Azaiki thoughts planned NPRC December 28, 2006 | posted by Nigerian Muse (Archives)

---

Guardian

February 10, 2005

Thoughts on the planned political reforms conference
By Steve Azaiki

JUDGING by the welter of reactions to the mode of representation at the forthcoming National Political Reform Conference, sponsored by the Presidency, there is little doubt that only a few are in support of nomination rather than election. Of the 400 delegates, the President will nominate 50, while each state governor will forward the names of six delegates. As with most things Nigerian, influence-seekers have been camping out just to get nominated. But like those who have kicked against the nomination option, I would have preferred that the delegates were elected to represent their ethnic nationalities, although admittedly there is no equal distribution of ethnic groups in all the geopolitical zones, nor is there unquestionable agreement on how many ethnic groups there are. The imbalance in representation on that basis would have ignited its own problems and debate about fairness and equity.

It is important to get a "People's Constitution" right this time around. Since the advent of the Fourth Republic nearly six years ago, various committees have worked on proposing amendments to the 1999 Constitution. These bodies were either set up by the Presidency or by the National Assembly. Somehow, those efforts have not yielded the desired fruit, hence the undying clamour for a National Conference. The Abacha-era Constitutional Conference of 1994/1995 was boycotted by political heavyweights of the South-West zone, which sent what was derided as a "Second Eleven" team. Though the draft 1995 Constitution that was the conference product never became the country's supreme law, one aspect of its draft provision, namely, 13 per cent as the minimum for derivation in sharing proceeds accruing to the Federation Account, became part of the 1999 Constitution. Thus, the Federal Government must not be dismissive of unpleasant reactions to the guidelines for its proposed conference. It is unthinkable that the Federal Government is willy-nilly desirous of an acrimonious scenario that invariably unravels the outcome of the National Political Reform Conference. It is also unthinkable that the government wishes to blow almost N1 billion on such an exercise. This is why it is important to get the Conference right by following due process and making the Conference as inclusive as the circumstances permit.

Yet, having settled for nomination as the mode of representation, both the President and the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP) have an onerous responsibility in exercising their respective power of choice. Between the President and the 28 PDP state governors, there will emerge 218 delegates, that is, 54.5 per cent. Thus, in large part, the success of the conference will depend on the calibre of delegates sponsored by the PDP. With the greatest respect to senior citizens and elder statesmen, the conference is unlikely to achieve the desired constitutional break-through if the prime movers are the same faces that have been recycled over the decades. They have been in and out of office; they pontificate on issues; they grumble like the younger ones and blame everybody else for the nation's failings.

Once the conference nomination is reduced to nepotism and patronage for the jobless, as it is bound to be in some instances, the quality of discourse will be compromised. This worry may, in a sense, explain the significance of the number of nominees to be appointed by the President. We all can make an educated guess that, owing to political differences, some otherwise very eligible delegates would not make their state list. That is where the President's intervention by nomination becomes crucial. But in doing so, I urge the President to nominate one or two delegates representing non-governmental organisations with a focus on the environment. Already, the Bar Association, Labour, Manufacturers Association and students are among the groups that have their assigned quota of delegates. But there is none for the environment. As the conference is concerned about the future of Nigeria, it ought to be obvious that that future cannot exist in isolation of the environment, which indeed is the milieu in which the political, economic and social interactions take place.

For those of us in the Niger Delta, we need no lessons on the consequences of environmental degradation. Besides the well-known oil spillage and acid rain, with the resultant destruction of fish farms and arable land, there is a far more debilitating aspect of oil exploration and extraction activities. When prospectors extract oil, they pump in water to stabilise the soil. But water and oil do not have the same chemical components. With the little regard that the companies have for the area in which they operate, no one knows just how much stabilisation the soil gets each time oil extraction activities take place. Over time, therefore, the Niger Delta might lose its soil stability and sink, which will predispose the area to excessive flooding and even unable to ward off a tsunami. The Niger Delta is the nation's main economic theatre, and its ecosystem must be protected and revitalised by means of provisions in the supreme law of the country, so no one takes it for granted.

