Introduction
Permit me to express profound appreciation to the Ondo State Government under the leadership of His Excellency, Governor Arakunrin Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN, for inviting me as Guest Speaker at this year’s celebration of the historic June 12, 1993 Presidential Election.
The issue for discussion is most topical and relevant in the context of the failure of all governments since 1993 to say farewell to poverty. This has resulted in the daily adversities of Boko Haram insurgency, terrorism, banditry, herders-farmers conflicts, with the accompanied pains, pangs, agony, wailing, abductions, destruction of farmlands and bloodshed that now characterize daily life experiences in every part of Nigeria. There is hardly any sane person in Nigeria today who is not disturbed that Nigeria has become a killing field with blood stains in every part of the country. The unpredictable, perilous,precarious and tension filled state of life in Nigeria today threatens the continued corporate existence of Nigeria as different strata of society proffer all sorts of conflicting andantagonistic measures as solution to the state of insecurity.
Unless we adequately understand the root cause of insecurity, we can never arrive at the appropriate mix of solution that may stand the test of time. The commemoration of June 12 therefore provides an opportunity to appraise the concept and practice of democracy, with a view to determining whether the variation between the concept and practice of democracy is related to the challenge of insecurity. The way forward would therefore be dictated by the nature and degree of the established variation between the concept of democracy as a form of governance and the practice of it.
My central message in this presentation is that the solution to insecurity and the challenges confronting Nigeria’s democracylies in drawing the appropriate lessons of June 12 – the need to actualize a farewell to poverty. If we refuse to be guided by the lessons of June 12, then we merely rebury June 12 each time we gather under the false notion of celebrating it. I argue that the lessons of June 12 show the path Nigeria should follow to overcome the challenges of insecurity. If we turn deaf ears to the lessons of June 12, we waste our time and resources, and commit monumental disservice to the memory of Chief MKO Abiola and all those who were killed or injured or incarcerated in the course of fighting the cause of June 12.
As Nigeria’s current democracy is predicated on the June 12 struggle, and as we argue that the lessons of June 12 constitute the way forward in overcoming the challenge of insecurity, we have to begin our discourse from an understanding of June 12 in the appropriate context.
What is June 12 and what happened on June 12?
“June 12” refers to June 12, 1993. On that day, the electorate went out to vote in a Presidential Election under the General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) Transition Programme. Chief M. K. O. Abiola, the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) won the election. He got about 60% of the votes as against Bashir Tofa, the candidate of the National Democratic Convention (NRC) who got about 40% of the votes cast. However, the military junta headed by General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida refused to declare the results and the winner of the election. Rather, on June 23, 1993, the military dictatorship annulled the results of the election.
However, what June 12 means goes beyond the mere casting of votes on that day and the subsequent annulment. The emotions, passion and the momentum of mass agitations post June 12 have to be understood within the context of prolonged military dictatorship pre-June 12. Between 1960 (when Nigeria got her flag independence) and 1993, a period of about 33 years, the military had ruled for about 23 years (i.e. 1966-1979 and 1984-1993) while civil rule covered only about 10 years (1960-1966 and 1979-Dec. 3,1983). Therefore, the widely acknowledged free and fair Presidential election of June 12, 1993 was perceived as an opportunity to get rid of the military. There was an unprecedented mass resistance to the annulment in several cities and towns of Nigeria, particularly in the month of July 1993, starting from 5th July and including 9th July 1993, the day, ironically, my wife delivered a baby boy. The military rolled out the tanks. In one day alone, about 200 protesters were killed in the streets of Lagos alone. General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB), the head of the military junta, was compelled to step aside and an Interim National Government, ING, headed by Chief Ernest Shonekan was put in place to undermine the mass revolts.
The momentum of struggle had radicalizing effects on the judiciary to the extent that the ING was declared unconstitutional and illegal by the Lagos High Court Presided over by Hon. Justice (Mrs) Dolapo Akinsanya. That was on November 10, 1993. The mass actions by ordinary people also emboldened Chief MKO Abiola who came back to the country to declare himself President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. That was on June 11, 1994. The declaration took place at Epetedo, Lagos and was tagged “the Epetedo Declaration”. On June 23, 1994, Chief MKO Abiola was arrested and was later charged for treason at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
On the 5th of August 1994, conditional bail was granted Chief MKO Abiola by Hon. Justice Mustapha Abdullahi. Chief MKO Abiola rightly rejected the conditional bail. The terms of the bail included: that he should not do anything that would undermine the peace, unity and stability of the nation; he was not to address any political rally or gathering pending the hearing and determination of the case. He was also not to travel outside Nigeria without leave of the court. Had Chief Abiola accepted the conditional bail, he would have become an enslaved or a living-dead person. However, on 21 October 1994, the Federal High Court in Lagos, Presided over by Hon. Justice J. A. D. Jinadu declared the arrest and detention of Chief Abiola void and unconstitutional. Yet he was not released.
