LEADERS OF THE FRINGES

A group which gave itself the title of Eminent National Leaders of Thought met a few days under the umbrella of a forum called National Summit Group with suspicious official support at the expensive Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Lagos. They met to review the condition of the Nigerian State, and examine what options exist in dealing with its many problems. The self-acclaimed leaders, the vast majority of whom were all elderly men, who have never tested their popularity or acceptability with the Nigerian people through the democratic process, or any other means that will entitle them to speak for the Nigerian people, know each other very well, and have spoken the same language to each other for many years. They used to congregate every time the nation went through some political turbulence; they consulted each other and delivered the same verdict: the nation is on the brink, unless Nigerians yield their sovereignty to them to convoke a conference of tribes and cultural groups to decide whether it should continue to exist as one entity, or break up into hundreds of tribal homelands. A few among them who see themselves as moderates say the nation could survive as one entity, but each tribe must say how it wants to relate with other tribes, as a basis for the survival of the Nigerian nation. The difference this time was the suspicion of the Federal Government in the organization and participation.

This meeting was no different from the other similar meetings in its conclusions. The moderator of the event, Professor Pat Utomi said Nigeria is on the brink of collapse. The former Governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa said in almost every respect, Nigeria is on the verge of being a failed state. A former Presidential candidate and former Secretary to Government of the Federation, Chief Olu Falae, said there are no solutions to the many problems the nation face unless a Sovereign National Conference is convened, and Nigeria is structured. Most of the other participants and speakers which included eminent legal practitioners, distinguished and accomplished tribalists, religious leaders, professionals, politicians who have no place in the current political dispensation (not for lack of trying) and many others with a long record of stay in the political fringes, concluded that our 250 tribes must be allowed to sit down together and discuss the terms of the Nigerian union. Just in the event that the tribes do not know what the solution to our problems are, and what positions they should all adopt, the Summit put forward its unchanging magic solution. It says all Nigerian ethnic groups must meet and agree to restructure the Nigerian federal system in such a manner that it becomes essentially a federation of tribes. This is the only way Nigerians can redress the historic injustice which British colonial rule visited on all Nigerians when it forced us to subsume our basic tribal identities under a Nigerian citizenship and an artificial nationhood. If all tribes revisit this historic injustice and choose to have a loose federal system where tribes organize their politics and economy substantially along lines of their choice, or even if they choose to opt out the Nigerian state, that decision should be binding and final. In order to do this, the current constitution which claims to derive its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the Nigerian people, and which establishes a government and other institutions that exercise this sovereignty in delegated form, should be repudiated and jettisoned.

They say our constitution is an illegitimate document because it is not the product of tribal conferences and consensus. A new constitution should be written and endorsed by all the federating units (tribes), and only a system of government produced by a national conference made up to leaders of all tribes, and which should be legally superior to the constitution, and find,  should be accepted by Nigerians as legitimate. This government, and all other governments, institutions and structures which derived their powers from the current and past constitutions were and are illegitimate, and are very source of Nigerians’ problems, according to these leaders. A new Nigeria may emerge, with different fiscal arrangements, different federating arrangements, and new institutions or structures which may give all citizens and federating units the sense that they live in a fairer and just nation. Presumably, a new nation with all Yoruba living together as an autonomous nation or largely-autonomous sub-nation may emerge. Igbos may similarly have one of their own, and possibly Hausa, Kanui, Tiv and Ibibio. Other Nigerian ethnic groups will be organized into over 200 tribal organizations reflecting their relative sizes and cultural autonomy. They could choose to federate with each other, or go their own ways. No one will have the legal or any other right to insist that Ijaw and Itsekiri, Bajju and Atyap, Fulani and Kilba should live under the same federating unit, or even in one nation. Then all our problems of corrupt and inept leadership, insecurity, unacceptable levels of poverty and massive alienation from a democratic process which merely allows the wealthy to grab power by all means necessary, will disappear.

The Summit of our self-styled leaders on the fringes is a sad reminder that Nigeria desperately needs genuine leaders who will think through and lead it into finding solutions to its real problems. Virtually everyone who participated at that Summit where discredited and worn-out ideas were re-hashed and given the semblance of real solutions knows that there is nothing new that it offered. This may, in part, explain why President Jonathan said he will forward its conclusions to the Alfa Belgore Committee to look at. The idea of a National Conference of tribal organizations is as old as the Nigerian federal system in its post-colonial stage. Every time pseudo-intellectuals on the margins of relevance find something wrong, they demand a Sovereign National Conference, which is explicitly a demand that delegitimizes existing authority in all its forms. The talks in  Aburi, Ghana in 1967  represent the nearest that this nation came to a sovereign discussion on Nigeria’s structure and future; and even those talks were all about arresting a declared rebellion, but they fell flat when the rebels insisted that the talks gave them autonomy. The administrations of Babangida and Abacha came under intense pressure to open up questions about the legality and acceptability of a united, federal Nigeria by some of the very people involved in this Summit. General Babangida’s Political Bureau ended up looking like a grand diversion from a military strongman who had become used to the illusion that he can take the nation for a ride every time he chose to. General Abacha’s constitutional conference was hijacked by politicians who had the courage to call off the military’s bluff and reckless brinkmanship. The combined sins of Babangida and Abacha, which included, among others, the hanging of the Ken Saro-Wiwa group and the annulment of the 1993 elections, and the incarceration and death of Chief M.K.O Abiola gave rise to even more strident demands, spearheaded by late Chief Authony Enahoro and his fellow sovereign travellers, for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference.

