Guardian

February 10, 2005

National Political Reform Conference
…What Nigerians Desire
By ALABI WILLIAMS

The different ethnic groups and geopolitical
groupings are putting finishing touches to their varied positions before going
for the proposed National Political Reform Conference. For some, all they have
to do is fine-tune positions, which have been carefully, methodically and
professionally arrived at over the years. The SouthWest, for instance, is very
familiar with the process of legal drafting and has already published its
position, which seeks an enabling environment for optimum development of the
Region. The Southeast has equally gone through years of deep reflection on
Project Nigeria, and cannot be in doubt of what to say at the conference. This
is the time for the zone to officially complain about marginalisation. The
position of the South-South is very clear. The people want a better fiscal
federation in which they can control a substantial percentage of the oil
resources in their territory. The collective position of the North is not too
clear yet, but no one will be surprised if they focus the Sharia legal code.

Beyond the regional and ethnic aspirations, the individual Nigerian must not
lose sight of the peculiar problems he faces in the country. There are many
provisions in the 1999 Constitution, and in deed in other previous
Constitutions, which pretend to lay solid basis for the good living of the
average Nigerian. Such provisions paint a beautiful picture of what government
is all about and the good things it has in store for the people. But at the end
of the day, the people are shortchanged because such provisions are merely
academic. They are never implemented.

So, it does not matter that Nigerians are segmented into 36 states and six
geo-political units. It does not matter that they belong to different ethnic
origins and groupings. A hypocritical ruling class whose promises in the
Constitution are not fulfilled collectively confronts them. And this has been
the case since the collapse of the first Republic. It does appear, too, that the
people of Nigeria, irrespective of their locations, suffer collective ignorance
in their inability to hold government responsible for its constitutional
promises. And who would blame them, when majority of the people does not know
what constitution is all about? After swearing to uphold the constitution,
several sections are left unattended to by elected officials. And the people do
not have the wherewithals to demand accountability.

The Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, as
listed in Chapter Two of the 1999 Constitution embodies the contractual
agreement between the government and citizens of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria. Here, it is clearly stated: that, it shall be the duty and
responsibility of all organs of government, authorities and persons to conform
to, observe and apply the provisions in this Constitution.
Chapter Two, Section 14(1) says the “federal republic of Nigeria shall be a
state based on the principles of democracy and social justice.” to this end it
declares that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government
through this Constitution derives all its power and authority.

In practice, however, the process of contracting government between the
people and their representatives is well beyond the People. The electoral system
has suffered series of abuse and damage so much that elections do not reflect
the true wishes of the electorate. On that count, sovereignty, which ought to
belong to the people, is hijacked and the contract is abused.

Section 14(2)(a) is rendered useless and that is reflected in the attitude of
elected politicians. They hijack government and dispense material and patronage
according to their whims. The National Assembly or the State Houses of Assembly,
which ought to fight on behalf of the people, is first and foremost loyal to the
executive and then the political party, which forms government. Government is
thus, not responsible to the people. Instead, the people are programmed to feel
inferior to their elected officials and their family members. For instance, a
governor’s wife or the wife of a President runs a pet project and is eulogised
for giving handouts to the people, who are the original owners of the resources.
The people embark on pilgrimages to solicit patronage in government houses
across the country. ‘Elected’ officials oppress the people with their own
resources. Matters like this should concern delegates going to the National
Political Reform Conference.

Equally, section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution states that, “the security and
welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” This is a big
responsibility, which government is yet to fully understand. Security and its
availability will help make a distinction between a State that has emerged and
graduated from the state of nature and that is yet to emanate.

Nigeria has been unable to define in principle and action whether to move
forward with all the attributes of good governance or to continue to exist in a
jungle state where the rule of law is on holiday. Without rule of law, there
will be chaos and life will be short and brutish. Life in Nigeria is stressful
and short because government does not guarantee anybody’s well being, except
those in government, who provide artificial security for themselves from
ill-gotten wealth. When the value of property is affected in London, it is most
probably so on account of Nigerians, who export the resources of the country.
These Nigerians know that Section 14(2)(b) exists only on paper, and the only
way they can justify that section is to seek for it outside the country where
the English people have laboured to entrench it in their system. Ironically, no
English man will willingly come to live and own a private house in Nigeria using
money that was stolen from the British government coffers. In any case, Nigeria
is not even safe enough, except for those old and selfless missionaries.