The military regime mounted pressure on Chief Abiola through several individuals (including Chief Obasanjo and Prince Ajibola), traditional rulers and the international community with a view to his renouncing the struggle for the actualization of the June 12 mandate in exchange for his freedom from incarceration. On the 30th of June 1998, the Secretaries General of the United Nations and the Commonwealth, Kofi Annan and Emeka Anyaoku respectively, met Chief Abiola in detention, in separate meetings but with the same agenda. They intimidated Chief Abiola that the international community would not recognize him as President because of the lapse of five years (1993-1998). They therefore wanted Abiola to sign an undertaking that he would abandon the June 12 agitation in exchange for his release from detention. According to Chief Abiola in a letter he wrote to the Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, he told the two ‘international civil servants’, as he called them, that ‘the bar of public opinion has a code of practice totally different to that of a formal point of law’ and that ‘if a majority of OAU member-nations gave me recognition, the UN must automatically do the same e.g. the Angola situation between MPLA and UNITA’.
On the 7th of July 1998, Chief MKO Abiola was poisoned(and he died) through the tea prepared for him while meeting a special American Delegation led by an Under Secretary of State and a former Ambassador to Nigeria, Thomas Pickering. Abiola was murdered by the Nigerian State in collaboration with the so called “international community”, after four years in solitary confinement, totally cut off from the media, from his family, from any form of human interaction. As he put it in his letter to Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, it was ‘the most wicked incarceration ever known – 4 years without exercise, access to the sun or even the corridor outside my room.”
We must also not forget that one of the wives of Chief MKO Abiola, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, was also murdered on 4 June 1996 on the account of her commitment to the struggle for the actualization of the political mandate freely given by majority of the electorate on June 12, 1993.
As at 4th of June 1996, I was being detained in Gumel Central Prison, Jigawa State. In that year, three of us, Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Femi Falana, SAN and I had been arrested in February and distributed to various prisons in the Northern part of the country. Our offence: we were mobilizing against the election into local governments on non-party basis as part of the pressure for the actualization of June 12 and the release of Chief M. K. O. Abiola. We were released only in December pursuant to continued mass pressure domestically in Nigeria and internationally, including the visit of the European Delegation sent to the military regime to release us.
POSTHUMOUS HONOUR OF GCFR ON BASHORUN MKO ABIOLA
The unceasing agitation for due recognition to be given to the symbol of June 12 led to the conferment of the posthumous award of the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR) on Chief MKO Abiola on the 25th Anniversary of June 12 in 2018. Being the highest award conferred on Presidents and/or former Heads of State of Nigeria, the conferment of GCFR, albeit, posthumously, represents an official recognition that Chief MKO Abiola won the June 12, 1993 election. This fact was made explicitly clear by President Muhammadu Buhari whilst conferring the award when he said, inter alia, that:
“… on behalf of the Federal Government, I tender the national apology to the family of late MKO Abiola who got the highest votes and to those that lost their loved ones in the course of June 12 struggle’’
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JUNE 12
The significance of June 12 may be assessed from the inextricable intertwined standpoints of -unity of Nigeria,abolition of poverty and the imperativeness of the resolve to resist annulment of democratic rights.
These are the recurring themes in the struggle to actualize June 1 mandate and in the campaign manifesto of Chief MKO Abiola,entitled: “Hope ‘93: Farewell to Poverty”.
On page x, 2nd paragraph of the Manifesto, Bashorun M. K. O. Abiola declared:
“Our Farewell to Poverty is a new covenant between government and people to be signed on the morning of August 27th 1993. From that date, the wellbeing of all the people of Nigeria, irrespective of tribe, tongue, religion or sex, will become the measure of the efficiency of Government”.
Concern for the frustrations and interests of the downtrodden against the privileged
The “Farewell to Poverty” Manifesto, issued by Chief MKO Abiola, a businessman, surprisingly showed concern for the frustrations and interests of the downtrodden against the privileged:
“…From that day [i.e. 27/8/1993] …No more will some be spectators because of unemployment while a tiny privileged minority usurp the juicy fruits of our land” (page 1, 2ndparagraph).
He went further:
“Driven by frustration with the general downward trend in most spheres of our lives, the majority of our countrymen have begun to express doubts about the future of our dear country and the promise which it holds for all of us” (page 1, 3rd paragraph of the Manifesto).
Bashorun MKO Abiola called for hope in the Nigerian dream/project
In his words,
“On the face of nearly every Nigerian today, there are disillusionment. Our people are today united by one cry; the cry for a new source of hope, for a New dawn. I am running for the Presidency today because I want to stand up tomorrow and say to you my countrymen and women: I heard your cry; I came forward so that together we can renew HOPE in the Nigerian dream and give eternal recognition to the sacrifice of those who have died that we may live to see this moment” (page xi, last paragraph).