The logic of their demand was located in their insistence that the Nigerian state is illegitimate, unworkable and doomed to failure. It can be salvaged in some form, but that form must be what they have already pre-determined. The solutions for them must take the form of a constitutionally-elected government “handing over” sovereignty to a Conference of delegates from Nigerian tribes who should decide every element of the existence and structure of Nigeria and its constitution. Presumably, the conveners of the Summit will be the delegates, along with a few they may also handpick, because they offer no formula for representation. Although they appeared to draw some historical inspiration from a few post-crises West African States which, under the firm guidance of France, convened National Conferences made up of delegations from political groups due to their failure to achieve orderly military-to-civilian transitions, they ignored the tricky question that no authority was ever going to hand over sovereignty to a conclave of tribal leaders in Nigeria. The only way that could happen was if the tribal leaders themselves took over power by force and therefore assume the sovereignty of the people, or if someone else takes over power and hands it over to them. That would have made them more illegitimate than the un-elected governments they condemned, and any decision, including constitutional amendments or wholesale changes they make, will be illegal. They routinely ignored the possibility that a tribal conclave will be led by our “traditional rulers” or other such culturally-determined “leaders”, as well as priests of all types, who are the nearest to our “cultural identities”, or as they like to say, our “nationalities”. 

There have always been legal options in the search for real changes in the manner Nigeria is structured and governed, but our unelected, self-appointed leaders do not like them. These options involve using the political process to achieve power and amend the constitution or any aspect of our existence as a nation. But majority of the advocates of a Sovereign National Conference do not accept the legality of the political process or our present democratic dispensation. They do not accept, therefore, that it can engineer the type of changes they want all Nigerians to live under. They will not test the popularity of their ideas in the political arena, and they will not even submit themselves to popularity contests, except for the few who tried many times and lost at elections. Ironically, many of the delegates at the Summit had submitted themselves many times to elections and courts provided for by this same constitution. None had repudiated the electoral process or the judicial system as illegitimate.

There are many things wrong with our federal system and our constitution, but whatever we think of the origin and evolution of the Nigerian state, the fact of a Nigerian nation made up of many ethnic groups has been an accepted fact in our lives, and has been built with blood, sweat and hardwork. No Nigerian should be ashamed of the historic origin of our nation, and its history cannot be an impediment to making it work well for its citizens.  It is not by any means a perfect arrangement, but any useful discussion on its defects must acknowledge that a gathering of elitist, elderly Nigerians who see themselves not as concerned citizens but as tribal leaders cannot wish it away. A productive discussion on the merits and defects of our constitutional arrangements and federal system could draw attention to a number of issues which should improve the way the Nigerian state is structured. For instance, why do we need 36 States, when the six geo-political zones can suffice as federating units? Why do we need a bi-cameral legislature when it is obviously wasteful, and the cost of governance has become unbearable? Why should a few States receive so much of our national resources under a revenue sharing formula which impoverishes other parts of a federal system, and generates massive social and security problems for the nation? Why should elected leaders receive so much pay for serving their nation, and making political offices the fastest routes to wealth? Why shouldn’t larger but fewer federating units have their own police, and much more responsibility for socio-economic development which is currently being handled unsatisfactorily by the Federal Government? What needs to be done to improve national security, and the electoral process, and to bring an end to the tendency for some Nigerians to deprive fellow citizens of basic rights, including rights to the security of their lives and property, and their rights to economic progress under some dubious claims to superior rights? Why haven’t tribes given room to the emergence of citizens? How could a nation as blessed as Nigeria fail to live up to its full economic and political potential?

These and many other questions could have been raised and possibly some answers found for them by these highly educated Nigerians. But, no. They want to use all their knowledge, experience and wealth to demand for what is clearly impossible to achieve. Their meeting has very little value for majority of Nigerians who are under 35years, and who were not even considered fit to attend the Summit, even though it is their future that was being discussed. Women, who constitute half of the population, and who suffer greatly from the fallouts of a corrupt system, underdevelopment and widespread insecurity had no voice or significant presence at the Summit. The only conclusion which can make sense is that these elite with some support from the administration assume that raising the bogey of a Sovereign National Conference will balance, and possible cancel out the threat from the Boko Haram insurgency. If that was the assumption, it was a waste of energy and resources. The Boko Haram insurgency threatens the very foundation of the Nigerian state, and conferences which create the impression that you can distance some parts of the country from it merely play into its hands.

The nation should take note of this Summit only as a reminder that there are highly privileged Nigerians who prefer to live in their own world because they do not like this one. A group such as these self-styled leaders could have drawn the attention of President Goodluck Jonathan to the fact that his failure to govern well, and his inability to tackle the Boko Haram insurgency effectively is threatening the lives of Nigerians and making life unbearable. They could have reminded him that the Committee on Review of the Constitution under Justice Alfa Belgore whose mandate is basically to tidy up past reports, will not achieve anything of value in terms of addressing the real weaknesses of our constitutional arrangements. They could have made substantial and well-informed inputs into current concerns about the foundations of our insecurity, rampant corruption and the difficulties of everyday life for the vast majority of Nigerians. That they failed to do this makes them part of the problem of the Nigerian people. Unless their expensive outings are funded by governments which seek to divert attention of Nigerians, they should save the nation more of their tired prescriptions, or engage the political process and convince Nigerians that they do have real solutions. 

No section of Nigeria should resist a critical examination of its foundations, structures and values. If doing this will address its fundamental weaknesses, by all means let us have a National Conference to do this. But neither these champions of primitivism nor this administration which shows no capacity to address any of our fundamental problems should even venture into this important issue. Let those who have legitimate powers to respond to the pressure to re-asses our union as a nation take note, and respond appropriately. If they do not, we will not hear the end of these fringe voices.