- Says federalism is not an option, but a moral, political obligation
- Calls for a true federal constitution
Rev. Fr. Anthony Akinwale, OP, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Augustine University, Ilara-Epe, Lagos has classified Nigeria as a unitary empire, owing to its serious deficiencies in the broad features of federalism. Stressing that federalism is an obligation for the country, he called for an urgent true federalist constitution to restore federated stability in the country. Speaking in Lagos recently, Fr. Akinwale who was Keynote Speaker at the 2024 Annual Conference of the Catholic Men’s Guild of the Catholic Church of Assumption, Falomo, Lagos said the contents and provisions of Nigeria’s current constitution are best suited for a unitary system of government.
He said, “On the score of these broad features of federalism, it is my contention that Nigeria is not currently governed as a federation but as a unitary empire. Contrary to what the theme of this conference suggests, federalism is not an option but a moral and political obligation. “It is an obligation because the country is vast and diverse, because all politics is local, and because true federalism, not the counterfeit we currently brandish, is a necessary condition for the stability and prosperity that has so far eluded Nigeria. Consequently, a truly federal constitution is a matter of urgent necessity”.
The professor noted that despite the fact that Nigeria prides herself as a ‘Federal’ state, it’s far from what federalism entails. He itemised the nature and features of federalism. “There is a federation where the following political arrangement obtains:
• States and localities with their own legislature, executive and judiciary, with powers to enforce their own law — hence the necessity of state and local police –provided such laws and their enforcers (the state or local police) do not violate the fundamental human rights of the Nigerian stipulated in the federal constitution;
• There is a federation where the exclusive legislative list is so short that it checks and limits the powers of the federal government to foreign policy, treaties, defence, immigration, and matters of importation and exportation.”
Constitutionalism in Nigeria
Going down memory lane, Fr. Akinwale noted that since1922 an avalanche of constitutions, including Clifford (1922), Richards (1946), Macpherson (1951) and Lyttleton (1954) constitutions were enacted, each of them depicting political systems that displayed features of federalism until the first military coup in 1966 and promulgation of the infamous Decree No. 34 of 1966, the “unification decree,” that effectively abolished the federal system of government.
The university don traced the history of constitutionalism in Nigeria. “The British amalgam of January 1, 1914 left diverse ethnic, regional and religious communities without a constitution until 1922—that is, for eight years—when the Clifford Constitution came into being. Amalgamation of northern and southern Nigeria was the culmination of aggressive British imperialist-driven enterprise that began with the annexation of the kingdom of Lagos in 1861, the year a Treaty of Cessation was signed between Britain and Oba Dosunmu of Lagos. “The Clifford Constitution did not address the divergence between the north and the south. It instead allowed two different societies to exist within the same geopolitical entity without a unifying rule of engagement. “
The Richard Constitution that succeeded it made provisions for regional assemblies with limited consultative functions. It effected a semblance of rapprochement between the north and the south, something that was missing from the Clifford Constitution, and included more Nigerians as “nominated unofficials” in the administration of the country. In the words of Richard Bourne, the Richard Constitution “pointed the way to a federal future for a country of such diversity, in which Lagos would have to take more account of opinions elsewhere.” “The ruling oligarchy in the north of Nigeria expressed misgivings about the Constitution. “
The need for wider representation and consultation led to the Macpherson Constitution of 1951. That constitution strengthened the embryonic federalism of Nigeria by providing for a central House of Representatives of 136 members, and “six special members chosen by the Governor to represent communities or interests he thought were overlooked. The ratio of representation in the Macpherson Constitution has continued to influence, I should say haunt, Nigerian politics even as we speak. “Of the 136 members, the north had 68, thus, half of the members, while the east and the west had 34 each. “With regions having more powers and the accompanying assertion of regional identities, rivalry and suspicion among the regions became accentuated. With the north having half of the seats in the House of Representatives, the east and the west feared they would never control the centre.
But what influenced this Machphersonian parliamentary ratio? “Issues of federalism and secession featured in debates that preceded the Macpherson Constitution. Concerning federalism, Ahmadu Bello and Obafemi Awolowo wanted a weak government in the centre and strong governments in the regions, while Nnamdi Azikiwe preferred a strong government at the centre with weak governments in the regions. “Thus, the Macpherson Constitution set up Nigeria in such a way that the north, by virtue of its numerical strength in the central legislature, could either form an alliance with the east alienating the west, or form an alliance with the west alienating the east. This alienation of one region by an alliance of two regions has happened repeatedly in the history of Nigeria. Time will not allow me to cite some examples. But time allows me to make a passing remark.