President Muhammadu Buhari, whilst conferring the Honour of GCFR on MKO Abiola, posthumously, also reminded us that June 12 represents a commitment to the unity of Nigeria:
“What we are doing is celebrating and appreciating the positive sides of June 12.
“The June 12 which reinstates democracy and freedom, the June 12 that overcomes our various divides and the June 12 that produces unity and national cohesion.
“This is the June 12 we are celebrating today and we will nurture it to our next generation”
The quotations from the manifesto of Bashorun MKO Abiolashow that the principal preoccupation of the symbol of June 12 was ‘Farewell to Poverty’. The programme of Farewell to Poverty reflects an understanding that there is a relationship between Poverty and the possibility of sustaining the unity of Nigeria. In an atmosphere of pervasive poverty and lack, loyalty would tend to be to primordial identities of ethnicity, tongue and religion rather than to the country. However, where Nigeria is able to solve the problem of basic physiological needs, the country would command loyalty of the citizenry. Farewell to Poverty therefore reflected the concern of Bashorun Abiola that the struggle of ordinary Nigerian masses against continued military dictatorship and to live under a democratic political regime would be meaningful only if it resulted in abolition of poverty.
We can therefore argue that the electorates were rationale in their decision to give Bashorun Abiola the majority of the votes mainly because of the Manifesto of Farewell to Poverty such that the candidate of the NRC, Bashir Tofa, from Kano State, was defeated in Kano State where the SDP/Bashorun Abiolascored 52% of majority of lawful votes. Overall, Bashorun Abiola had overwhelming majority of the votes in 10 out of 19 States of Northern Nigeria; and in 20 States of Federation, out of 36 States, including the Federal Capital Territory.
The significance of June 12 may therefore be summed up as the desire and preparedness of the overwhelming masses of Nigeria to fight for freedom from continued military-political dictatorship and freedom from want and lack as encapsulated in the Manifesto of Farewell to Poverty, in a united Nigeria.Celebrating June 12 therefore has nothing to do with any secessionist agenda; it has nothing to do with Oodua Republic and it has everything to do with the striving tokeep Nigeria united, in an atmosphere of freedom to continue to negotiate and renegotiate the terms of sustaining a united country.
THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE ESSENCE OF JUNE 12 AND THE DREAM OF DEMOCRACY AS A CONCEPT
There is a similarity between the essence of June 12, which we have partly recognized as ‘farewell to poverty’ and the dream of democracy as a concept.
The term, ‘democracy’, is derived from two Greek words:
Democracy therefore literarily means rule by the people. It suggests a system of government that is determined, inspired, nurtured and sustained by the decisions, desires, interests, welfare, aspirations and hopes of the majority. In short, democracy aims at fulfilling basic socio-economic rights. That is why a former US President, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as the ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’. A government can only be for the people only if their aspirations, hopes and welfare are fulfilled.
I argue that the dream or essence of democracy as a concept is also constitutionally protected in Sections 14(2)(b), 16(1)(b) and 16(2)(b) of Nigeria’s Constitution. These three sections of the Constitution reflect a constitutionally sanctioned understanding that there is an inseparable relationship between material well being and physical security. On the one hand, where material poverty prevails, physical insecurity would prevail. On the other hand, providing for the material wellbeing of ordinary people would guarantee physical security.
Section 14(2)(b) provides that ‘the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government’ while S. 16(2)(b) prescribes that ‘the State shall ensure that the material resources of the nation are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve ‘the common good’.
Section S. 16(1)(b) provides that ‘the state shall 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’.
In other words, where material welfare is neglected and people are unhappy, or are frustrated, angry and hungry, physical insecurity must be the order of the day.
Therefore, I argue that the constitutional essence or goal or measure or end of democracy is: abolition of material poverty. Material Poverty threatens physical or material existence of any human being. Material Poverty is at the root of physical insecurity. Abolition of poverty is an assurance of physical security.
Democracy: The Reality of Nigeria
Here, I pose the question: Does the Nigerian State serve the end of democracy as constitutionally defined?
I seek to answer the question by examining the degree of poverty and inequality in Nigeria, which may be used to measure the extent to which the wealth of society is used (or not used) for the common good as constitutionally prescribed.
DEGREE OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITY IN NIGERIA
poverty capital of the world
Another name for Nigeria is now the poverty capital of the world. This is because Nigeria is host to the largest number of chronically poor people. The poverty of the majority is due to the high level of income inequality, which determines access to all other basic means of life. Empirical studies by experts have established that there is a high income inequality in Nigeria that has a Gini coefficient lying between 0.46 and 0.60, which allows the rich to be getting richer and the poor getting poorer on adaily basis. The Gini index is a measure of economic inequality. It ranges between 0 and 100. The value 0 stands for perfect equality while 100 means perfect inequality.
