent Legislative lists, giving more powers and resources to the states, complemented by other reform measures to nurture and entrench good, democratic governance at all levels, from the federal to states and local governments. The necessity of redressing the imbalance and inequities embedded in the current federal system in Nigeria has been ignored for too long, and any further neglect may irreparably imperil the efficacy and viability of the Nigerian federation.

 

 

*Being a speech delivered by Professor Attahiru M. Jega, Department of Political Science, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria Presentation at the 18^th Daily Trust Dialogue on Thursday, January 21, 2021, at the NAF Conference Centre and Suites,  Gwarimpa Express Way, Kado, Abuja*

 

– Jan. 21, 2021 @ 17:09 GMT |

Tags: Restructuring in Nigeria: Why? How? When?