“The north suspected the south, and the west and the east suspected each other. That explains why, while the west wanted self-governance in 1954, the north was not ready until 1959, a year to independence. “The Lyttleton Constitution that succeeded the Macpherson Constitution gave regions more powers and moved in the direction of greater federalism. But it left the Macphersonian ratio untouched. Subsequent political events and arrangements, such as the first military coup on January 15, 1966, the Ironsi’s Unification Decree of 1966, the July 29, 1966 coup, the 1979 Constitution, and its identical twin, the 1999 Constitution, both decreed into existence by military officers who participated in or benefitted from the July 1966 coup, all these have perpetuated an arrangement whereby government at the centre is more powerful than the state and local governments.
“The spirit of true federalism has been stifled if not annihilated by the command and control structure of malignant military rule now dressed in civilian agbada. Control of government at the centre has become a fierce contest between the north and the south in each federal election, with the application of the Macphersonian ratio determining the outcome.”
Principal target of 1997 and 1999 constitutions was Nigeria’s oil wealth
Fr. Akinwale noted that the two military coup plotters of 1966, saw the prospects of oil, the struggle for which was a major factor in the Nigeria-Biafra war to create their own Nigeria empire. According to him, soldiers who ought to protect the land dispossessed rightful owners of their land, with the principal target being oil. The cleric said to perpetuate that Nigerian empire of their making they bequeathed the 1979 imperial constitution dressed in the robes of a federal constitution and its 1999 replica and reposed sovereignty in the state rather than in the people, placing mineral resources under the control of government at the centre and on legislative list.
He remarked, “Since the government at the centre controls the crude oil deposits under Nigerian soil, whoever controls the government controls the oil and proceeds from its sales. A colonial ordinance of 1914 made sub-soil minerals property of the crown. This is also reflected in the 1979 Constitution and in the 1999 Constitution. “In a measure that appears as targeting Nigeria’s oil wealth, both constitutions, identical twins as I call them, placed all mineral resources under the control of the federal government. Control of the overbearing central government means access to Nigeria’s oil wealth. Oligarchs of the various ethnic, regional and religious communities compete for this control every four years, claiming it is their turn to govern from the centre. That is why every campaign season in Nigeria is a season of incivility during which, rather than trade ideas, we trade insults, hurling ethnic slurs across ethnic boundaries.”
A unitary system of government is a recipe for instability and disaster
The cleric raised serious concerns that the country is running a unitary constitution in federal system, noting that this is a recipe for instability and disaster. “Ours is a land where brigandage is mistaken for politics. From time to time, to justify bad behaviour of actors on the political scene, we are told that democracy is work in progress. But there can be no progress when democracy is in distress. “Governance is not founded on a people’s constitution but on a military decree deceptively labelled a federal constitution. Its contents and provisions are best suited for a unitary system of government. “But in a country of so great a diversity, a unitary system of government is a recipe for instability and disaster. He illustrated the unfavourable effects of a unitary system.
“In flagrant violation of the principle of subsidiarity, so much power is accorded the government at the centre that the states are reduced into mere administrative units. State governors are made to look like class prefects in a school where the President is the headmaster. And the relationship between the federal and state governments is replicated in the relationship between the states and local governments. “In many instances, local governments exist only as appendages to state governments. The people voted for local government officials, and, by so doing, hired them. But a state governor can oust the local government chairman and other officials. “In many instances, where the governor who did not hire has decided to fire, there are no elected local governments. There are “caretaker governments”. By virtue of a lamentable organogram, the central government crushes state governments while state governments crush local governments.
The Professor opined that a constitution that places the land in the hands of government and not in the hands of the people is anything but a democratic constitution; by extension, a constitution that places all the mineral resources in the hands of the federal government is anything but a federal constitution. Fr. Akinwale pointed out that the problem is not just in the relationship between the three tiers of government, where oil wealth from impoverished Niger Delta, a region of rivers without bridges, finds its way into Abuja, to be used to build a city of bridges without rivers. “From Abuja it is disbursed to states, and from states to local government. In the absurdity of our fake democracy and fake federalism, the problem is, more fundamentally, one of the relationship between the government and the people, between the government official and the citizen, and between citizen and citizen.
“The relationship between government and the citizen is simply a master/servant relationship in which government is more powerful than the people, and in which officials of government see themselves as lords and the citizen as slaves. Public servants see themselves as benefactors of the citizens. If and when they do what they are hired to do, they posture as people doing the people a favour. Here is a country where even officials of a ruling political party lord it over the people. The absurdity extends further into the relationship between a citizen and a fellow citizen. We live in a climate of habitual violation of rights and habitual dereliction of duty.”