Is Nigeria a Poor country?
The question that we must pose and answer based on Nigeria being the Poverty Capital of the World is: Is Nigeria a Poor country?
Oxfam International has tried to answer this question for us. The answer is Nigeria is definitely not a poor country. Nigeria is a rich country even though, paradoxically, majority of the people are poor - a small fraction controls the bulk of the country’s wealth whilst a vast majority live in extreme poverty. Empirical studies by Oxfam establish that poverty and inequality in Nigeria are not due to a lack of resources.
According to Oxfam International’s report, the combined wealth of Nigeria’s five richest men - $29.9 billion - could end extreme poverty at a national level and that the country’s richest man –Aliko Dangote - would have to spend $1 million a day for 42 years to exhaust his fortune.
income inequality
The key problem is income inequality. For example, according to Senator Sheu Sani, the only Senator who summoned the courage to disclose what legislators at the national level earn,each House of Representative member receives N7.6 million as running/overhead cost per month, apart from N660, 000 in monthly salary, which sums up to N8.26m monthly, excluding constituency projects. This, in a country with N18,000 National Minimum Wage per month, as at the time the disclosure was made. This was a ratio of 459:1. At today’s legislated National minimum wage of N30,000, assuming the earnings of the House of Reps member have not increased, and that the N30,000 rate is being paid, the ratio is 275:1
As far as a Senator is concerned, the monthly running cost is N13.5m (N162m/year), salary per month is N750,000 (N9m/year) and constituency project of N200m/year. These rates sum up to N371m/year. Compared to N18,000 National Minimum Wage per month (or N216,000/annum), this is a ratio of 1,718:1. At today’s legislated National minimum wage of N30,000, assuming the earnings of the Senator have not increased, and that the N30,000 minimum wage (or N360,000/year) is being paid, the ratio is 1,030:1
In an open letter to Mr. President dated 28th September 2020, Alliance on Surviving COVID-19 And Beyond, ASCAB, an organization headed by Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, we tabulated different sources of revenue accruable to the Federal Government amounting to over N94trillion, from agencies of Government and private companies. In the letter, we rejected the argument that Government lacks resources to subsidize public goods and that in reality, there is no basis for continued borrowing. The Federal Government has not been able to dispute any of our figures and sources because we provided documentary evidence. The tabulation of the various sources and sums is as follows:
TABLE 1: TABULATED N94 TRILLION ACCRUABLE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION | EXPLANATION | Amount (Ntrillion) |
Government Owned Enterprises | unremitted operating surpluses as at August 2018 | 10 |
Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) | Debts owed to CBN at July 2019 | 5.5 |
International Oil Companies in Nigeria | unrecovered share of profits in October 2019 | 23.560 |
Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency | non-remittance of operating surpluses in December 2019 | 1.343 |
Department of Petroleum Resources | Unremitted revenue of N1. 9tn in 2019. Projected total revenue of N2.3tn in 2021 | 1.900 |
NLNG a subsidiary of NNPC | N6.840tn said to have been remitted, between 2004 and 2017 | 6.840 |
Illicit Financial Flows | Out of Nigeria 2015 till 2020 | 36 |
The Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contracts (Amendment) Act | Signed into law last year will fetch the country the sum of $1.5 billion per annum with effect from this year. | 0.6 |
Ministry of Transportation | In 2016, the Cargo Tracking Note was terminated. | 0.2 |
Nigeria Immigration Service | CERPAC immigration fees not remitted to the Federation Account | 0.02 |
NNPC | Crude oil stolen from Nigeria by well-known oil and shipping companies between 2011 and 2014. | 5 |
Central Bank of Nigeria | 2006, withdrawal from foreign reserves lent to 14 commercial banks. | 2.7 |
NNPC | 2009, Exxon Mobil owes for licences of 3 oil blocks. of $1.9 billion. | 0.73 |
TOTAL |
| 94.393 |
Source: ASCAB (2020)
COVID-19 FUNDS
In the early phases of COVID-19 pandemic, I tracked the funds raised and/or mobilized by the Federal Government in the name of fighting COVID-19. The funds mobilized were about N39.9trn or $104.9bn, at the exchange rates of 0.93 euro to US$1.00 and N390 to US$1.00.