I note that there have been some criticisms of the title of the dialogue, that is, National Political Reform Conference. Such critics have argued that the label is too restrictive to political reform, whereas Nigerians want an all-embracing, no-holds-barred dialogue on federalism, resource control, etc. The answer to that, in my opinion, is to recognise the primacy of politics. In any event, the end product of the conference will be a Constitution which is the primary source of law for all aspects of life in the society, be it political, economic or social. For instance, such a Constitution must of necessity contain provisions on the key economic signpost such as revenue allocation or resource control.

Similarly, some persons have complained that the three months scheduled for the conference is too short. On the contrary, I do not think that Nigerians want an interminable conference. While one may never be able to impose a deadline, it seems to me that if the conference is not to become a mere distractive talk-shop where people are whiling away time in the name of endless debate, then we ought to be able to work on the agenda, isolate the issues and deal with them in a business-like manner, because there lies ahead the greater task of implementing the new Constitution through good governance. Therefore, negotiations need not last an eternity. Delegates must discipline themselves by focusing on the issues and thrashing them out expeditiously.

One way to make progress at the conference is to impose a code of conduct by which the delegates do not debate the issues outside of the chamber. Sponsors of the delegates should empower them with capable research assistants, so that they would be well prepared to debate; and, in fact, this re-emphasises the need to send a solid team to the conference. Mediocrity will prolong debate needlessly. But essentially, while the conference is going on, that does not mean that the whole country becomes the debating chamber. Let delegates issue their communique on resolutions reached from time to time and these could then be matter for general public debate - or referendum at the end of the dialogue. The original framers of the American Constitution, who met in Philadelphia, admitted that they recognised it was far easier for them to reach a consensus on an issue discussed in the privacy of their meeting than if the meeting had been open to the public with its strong potential for distractive comments and demands.
Where the Conference fails to discuss and agree on the right to self-determination of the federating units, there would be no end to increased agitation for greater autonomy. One of the hallmarks of freedom is choice. Conquest by the British eroded that freedom of choice. That is why psychologically people resent the fact that they do not possess the right to self-determination, because it creates in them a feeling of being conquered. People do not want to be forced to live with those they do not feel like living with. It was the compulsion of amalgamation in 1914 that has continued to provoke anger and unrest in the land. Rather interestingly, the Ethiopian Constitution provides for self-determination. That is a right, and the fact that one possesses such a right does not mean that it would be exercised.

In fact, I believe that it is the denial of the right to self-determination that continues to stoke agitation for it. At any rate, for any of the federating units to embark on a course of self-determination, where the right exists, it would not be a tea party. That unit must worry about how it will survive on its own. That unit must also recognise that resorting to that kind of drastic action does not imply that its own slice of the Nigerian land-mass would break off and drift to the Atlantic Ocean or the Sahara Desert, or towards the Cameroun mountains. Such a breakaway unit will still have as neighbours those with whom it previously associated. Thus, while you may not want to be compelled to live with people, you will have no choice but to be concerned about your neighbours, on the one hand, and whether you, as a breakaway unit, are viable.

It seems to me that merely to proclaim that the country is one indivisible and indissoluble entity does not impose an equally onerous duty for us all to behave and act in a manner that truly protects the Nigerian entity. Rather, it is the idea of indissolubility that has emboldened certain persons to recklessly misgovern the country, and in particular mistreat the Niger Delta, because the latter will always remain a part of Nigeria anyway. On the other hand, when economic parasites realise that any of the federating units could exercise its right to self-determination, they would be motivated, if not compelled, to help avert the extreme choice of dissolution. Right now, there is no such incentive for good behaviour and the rape of the Nigerian entity goes unabated. Indeed, this is the very manifestation of the absence of patriotism in most Nigerians.

At independence in 1960, Nigeria had three regions. The number grew to four with the creation, by referendum, of the Mid-Western Region in 1963. With the outbreak of the civil war, and primarily to dismember Biafra, Nigeria became a 12-state structure in 1967. Seven new states were created in 1976, raising the number to 19. Steadily, the state structure became 21, then 30, and up to its present 36. As with the states, so were local governments carved out. Because these exercises were carried out during the military era, there was unmistakable arbitrariness, which has led to the lopsidedness of the Federation, revenue sharing, and indeed the power equation. This is why the Conference must tackle the issue and resolve the fundamental, political structural defect of the country.
The creation of new states and local government council is part of the politics of oil. Every time the exercise was carried out, areas of the country which contribute little or nothing to government income got more states and councils. The ultimate point was, and still is, to divert oil money from the Niger Delta to develop the power zones of the country. Bayelsa is a victim of this lopsided politics. The state was created in 1996, almost 30 years after states had been created in other parts of the country. There are only eight local government councils in Bayelsa recognised by the Federal Government for the purpose of revenue sharing. On the other hand, Kano State has 44 councils. At every revenue-sharing exercise, Kano is entitled to 44 portions while oil-rich Bayelsa gets only 8. The Alamieyeseigha government has since created 24 new councils to open up the state for the purpose of distributing revenue.

