THE best system of government for a plural country is federalism. But Nigeria has not been able to attain this target 50 years after its independence owing its inability to adequately confront the national question, especially in post-military period, reports Deputy Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU(The nation online news)

FEDERALISM is on trial in Nigeria. The greatest challenge of its 50 years of independence is the inability of the diverse people and leadership to properly engage the national question.

Frontline legal scholar, Prof. Itsey Sagay (SAN), in his critique of the Nigerian Project, noted that “Nigeria represents a classic condition for the operation of a very loose federation.

He stressed that, indeed, true federalism is a condition precedent for the survival of the country as a voluntary union of nationalities and autonomous communities.

”Nigeria’s antecedents establish clearly that there is no alternative to federalism, except confederalism, which nobody wants at present”, he maintained.

In his book, ‘The Path to Nigeria’, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, canvassed the federal option, explaining that, a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria can only realise its potentials when it embraces true federalism.

Other statesmen, politicians and scholars also argue that many countries of the world that are doing well, including United States, are federal in nature, apart from promoting participating democracy and making participation in the federal arrangement voluntary.

A Political Scientist, Prof. Dipo Kolawole, for example, submitted that the resolution of the unresolved national questions, is hinged on the practice of federalism.

Today, the sources of passion and disagreement include state and local government creation, resource control, state police, revenue allocation, secularity of the state, Land Use Act, Niger Delta crisis, the structure of judiciary, and mode of inter-governmental relations.

“If the Nigerian project was perceived as unworkable from the onset, the form of government to sustain it had no foundation to rest on and therefore, was bound to be a still birth. The argument is that the mode of emergence of Nigerian federalism constitutes an albatross on its effective workability as an instrument of good governance”, Kolawole added.

The call for restructuring has also filled the air. Shedding light on the multiple agitations, former governor of Osun State, Chief Bisi Akande said: “The peculiarities of the Nigerian landscape demand a creative search for answers to Nigeria’s unique challenges through federalism.

However, five decades after, the search for true federalism is energy sapping. It is a tall order for the collection of antagonistic tribes lumped together by the colonial masters to cohabit under a non-unifying name, Nigeria.

The grim reality of the country’s troubled existence is that the Federal Republic of Nigeria better fits into the characterization of a struggling unitary state retarded by the some inherent tendencies and weaknesses foisted by its colonial heritage and havoc wrecked by long years of military rule.

There are now fears, as warned by the former Chief of Defence Staff, Lt.Gen. Alani Akinrinade, and activist cleric, Pastor Tunde Bakare, that the fake union risks disintegration, unless true federalism, which was the main agreement at the constitutional formative stage of Nigeria in the fifties, is not restored.

While Akinrinade pointed out that the cries of the ethnic nationalities for self-determination are not misplace, because they stem from disillusionment, anxiety and rejection of the existing flawed system, Pastor Bakare emphasised that “government that is centralized is satanic and evil”.

A retired university don and political commentator, Prof. Ropo Sekoni aptly reckons that “since the amalgamation of the Southern and Northern Protectorates in 1914, the national question has continued to stare the diverse tribes in the face, adding that the basis for co-existence is neither defined or mutually agreed upon by the natives who make up what the British interlopers scornfully and derisively refereed to as “enemy tribes”.

With the erosion of the federal character and principle, the nation-state forfeited the potentials of graduating into a nation. The skewed and lopsided federal structure and arrangement failed the aid test of eliciting mutual consent and respect, especially when the military came to dismantle the federal structure and foisted on the trembling amalgam of ethnic nations a powerful centre which lacked regard for local interests and peculiarities..

Henceforth, as pointed out by Sekoni, the centre took over the responsibilities of the states and local governments. Later, massive inflow of petro-dollars made the distant federal government to acquire more responsibilities at the expense of the co-ordinate units.

There is also the crisis of identity, for while the indigenes of the 250 tribes which are unequal partners in the involuntary and imaginary union think and respond to the political milieu in terms of the diverse objectives and latent peculiarities of their competing ethnic backgrounds, the development of national outlook has become increasingly difficult.

Unity in diversity, the consoling slogan of federalism advocates, is quite unattainable as the regions, and later, states, are coordinate with an over bearing and power loaded national government, largely perceived as the offspring of one particular ethnic group which indulges in over monoplolisation and over centralization of power at the expense of the poor and pauperised component units.

The climax of superior strength and power manifests in the recurrent abuse or misuse of the overriding power of declaration of the state of emergency in accordance with the whims and caprices of the powerful head of government.

Ironically, while Nigeria moved from unitary posture to federal principle in the residual years of colonialism, and moved to consolidate its federal essence in the immediate independence period, the gains of “elementary federalism” savoured by the regions soon fizzled out the day the soldiers displaced the elected and legitimate authorities.

It is generally agreed that the seeds of regionalism sowed by the colonial governor, Richard, laid the premise for federalism in the country. As from 1951, it was evident that the emerging country could only manage to survive as a federal entity. Therefore, in sheer sensitivity to that fact, Governor John Macpherson sent his proposed constitutional draft to the representatives of the towns, villages, districts, provinces and regionals for debate.

The constitution that emerged from that broad deliberation outlawed the unitary system. Yet, the various units did not adopt federalism blindly. There were equivalent agitations for regional autonomy. As recalled by the late Udo Udoma, politician and jurist, “The General Conference made a strong case for the devolution of powers or increased autonomy to each of the regions on the ground that the principle had been wholeheartedly accepted and indeed welcomed”.

Udoma, who was later elected a federal parliamentarian, further noted that the conference was also of the view that over-centralisation would be a grave error in a vast country like Nigeria, with widely conditions and needs, stressing that the policy received enthusiastic support nationwide.