The purposes for which the funds were mobilized included, “… to contain the COVID-19 outbreak”, “mitigate the effect of pandemic on the economy”; “measures to reboot the economy”; “Turning the Covid-19 tragedy into a new opportunity for Nigeria”; “strengthening response to disease outbreaks”; “fight against #COVID19” and “for vulnerable people to have access to clean water, food & shelter”, etc. The tabulation is as follows:
The sources of the components of the N39.9trn or $104.925bn), as well as the verifiable sources of the information are as tabulated in Table 2 below:
TABLE 2: Tabulated Tracked Funds: Sources of Funds and Sources of Information
S/N | Source of Funds | Value | Source of info |
1. | CBN | N 1trn ($2.59bn) | Source: Accessed online on 18/5/2020, posted on 18/3/2020 at https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/382572-just-in-coronavirus-cbn-to-inject-additional-n1trillion-in-nigerian-economy.html |
2. | UN | $2m (N733.7m) | Source: accessed online as at 10/5/2020 at https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/03/1060182 |
3. | CBN | N100bn ($259m) | Credit support for the healthcare sector for indigenous pharmaceutical companies and healthcare practitionersintending to build or expand capacity. See circular with Ref FPR/DIR/GEN/CIR/07/051 dated 25/3/2020 directed to deposit money banks and the general public, signed by Kevin N. Amugo, Director, Financial Policy and Regulations Department. |
4. | CBN COVID-19 Stimulus Fund | N50bn | Source: https://smefinance.org/cbns-n50-billion-covid-19-relief-fund-questions-and-answers/ as at 10/5/2020 This post is in reality predicated on the CBN referenced FPR/DIR/GEN/CIR/07/049 dated 16/3/2020 entitled “Circular to Deposit Money Banks and the General Public On: CBN Policy Measures in response to CVID-19Outbreakand Spillovers” |
5. | Germany | €5.5 (N2.4bn or $6.2m) | Source: accessed online at https://punchng.com/breaking-germany-donates-e5-5m-to-nigeria-amid-covid-19/ on 11/6/2020 but posted on 2/4/2020. See also https://punchng.com/breaking-covid-19-germany-donates-additional-e5-5m-to-nigeria/ which was accessed on 11/6/2020 but posted on 27/4/2020. |
6. | FGN | N102bn ($261.1m) | News Conference addressed by Mrs. Zainab Ahmed, the Minister of Finance on 6th April 2020. See the Vanguard newspaper post of the same day on the news conference. It is alleged that the daily Press Conferences by the PTF on COVID-19 involves sitting allowance of five hundred thousand Naira (N500,000) per person. |
7. | WB | $2.5bn (N975bn) | |
8. | AfDB | $1bn (N389.9bn) | |
9. | IMF | $3.4bn (N1.3trn) | |
10. | SWF (Nig) | $150m (N58.5bn) | |
11. | WB Health Fund | $90m | https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/more-news/386531-coronavirus-nigeria-draws-from-90-million-world-bank-health-fund-official.html As at 10/5/2020. Though it is recognized that Nigeria has only drawn $8m from the total Fund of $90m. The balance is still available to the benefit of Nigeria. |
12. | EU | €50m ($53.9m or N21bn) | Source: https://punchng.com/breaking-eu-gives-nigeria-e50-million-to-fight-coronavirus/ as at 10/5/2020. |
13. | CBN | N500bn ($1.36bn) | |
14. | CBN | N15trillion ($40.8bn) | Source: https://thewhistler.ng/cbn-to-set-up-n15tn-infraco-plc-to-reboot-economy/amp/ as at 10/5/2020 and Source: accessed online on 25/7/2020 at https://www.thecable.ng/cbn-boost-infrastructural-development-n15trn-company |
15. | WB | $1.5bn (N585bn) | Press Briefing by the Minister of Finance, Zainab Ahmed, after the virtual National Economic Council (NEC) meeting held on 21/5/2020. |
16. | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | $1m [N390m]
| See Premium Times online of 21/7/2020. Available online at https://www.premiumtimesng.com/coronavirus/404312-bill-gates-donates-1-million-to-address-covid-19-pandemic-in-nigeria.html Accessed on 25/7/2020. |
17 | Total | N39.9trn or $104.925bn | At the exchange rate of €0.93 to US$1.00 and N390 to US$1.00 |
Source: F. Aborisade (2020) ‘COVID-19 Funds: Tracked Funds and Preconditions for Working Masses to Benefit’ in Challenges to Workers’ Rights Protection during COVID-19 Pandemic: The way Forward for Labour Unions. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES)
WHAT HAS HAPPENED OR WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE N39.9TRN OR $104.925BN?
The critical question is: what has happened or what would happen to the N39.9trn or $104.925bn, which the Federal Government has mobilized?
It does not appear that much of this Fund has been applied or would be applied to the socioeconomic rights deficit issues thrown up by COVID-19 pandemic. It seems to me that much of these funds would end up in primitive accumulation, otherwise called looting.
In other words, the COVID-19 funds would end up being concentrated in the hands of a few. Concentrated wealth in the hands of a few means concentrated power. Concentrated power facilitates political capture. Political capture breeds political exclusion. Political exclusion results in economic exclusion. Political and economic exclusion deepen inequality and poverty.
