For over a decade, there has been a consistent clamour by well meaning Nigerians, ethnic/tribal as well as specialized groups for restructuring of the nation’s political architecture. As a group, we have had the opportunity of reading different opinion articles expressing divergent definitional understanding or is it meanings of the term restructuring. While some for example see restructuring as a panacea for an enduring nationhood, some are of the views that if the federal character is implemented to the later, it will take care of the result that restructuring is hoping to achieve for the rest. But the latest argument is the claim that ‘the Doctrine of necessity’ will provide as remedy for Nigeria’s restructuring conundrum.
Aside from the nation’s geography currently fractured/polarised into ‘ethnosyncrasies’ and idiosyncrasies, with agitations of different sorts and capacities as its consequence, as a group that is interested in the unity of the country through justice and equity, we hold the opinion that structural intervention, deliberate reorganization or reassignment designed to reduce interpersonal friction or remove sources of conflict for one or more groups have become not only inevitable but eminently desirable.
Our reasons are anchored on the following premise.
First, it is documented that the British colonial overlords probably intended the protectorates to operate in a symmetrical manner with no part of the amalgam claiming superiority over the other. This arrangement conferred on the fledgling country the form of the Biblical trinity explained above. And at independence in 1960, Nigeria became a federation, resting firmly on a tripod of three federating regions-Northern, Eastern and Western Regions. Each of the regions was economically and politically viable to steer its own ship, But today, mutual suspicion among the almagm have become rife. In fact, regional loyalty now surpasses the common sense of nationhood.
In view of the above reality, the need for restructuring the nation has in our consideration could be compared with, and likened to, the indispensability and inseparability of the blood from the body. The nation is currently structured and standing in an inverted pyramid shape with more power concentrated at the top and the base not formidable enough making collapse inevitable if urgent and fundamental steps are not taken. This state of our nation as it stands urgently needs to be revisited and possibly reversed.
More specifically, devolution of power at the center has become inevitable as most of the items contained in the exclusive list should serve their best purpose when handled by the states and the local government. The padding of the exclusive list of activities has made ‘Abuja’ appear as a general surrounded by many lieutenants instead of the other way around. It remains a fact that for true federalism to be practiced; there is the urgent need for the nation to make the centre less attractive and federating regions or states strengthened with greater autonomy.
From the above reason flows another concern which has to do with justice.
Globally, there is a veiled agreement that justice has two different faces, one conservative of existing norms and practices, the other demanding reform of these norms and practices. Thus on the one hand it is a matter of justice to respect people’s rights under existing law or moral rules, or more generally to fulfil the legitimate expectations they have acquired as a result of past practice, social conventions, and so forth.
On the other hand, justice often gives us reason to change laws, practices and conventions quite fundamentally, thereby creating new entitlements and expectations. This exposes an ambiguity in what it means to ‘render each his due’. What is ‘due’ might be what a person can reasonably expect to have given existing law, policy, or social practice, or it might be what the person should get under a regime of ideal justice: this could mean what the person deserves, or needs, or is entitled to on grounds of equality, depending on which ideal principle is being invoked.
This argument about justice not only comes into views but becomes fitting, knowing fully well that what necessitated the agitation for restructuring in the first instance is more of man made than natural; the deliberate demonstration of impunity, as well as superiority by one group or region.
With this fact, while those of us who belief in the unity of Nigeria may not agree with campaign of any group or ethnic nationality to dismember Nigeria, the truth must be told to the effect that the whole gamut of restiveness of youths, whether in the South east, South south, North or Southwest, and resurgence demand for the dissolution of Nigeria stems from mindless exclusion, injustice and economic deprivation.
Also, very other reason that have postured nation restructuring as imperative is that the federal character which was created to take care of restructuring tends currently enjoys more moral burden than goodwill. Its provisions and operational matrix are perceived as ‘goodness without good luck’ this is evident as it is based on the spirit of equitable distribution of political positions and socioeconomic booties among federating states and regions without emphasis on meritocracy. Its provision has long been undermined by political deconstructionists and ‘socioeconomic Maradonas’
Against this backdrop, we recall the words of Frantz Fanon that; every generation must out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it. Now that restructuring has become inexcapable, so has our responsibility graduate to double folds. First, it is time for us to use our pragmatic intelligence devoid of emotional attachment to ask solution oriented questions in a solution- oriented manner. Secondly, and very important is that the hour has come for us to become the bearers of ‘true’ restructuring flagship.
Another question that stares on our faces is; how do we restructure-through sovereign national conference as clamoured in some quarters or how?
To provide answer(s) to the above, it must first be underlined that President Buhari was elected by Nigerians and he is the symbol of the sovereign many talked about. Therefore, asking him to convoc a Sovereign National Conference for the purpose of restructuring Nigeria is to ask him to abdicate the high office of the presidency of Nigeria, that is, to surrender his powers, office to a group of elected or selected persons who now determine the tenor of the federation. we don’t think this is possible.
Our position is that true federalism should be practised. The constitution should be amended to give more powers to the states in conduct of their affairs. Concurrent and residual lists should be left entirely for the states while the exclusive lists should be managed solely by the federal government.
It is therefore up to the National Assembly to come up with the appropriate legislation or go for the implementation of the 2014 Confab report and similar past reports gathering dust in the archives. The holistic implementation of that report is germane to the survival of the Nigerian which is right now in its most fragile state since the end of the civil war.
As an incentive, What the masses are saying and wanting in my understanding is that the padding of the second schedule of the exclusive legislative list, of our 1999 constitution with sixty-eight (68) items has made Abuja suffer ‘political obesity’ and need to shed some weight via power devolution
What the people are saying is that the over blotted exclusive list has made our nation to currently stand in an inverted pyramid shape with more power concentrated at the top and the base not formidable enough making collapse inevitable if urgent and fundamental steps are not taken.
Leave a Reply