It should almost go without persuasion that any new constitutional arrangement must provide specifically and generally for local governments and their administration. Although the matter seems to have quietened somewhat, there is no doubt that the Fourth Republic has witnessed so much confusion about the place of local councils and how to make them work efficiently as contributory centres to the development of the states. There is also a huge question mark over the calibre of persons who have operated that tier of government. If need be, the Conference may have to stipulate the minimum qualifications - at least, in my opinion, tertiary education - for any aspiring councillor or chairman. At the moment, regrettably, that tier suffers a dearth of quality personnel and administrators.
What promises to be the hottest issue on the conference burner is resource control. Variously called fiscal federalism, true federalism or autonomy, it may turn out to be the key issue that determines the success or otherwise of the conference. Were Nigeria to uphold the principles of federalism, the present calls for resource control would be non-existent. This is because true federalism guarantees resource control. True federalism protects the fundamental rights of both the individual and the federating states. It affords persons/states the benefit of deploying their resources for their own development. True federalism is a product of deliberate compromise where autonomous federating units agree to sacrifice certain aspects of their political, economic, social and cultural rights to gain the membership and benefits of a larger, stronger and sovereign union. The terms and charter of the union are negotiated and therefore unambiguous. Rights and privileges are well documented to specify authority, obligations and responsibilities. The federation is sustained by trust, integrity and mutual respect. The identity and interests of the federating units are presented, preserved and protected in the understanding that the health of the union flows from the collective health and wellbeing of the component units.

While resource control is a basic economic theory grounded in the fact that land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship are factors of production within the context of a federation, it implies that the federating units have a right to primarily control the natural resources within their borders, and to make an agreed contribution towards the maintenance of common services at the centre. Resource control has always had a strong political colouring. Many believe that it has been an effective weapon used by the majority to malign and deprive the minority. All the hue and cry from the minorities about backwardness, marginalisation and youth restiveness in the Niger Delta will become things of the past if the issue of resource control is upheld in the Nigerian fiscal policy.

As a largely agrarian economy, when cotton, cocoa, palm kernel and groundnuts earned foreign exchange, Nigeria meticulously practised the principle of derivation. It meant that wealth went to where it was derived. Today, the Nigerian economy is about 90 per cent dependent on oil from a minority region, and a new-found liberalism of even development commanded by a strong centre makes the derivation principle a treasonable taboo. But during British colonial rule, the principle of derivation was applied in the distribution of income from minerals and other exports. From 1946 to 1966, the average was 50 per cent of derivation to regions in which minerals were mined. The Federal Government received about 20 per cent on the average. This fair principle of derivation favoured the regions, encouraged healthy competition, and offered adequate funds for implementing ambitious development projects. The old Western Region made rapid advances in education and social welfare on account of the regular largesse coming to the government coffers.

The principle of fiscal federalism was abolished by the military during the civil war. The obnoxious law that did this was the Petroleum Decree 51 of 1969, which gave exclusive ownership of oil resources to the Federal Government. The argument then was that the policy would serve to deprive the break away republic of Biafra of access to funds to prosecute the war. The Nigeria-Biafra war ended in 1970. Thirty-five years after, the law has remained intact. At about the same period, the Federal Government directed all oil companies to relocate their administrative headquarters to Lagos, then capital of Nigeria, ostensibly to grant them a safe haven from where to oversee operational affairs. That directive was injurious to the Niger Delta because skilled labour, capital and oil-related service businesses shifted to Lagos. Within twenty years, Lagos was transformed into a prosperous city, pulling everyone to itself.