The danger inherent in concentrating wealth in the hands of a few has been succinctly captured in 1941 by a US Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, who said: “We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of a few. We cannot have both.”
In other words, democracy and wealth concentration in the hands of a few cannot co-exist without economic exclusion, political exclusion, physical insecurity, conflicts, repression and resistance.
THE WAY FORWARD: SECESSION, RESTRUCTURING OR PARADIGM SHIFT IN PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNANCE?
The socioeconomic crises and particularly, the problem of physical insecurity, have thrown up all kinds of perspectives on the way forward. The predominant ideas are the calls for secession and/or restructuring.
Before I examine the central arguments of proponents of secession and restructuring, permit me to state categorically that, the call for either secession or restructuring is a democratic right. Though I am not a proponent of secession as the ultimate solution to the socioeconomic problems plaguing the masses, I am, all the same, in principle, not opposed to it. This is because I accept that calls for secession and restructuring fall within the concept of the struggle for self-determination, which is universally recognized as a right.
Though under international law, self-determination is technically understood in two categories as internal or external self determination, Articles 1 and 55 of the UN Charter (that is UN Constitution), as well as Article 20(1) of the African Charter for Peoples and Human Rights, expressly recognize the rights of peoples to self-determination.
Article 1 sub (2) of the UN Charter provides:
The purposes of the United Nations are:
(2). To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and SELF-DETERMINATION of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Also, Article 20(1) of the African Charter, which has been domesticated as a law enacted by the National Assembly, provides:
All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.
Though I do not see a breakup of Nigeria as the solution to the problems confronting the masses, I maintain, all the same, that the continued peaceful co-existence of peoples and societies is conditioned upon the continued collective defence of universally recognised human rights. Where a group(s) of people feel(s) oppressed within a nation-state, they should not be repressed or suppressed for agitating to leave such a relationship. Provided they adopt peaceful and non-violent methods, they should be allowed to fully exercise their fundamental right of expression and peaceful action to advocate a re-arrangement of society in ways in which they feel would enable them to fully actualize their dreams and aspirations. No room should be given for tyranny to triumph under the pretext of protecting ‘national’ interest.
Permit me to also make it abundantly clear that I oppose, without any apology, the following:
I therefore endorse the position of the Northern States Governors’ Forum (NSGF), the Nigeria Governors Forum and the latest Southern Governors to enact laws prohibiting open grazing. The NSGF had earlier made its resolution on 9/2/2021 to the effect that “The current system of herding mainly through open grazing is no longer sustainable” and that “herders should “adopt new methods of herding, either by ranching or other acceptable modern methods” The position of the Attorney General of the Federation in opposition to prohibition of open grazing on the ground that the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement is repugnant to reason and peaceful co-existence.The Constitution does not guarantee anyone freedom of movement to commit crimes. Moreover, the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria also includes the right to the protection of lives and properties of all. Accordingly, the Constitution does not give herders the freedom to trample on the rights of others, farmers or otherwise.
Indeed, the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, per Hon. Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, has given judicial approval to the position of the Governors to the effect that once an anti-open grazing law has been validly made by the state’s House of Assembly, and having not been invalidated by any competent court, it remains a valid law, which is enforceable by the state, using all legitimate law enforcement agencies.
The Court in the same case opines that where the President fails to abide by the oath of his office, the legislature may consider that as misconduct and punish the President in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution:
“In my view, the courts do not have the vires to entertain any suit bordering on compliance with the oath of office of the President for the reason that it is not justifiable.
“When the person, in this regard the President, fails to abide by the oath, the National Assembly, in line with the set down procedure, may consider it a misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office and take the appropriate measure under the Constitution. It is not the duty of this court to adjudicate on.
“The plaintiff may have genuine concern in respect of the facts averred, but there are procedures set out by law to address issues concerning citizens’ rights and violations.”
What the Court suggests here is that the National Assembly may adopt impeachment procedure under section 143, particularly, bearing in mind the definition of ‘misconduct’ under section 143(11) of the Constitution.
What the Ruling of the Court suggests to us is that as far as the failings of the current system/structure is concerned, citizens, public officers and the constitutionally and legislatively created organs should explore the provisions of the Constitution more in resolving grievances. Even if Nigeria is dismembered, and the constitutional provisions in the emerging Republics are not explored, there would be no end to the further splitting up of sub Republics.
For example, nothing stops the citizens, communities, legislators and governors from insisting on constitutional provisions in the area of appointments into public offices at federal, state and local government levels on the principle of Federal Character, as enshrined in Section 14 sub (3) and sub (4), respectively.
Section 14(3), CFRN, 1999, as amended, provides that “the composition of the Government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, …to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few States or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that Government or in any of its agencies”. Section 14 (4) of the CFRN also has similar provision as far as the composition of the State and Local Governments and their agencies is concerned. the composition should be “…in such a manner as to recognize the diversity of the people within its area of authority and the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among all the peoples of the Federation”.