Section 14(3) and (4) talk about federal character, national unity,
recognising diversity and sense of belonging among all the peoples of Nigeria.
In practice over these years, federal character has translated to nepotism while
each new year records less unity and more division among the people of Nigeria.
The principle of federal character presupposes that some sections or groups of
people have exceptional talent and ability to create and re-create knowledge and
wealth. The principle feigns to create a balance so that there is no domination
of the polity by only one section. Yet, for so many years the North dominated
the military and defense intelligence, while the other regions operated at the
flanks.

Since the Nigerian civil war, it had become a deliberate policy to make the
most essential aspect of the military inaccessible to people of certain regions.
The result was that, instead of having a Nigerian Army, soldiers rather owe
their loyalty to powerful officers, who have access to power and state funds.
Even in a democracy, these powerful and retired soldiers are still circulating.

The delegates to the proposed conference should look into these matters.

The environment should encourage Nigerians from any part to aspire without
barriers to the highest peak in politics, science and technology, military. What
obtains at the moment is the policy of denying some Nigerians access to certain
placements, simply because others do not have the mental capacity to excel. That
is why Nigeria has refused to develop the spirit of competition. Countries that
were at par with Nigeria at independence have emerged from poverty to become
medium level powers. Nigeria is still importing the most basic of household
items because the spirit of competition is absent.

Even at state and local government levels, certain entrenched interests have
taken over governance to the exclusion of the general interest. This makes
politics a very bitter competition for the soul of government and its resources.
The principle, which seeks to accommodate the diversities in each tier of
government as stipulated in section 14(3) and (4), is not adhered to, except in
the zoning of principal political offices. These offices are often shared among
the political class to the exclusion of the people who own the resources.

Section 15(1) promises to promote national integration as against
discrimination on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, status, ethnic
or linguistic association or ties. To do that, the Constitution enjoins the
state to provide facilities for and encourage free mobility of people; secure
full residence rights for every citizen in all parts of the federation;
encourage inter-marriage among persons from different places of origin, of
different religious, ethnic or linguistic ties; promote the formation of
associations to cut across ethnic barriers.

These insertions in the 1999 Constitution are simply not workable, or they
are ignored. Between 1999 and 2004, differences in language, religion,
geographical location and ethnic origin have heightened to a very dangerous
level. The State had no answer to all the tendencies, which tore apart the
people and made Jos, Kaduna, Warri, Kano and regions of Taraba and Benue States
ungovernable. It is this situation that encouraged calls for a national
conference where the people will decide both their physical and constitutional
boundaries.

While the 1999 Constitution promises in section 16(1)(a) to “harness the
resources of the nation and promote national prosperity and an efficient,
dynamic and self-reliant economy;” and in (6) to “control the national economy
in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every
citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity”,
the reality is that government acts in a manner that says it does not owe anyone
a living. This is exemplified in the numerous face-offs between the government
and the people over prices of petroleum products. Government embarks on economic
reforms that do not receive input from the people, while it is the same
government in the past that plundered the economy.

Chapter Four of the 1999 Constitution paints an attractive picture of how to
be a Nigerian. There, it is said that every Nigerian has a right to life and
that no one shall be deprived of his life (section 33(1)). But Attorney General
and Minister of Justice, Chief Bola Ige was deprived of his life and nothing
happened. Similar fate befell the respective Vice-Chairmen (South-South) of the
PDP, Chiefs Harry Marshall and Aminasoari Dikibo and pilot and aviation safety
activist, Mr Jerry Agbeyegbe.

It is stated that every Nigerian is entitled to respect for the dignity of
his person (section 34). However, in practice, the whole section is observed in
breach. There is indignity, slavery, compulsory labour, police brutality and
denied liberty in Nigeria.

These are just some aspects of the falsehood in the 1999 Constitution. They
are also present in all other previous Constitutions and affect Nigerians
irrespective of the differences in religion, ethnic origin and geographical
location.

There is a tradition of gross disregard for whatever the Constitution says in
Nigeria. The greatest challenge for the proposed conference may actually not be
in the difficulty at reaching consensus. What if another beautiful document is
drafted and is not operated according to its letter? what will the ordinary
Nigerians say of their fate in the hands of a lying political class? These and
others are the questions the conferees must find answers to.