Nigeria is about the only federation in the world where the constituent states are allocated revenue from the centre, rather than the states generating their own revenue and paying royalties and taxes to the central government. This should be reversed and derivation, which is a cardinal principle of federalism enshrined in our constitution, should be practised. Since derivation was the main principle of sharing revenue before the discovery of oil in exportable commercial quantities, based on which the erstwhile regional governments derived enough funds for their development, it should equally have been the operating principle for the Niger Delta after the discovery of oil. Furthermore, the oil-bearing states must be allowed to participate in the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas in their states. An agreed percentage of tax should be paid by the states to a central government with vastly reduced functions such as foreign affairs. State and local police forces will be allowed.

Contrary to the opinion that the adoption of a much higher percentage of derivation would benefit only the oil-producing states, the principle would clearly benefit all states of the federation. After all, the six geo-political zones in the country are endowed with abundant mineral resources waiting to be explored and exploited. In addition, all the six geo-political zones have abundant agricultural produce which had sustained the country in pre-oil Nigeria.

Over the years, successive governments enacted drastic and arbitrary laws to further deprive the Niger Delta people and others in the federation of their God-given rights and resources. Some of these oppressive laws include: The Offshore Oil Revenue Decree 9 of 1971 by which the Federal Government appropriated all minerals in the continental shelf of the coastal or littoral states. The Supreme Court judgement in favour of the Federal Government in April 2002 demonstrates the desperation to keep the oil states in thrall. There is also the Lands (Title Vesting, etc.) Decree which recognises the Federal Government as the sole proprietor of any land within 100 metres of the coast or water course or river throughout the country. By this law, most of the communities in riverine states are now tenants of the Federal Government. The National Inland Water Authority Decree 13 of 1977 makes all navigable waters the property of the Federal Government. About half of the territory of the Niger Delta is made up of water. Indeed, the Niger Delta, with the largest number of rivers in the world, is the prime loser in all these marine laws. The Federal Government has not only taken over ownership of all oil minerals, it has also taken over the water resources.

Moreover, the Land Use Act of 1978 expropriated the ownership and control of all lands in Nigeria and vested same in the State Governments, while the Exclusive Economic Zone Act, 1998 canvasses the controversial dichotomy between on-shore and off-shore oil and gas deposit. The Act delineates the Exclusive Economic Zone of the country, and extends it up to 200 nautical miles seaward from the coast. It invests the Federal Government with the sovereign exclusive right to the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed, subsoil and waters of the exclusive zone. Yet other laws are The Associated Gas Re-injection Act of 1979, and The Oil Pipeline Act of 1990, both of which delimit the authority of the Niger Delta people over the resources in their territory.

Sustainable development in the new federation will require the abrogation of the Land Use Act, which is currently enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. The new Constitution to emerge from the conference should also forbid the making of laws that appropriate or seek to appropriate the territory and resources of the federating units. Land and its allied forms such as waterways will be owned by communities. State and council legislatures will enact laws for their use and conservation. The Federal Government shall cease to have monopoly over mineral resources. Allocation of oil mining licences (OML) will be by the respective states and councils. Existing memoranda of understanding with oil companies shall be reviewed to reflect these changes. States, councils, communities and families will be shareholders in all companies and enterprises in their areas. Mandatory employment of local labour will be entrenched in all laws establishing enterprises in order to curb the crisis of alienation and restiveness of displaced persons. This is what justice is all about.

The foregoing suggestion is the leverage Nigeria needs to move the economy away from one dominated by a single product to one of healthy competition and active diversification that will utilise the best from every part of the country. This would stabilise the country economically and consolidate its unity.

Another issue that ought to engage the attention of the forthcoming Conference is census. It is embarrassing enough that the country has not been able to conduct any credible census exercise more than 44 years after independence. The consequences of misleading or inaccurate census figures for economic planning and development have often been dealt with, that they bear no repeating here. It should be a constitutional issue that a census exercise shall take place every 10 years and not subject to the whims or incompetence of the appropriate authority. And the enumeration should be detailed enough to include religion, sex and ethnic groups. We ought to know how many Pagans, Christians, Muslims, free thinkers or agnostics there are in this country. Instead of the current socio-anthropological confusion over which ethnic group is the largest or smallest, a census ought to help straighten that out and those who wish to plan with the relevant figures are then in a position to do so.

• Dr. Azaiki is the Secretary to the Bayelsa State Government

---