Though the question of appointments into key offices in the public service is essentially elitist in character, the constitutional provisions guiding such appointments ought to be observed to prevent feelings of exclusion and to promote inclusiveness in order to undermine divisive politics and movements. Where they are not observed, it would be legitimate to resist for the purpose of the values espoused in the constitutional provisions quoted above.
SECESSION
The central idea that underpins the call for secession and dismemberment of Nigeria into multiple Republics is that the problems plaguing Nigeria are due to the subjugation of other ethnic groups to the hegemonic rule of Hausa-Fulani ethnic group.
However, I contend that what we have in Nigeria today is class rule, capitalist class rule; not a government predicated on an ethnic group. In other words, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, there is a ruling class with membership from all the ethnic groups. The Federal Government, in my humble opinion, is not ruling in the interest of any ethnic group. Hence, poverty is more pronounced even in the North than in the South. If the central government were ruling in the interest of an ethnic group, the living standards of members of that particular ethnic group ought to be better than the living standards of people of the other ethnic groups.
The Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) assumed the debt of some companies and individuals running into N5.4trn. Those who took advantage of that sum are capitalists and/or their agents from all ethnic groups. Indeed, 350 individuals were reported to be responsible for over 80% or N4.3trn of the N5.4trn debt portfolio. This means, on the average, each of the 350 individuals owns 12.3bn.
It has further been disclosed that only 100 BVNs control over 60% of Bank loans in Nigeria. Those individuals are not the ordinary Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba or the ordinary persons in any of about 500 ethnic groups making up Nigeria. Whether we use the figure 350 or 100 as stated above, it is clear that those who practically own Nigeria and are determining monopolizing the wealth of Nigeria and determining outcomes of electoral contestations are less than 1% of 200m population of Nigeria. Indeed, the fundamental cause of physical insecurity is the criminal economic and political exclusion of ordinary people of all the ethnic groups. The father of physical insecurity is economic exclusion of the masses of all ethnic groups. The mother of physical insecurity is political exclusion of the masses of all ethnic groups. Unless the welfare of ordinary people is addressed, either within Nigeria as presently constituted, or within each of the geographical units that may constitute the emerging Republics, physical insecurity would continue to be a menace.
One of the major ways by which society is impoverished is through privatization of public enterprises, which is better understood as a process of looting or dispossession of the common patrimony. The verdict of the “Report of the Ad-hoc Committee on investigation of the privatization and commercialization activities of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) from 1999 to 2011”, which was chaired by Senator Ahmad Lawan, the current Senate President, was that the exercise was fraudulently carried out. The Ad-hoc Committee called for a reversal of the Privatization exercise.
When public enterprises are privatized, for example, capitalist members of the ruling class and/or their stooges, from all ethnic groups are the beneficiaries, not the masses of any ethnic group.
Another example - those who benefit from scams in the fuel subsidy payments and who might not have imported any fuel into the country are not the masses of any ethnic groups but business men and women from all the ethnic groups.
Therefore, what we have in Nigeria is class rule and not ethnic rule. Class rule, not ethnic rule, is the menace disturbing Nigeria. Class rule subjects the masses to abject poverty and some of them felt they cannot survive without engaging in criminalities and/or serving as agents of insurgents, domestic and international. The root cause that ought to be addressed is poverty through appropriate social policies. If those policies are not formulated, even in an Oodua Republic, the menace of physical insecurity and other ills would persist. To that extent, the basis for the call for secession on the argument of the political hegemony of an ethnic group is faulty and misconceived in my opinion.
However, I think the central question remains: is secession, without more, the ultimate solution to the problem of poverty and insecurity plaguing Nigeria? I think not. Put in another way: can the different variants of the ruling class in each Republic make a difference to the lives of ordinary people if there is no overhauling of the current philosophy of governance? I think not.
RESTRUCTURING
The programme of restructuring is not a new concept in political discourse in Nigeria. As far as the struggle for June 12 is concerned, we (under the platform of Joint Action Committee of Nigeria (JACON) advocated restructuring. JACON, under the leadership of Chief Gani Fawehinmi, advocated formation of a Government of National Unity under Chief MKO Abiola and subsequent organization of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) to restructure Nigeria.
The Joint Action Committee of Nigeria (JACON) was formed on April 29, 1998 as a coalition of several organizations mobilizing against continued military dictatorship and actualization of the June 12 mandate. The National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) was one of JACON’s affiliates.
After Bashorun Abiola was killed in detention on 7th July 1998, JACON revised its position and called on Nigerians to reject the Abdulsalami Abubakar Transition Programme and insist on a Government of National Unity composed of six elected persons, one representing each of the six geopolitical zones with the only mandate to convoke a SNC and restructure Nigeria, such that military dictatorship did not go beyond 1st October 1998. However, some member organizations of JACON, particularly those organizations populated by conventional politicians, rejected JACON’s position and accepted to participate in the General Abdulsalami Transition Programme, even when the Constitution they would operate was not yet known.