Government in Nigeria built around powerful individuals
The Vice Chancellor noted that government in Nigeria is built around powerful individuals like the President, the Governor and their spouses and parties. He said that democracy is in distress because institutions that are critical to its good health and survival are either non-existent or rendered ineffective. The Scholar called for strong institutions to protect the dignity of every Nigerian. “If at all we need strong individuals in government, their real strength will not lie in the power they wield, but in their authority competence, authority of their intellectual, moral and professional competence. “Twenty-five years after May 29, 1993, this democracy has not served the people. It has only benefited the political elite. It can and it will serve the people if a number of far-reaching constitutional reforms are effected.”
Need for a truly federal constitution in a true federation.
Fr. Akinwale called for a truly federal constitution in a true federation as he urged government to ensure a much leaner government at the three tiers of government. He asked, “Why must the President have 50 ministers? Why should we operate a constitution that makes us spend so much maintaining government? Why should Nigeria have a bi-cameral legislature when a unicameral legislature would suffice? Why should there be a minister from each of the states of the federation? “Why should the wealth of the land be in the hands of government and not in the hands of the people? Why should a Nigerian be compelled to specify his or her state of origin and even local government of origin on forms? Why can’t I be respected as a Nigerian citizen when I step beyond my place of ancestral origin? The cleric enjoined government to address these questions.
Fr. Akinwale demanded for a constitution much less defective and easy to operate. He urged the country to move beyond a constitution written, amended for the citizenry by the military or a national assembly. “We need a constitution that is a lot less defective and less expensive to operate than the one the military imposed on us in 1999, which is an identical copy of the one imposed in 1979. “Some have called for a return to the 1963 constitution, and a return to the regional structure. But we must not forget that while the regional structure helped the so-called major tribes, the so-called minority tribes were treated as if they did not exist. Whatever the case may be, we must move beyond a constitution written for us and amended for us by the military or a national assembly. If we can revert to the national anthem of October 1, 1960, we can and we must revert to a truly federal constitution.
“Amendment of the 1999 constitution must begin with a radical modification or total abrogation of section 9 of the same constitution. That section makes it obligatory to amend the constitution by an act of the national assembly sequel to a resolution of two-thirds of the state houses of assembly. To that should be added a referendum by the people of Nigeria. There is no people’s constitution without the vote of the people. What then should be features of such a truly federal constitution? “ The academic recalled that Nigeria, at independence, had a federal constitution that observed regional autonomy. “Regions and localities made their laws, had their police, and thus had the capacity to enforce their own laws. Then came military rule, a sad narrative in two chapters. Chapter one ran from January 15, 1966 to October 1, 1979. Chapter two ran from December 31, 1983 to May 29, 1999. One is tempted to say we are now in the third chapter of that tragic narrative.
That temptation comes from the nature of the current constitution and the type of politics and politicians it has engendered. This country had a headache before military rule. With military rule, the headache became a brain tumor. Fifty-eight years later, the patient is neither dead nor alive.” The current constitution is not working He remarked that the current constitution is not working. “By placing sovereignty in the hands of the government and not in the hands of the people, it has made government to be more powerful than, and unaccountable to the people. By placing security on the exclusive legislative list, it deprives states and local governments of their right and duty to enforce the laws they make, and jeopardises security. You cannot secure a country as vast and diverse as Nigeria from Abuja.
“By placing oil in the hands of the government at the centre, the Constitution has impoverished the people to whom the oil belongs in the first instance. By enacting and smuggling the Land Use Decree into the constitution, people are dispossessed and impoverished. By giving so much power to the government at the centre, it has made it attractive to covet the presidency. “By making government so powerful, it has disabled the people. The government at the centre—note that I am refraining from calling it federal government, for there is no federal government where there is no federation—is overbearing. “This constitution empowers the government at the centre to weaken state governments, and state governments have literally made local governments irrelevant. When government is so powerful, its functionaries cannot be held accountable. Its agencies will oppress, brutalise and kill the people and go scot free.
Need to restructure Nigeria
The University don called for restructuring of Nigeria to reflect the true federalism status of the pre-1966 era. “Indeed, there is need to restructure this country along the lines of these relationships. A restructured Nigeria will have the potentials of its people unleashed. Now we are seldom respected in the comity of nations. But a Nigeria whose constitution empowers the people will be a country whose citizens are seldom disrespected.