Put succinctly, the nationalists envisaged the policy of achieving unity at the center through strength in the regions. Reflecting on this expectation, Sagay submitted that “it was confidently expected that when the regions felt that they had wide powers to run their own regional affairs, they would be more likely to co-operate with the other regions through their representatives in the Council of Ministers and House of Representatives in serving the interest of Nigeria as a whole”.

Indeed, that “negotiated and agreed basis of association of Nigeria’s Regions”, which was true federalism, had implications. The most important is that a centre with limited powers would coordinate the powerful and autonomous regions.

To give expression to this agreement, Nigeria had four governments and constitutions at independence in 1960. There was a federal government, with a separate constitution, and the regions-East, West and North-had their governments and constitutions. Later, in 1963, when the Midwest Region was created, it had its separate government and constitution.

In the First Republic, the revenue allocation formula posed no threat to either the central or regions. The founding fathers agreed on the principles of derivation, need and national interest. It was turned upside down following the military intervention of 1966.
The new Head of State, the late Major General Thomas Aguiyi Ironsi, displaced the federal constitution. Up came his two decrees- The Constitution Amendment and Modification Decree and State Securities (Detention of Persons)Decrees-which foisted on the country a highly centralized, unitarist political structure.

This legacy was sustained throughout the first 13 years of military rule. State creation was the response of the military government to the calls for the release of pseudo-autonomy to the various units. However, the exercise was manipulated by the ruling class to further divide the country owing to lack of fair distribution of the states and local governments across the main four regions.

“Today, Nigeria is a federation of an excessively strong Central Government, supposedly partnered by ridiculously weak 36 states, with a Federal Capital Territory supported by obviously ineffective 774 local governments. All the other 801 governments in Nigeria are combinely weaker than the Central Government.

“In the Nigerian federalism, Abuja dictates the pace and other governments slavishly acquiesced, thereby making a mockery of the purpose, essence and utility value of federalism as a vehicle of good governance for effective service delivery to the citizenry”, lamented Kolawole.

The states, said Fred Agbeyegbe, a Southsouth leader, were made to exist in subordinate relationship with the centre, and they go to Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory, cap in hand, to beg for crumbs falling off the federal table. He also said that the gradual phasing out of the federal culture has made Nigeria to lose the traits of a nation.

Agbeyegbe also frowned at the tendency of the military to convert the country into another military barracks by replicating the centralised command structure.

More worrisome to him is the repression of the states by the almighty federal government. This finds expression in the blockage of the powers of the states to create local governments and seizure of allocations to them from the national treasury.

Agbeyegbe condemned the federal/states power relations, in which the states, which are the supposedly federating units, have become beggars at the feet of an ominipotent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent federal government, with the states having minimal legislative powers or resources to address the needs of their people.

“The tail(federal or centre) now wags the body (federating units or states). Even, where the states exercise legislative power, they have no enforcement machinery of their own, since the central police belongs to the federal government’, he added.

A leading advocate of federalism and restructuring, Senator Bola Tinubu, had cried out when he was governor of Lagos State that, it was useless giving him the appellation of the Chief Security Officer of the state when he lacked powers to ask the police command in his state to rise to the challenge of maintaining law and order.

A lawyer, Kola Awodein (SAN), drew attention to the danger of a big federal government endowed with sweeping powers. He said the realisation tend to inspire a struggle for federal resources and power by competing parties and politicians locked in a titanic battle for control.

On the clamour for state police he added: “A united central police organization is still in place making serious and effective policing difficult and almost impossible. The chain of control in the Nigeria Police Force of today is too long and remote from the centre of operation, weakening discipline and resulting in an ineffective law enforcement process.
“The force is still poorly supported and poorly trained and motivated .

Centralisation and unification have also resulted in significant delay in the administration of criminal justice. The Nigerian Police Force of today is overburdened as it is responsible for enforcing all federal, state and local government laws and regulations. This is in addition to its responsibility to investigate cases, prosecute offenders and control traffic and do other welfare activities.
“Little wonder that the Nigeria Police Force is more insufficient and corrupt than it was more than 30 years ago.

The analysis of the distribution of constitutional powers between the federal and regional governments , and later between the federal and state governments showed that federalism had derailed in Nigeria.

Sekoni pointed out that, in 1960, there were 45 items on the Exclusive List, while there were 29 on the Concurrent List.

In 1979, federalism was already facing strains, for while the items on the Exclusive List had jumped to 66, those on the Concurrent List had only gone up to 30.

Echoing him, Agbeyegbe observed that in the 1999 Constitution, which came into effect by the promulgation of Decree No. 24 of 1999, the federal government can legislate on 68 items, complaining that all the subject matters which hitherto fell within the competence of the regions have been hijacked.

“Even, the 30-item Concurrent List in that constitution gives unqualified precedence to the Centre over the federating units. We are now ‘federal’ only in name”, he fumed.
Flaying the military for its nationalization policy, Sekoni, in particular, blamed former Head of State, Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, for starting off the process of “defederating” Nigeria.

He also hailed the decision of the frontline lawyer, the late Chief Bankole Oki (SAN), to sue the federal government for the adoption of the 1999 Constitution, which he described as a fraudulent document.

Frontline legal luminary, Chief Rotimi Williams, had dismissed the constitution as an unwanted document, saying that the document lied against itself.

But is hope lost for federalism in Nigeria? Sagay lamented that the recent constitution amendment undertaken by the National Assembly wasted the expectation of Nigeria. He argued that the review had failed to reposition Nigeria and implanted it firmly on the path of true federalism.

“We expect another review in the future that will make the restoration of true federalism the focus”, he added.

Agbeyegbe called for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference to debate the contentious issues germane to true federalism.

“We demand a Sovereign National Conference must be convened as the first step towards the institution of a process that would put in place a truly Peoples Constitution”, he added.