Therefore, the need to restructure Nigeria has long been recognized. Indeed, it is recognized that the making and remaking of a nation is work-in-progress and never a finished product. In fact, Nigeria was structured and has continued to be restructured since the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates in 1914. Three regions (Northern, Eastern and Western) were created in 1946. The fourth region, the Mid-Western Region was created in 1963, by constitutional amendment.
Sensitivity to continued pressure brought about the creation of many more states, as follows: 12 states in 1967; 19 states in 1976; 21 states in 1987; 30 states in 1991; and 36 states, 774 Local Government areas and one Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in 1996.
Therefore, the present structure of Nigeria having 36 States, 774 Local Government Areas and one FCT, Abuja is a product of restructuring as stipulated under Sections 3(1) and 3(6), of the Constitution.
The same Constitution in Section 8 provides for the procedure to be adopted to create new states and local governments. Also, theConstitution, in section 9, provides for the alteration of the Constitution, through which further restructuring of Nigeria may be undertaken.
The big question must be reiterated: is restructuring, without more, the solution to the problems of poverty and insecurity in Nigeria today? I think not.
Constitutional provision to permit secession
I think that apart from a mutual understanding that restructuring should be a continuous process; a restructured Nigeria ought to make constitutional provisions for the protection of the right of sub nations to secede or remain in the Federation. Such a provision, I also think, would enhance mutual respect amongst federating units, as well as checkmate attempts or perceived attempts by one ethnic group to subjugate and dominate the others. In other words, the constitutional right to secede would operate as a powerful deterrent against oppressive anddiscriminatory practices. Of course, the constitution would have to provide the conditions and procedure to follow before the right is exercised, just as there are procedures for the creation of new states and local governments.
Internationally, there are cases of constitutions guaranteeing the right to secede or prohibiting the right or being silent on the right.
For example, Article 72 of the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics expressly guaranteed the right to secede as follows:
"Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR."
What of the case of Scotland? On 18 September 2014, there was a referendum in which voters were asked to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”Fifty five per cent (55%) voted “No” (i.e. against independence) while forty-five per cent (45%) voted “Yes” in support of independence and opting out of the United Kingdom.
The key concern is that neither restructuring nor secession constitutes the answer to the crises of poverty and physical insecurity.
THE WAY FORWARD: NEED FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNANCE
I have argued above that neither secession nor restructuringalone, without more, is the ultimate solution to the problems of poverty and physical insecurity shaking the continued corporate existence of Nigeria at the moment. If restructuring and/or secession is/are not the way forward, what then is the way forward?
I humbly submit that the fundamental solution to the problemsof poverty and physical insecurity is paradigm shift in the philosophy of governance. Unless there is a paradigm shift in the philosophy of governance, the problems of poverty, and by necessary implication, the problem of physical insecurity would merely be replicated in the emerging Republics or in the restructured Nigeria.
The paradigm shift in the philosophy of governance lies in the implementation of Chapter 2 of the extant Constitution. Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, guarantees socioeconomic rights: free education, from cradle to grave; employment or unemployment allowance; free health care for all; social housing; the mandatory obligation for government to be humane, reasonable national minimum living wage, guaranteed old age care and pension, and so on.
In short, the paradigm shift in the philosophy of governance involves a shift of orientation from giving primacy of attention to so called “national development” measured mainly in the number and size of infrastructural projects through the private sector, attracting foreign investors to develop the economy, and so on, to seeing development in terms of the wellbeing of ordinary people, including observance of their fundamental rights.
Reduce income inequality
Central to meeting the wellbeing of ordinary people is adoption of radical measures to reduce income inequality, which includes fighting corruption at top levels of government, provided that corruption is not perceived only in terms of financial misappropriation but also in terms of policies which promote the interest of a few at the expense of the majority, contrary to predetermined constitutional provisions.
Thus, along the suggested paradigm shift, we need to promote, insist and advocate the following:
The Farewell to Poverty Manifesto of Bashorun MKO Abiola, the free education, free health, care, etc programme of Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Unity Party of Nigeria were all along effecting socioeconomic development. They were fundamentally concerned with effecting horizontal economic restructuring in the interest of the masses of all ethnic groups and not just with physical, vertical restructuring of Nigeria for administrative convenience interests of the elite.
The current foundation upon which Nigeria is hoisted is characterised by pervasive poverty, insecurity, injustice, impunity, corruption, organised violence and underdevelopment. I stand for holistic overhauling of the political, economic and social subsystems in the interest of the downtrodden. This is the great lesson to learn from the historic JUNE 12 we celebrate today.
Comments
Post a Comment