Drum of war and the urgency of restructuring

·      Introduction

·      The structure

·      Restructuring: the 2014 Confab

·      War mongering

·      Osinbajo, peace shuttle, and the choir leaders

·      New apostles for ‘True Federalism’

·      Who is afraid of restructuring?

·      Secession, break-up or restructuring?

·      Restructuring via Confab 2014

·      Restructuring: Before or after 2019?

·      Restructuring, referendum, costs and health of a president

·      Conclusion

 Introduction

Drums of war are sounding near and close. Others are pouring the balm of ‘restructuring’ to appease the agitators. This seems to throw the national leadership, already weakened by an ailing presidency, into panic and confusion.

Nature has always spared Nigeria of a harvest of disasters as in most other countries, but Nigerians have always invented man-made ones that frequently visit to take away thousands of lives: selling their kinsmen as slaves, inter-tribal killings, civil war, terrorism, election crisis, religious massacre, militancy, and constant vehicular accidents including air disasters. These have ensured that Nigeria’s population remained under 200million and that Nigeria’s economy continued to stutter; always a third world economy, always a potential that is never actualised, and always an under-developed nation. Thus, the nation has continued to swing between near-peace and near-collapse, never in stability mode for a long time to allow good policies mature.

The present invention is secession which has provoked calls for restructuring. Many important voices have rang out in demand of restructuring, but cynics say such persons say so when there are drums of war or strong agitations for secession.

By the voices on the scene, it seems the nation would have to choose between war/secession and restructuring or what William Wodi of the University of Port Harcourt just called ‘resetting’. Many say this exercise is needed, now!

The structure

Nigeria did not choose to become the ‘Giant of Africa’ as it is called. It was a status designed and awarded to it from London. According to an aging member of the House of Lords, Britain debated and resolved to deliberately create a big and probably powerful nation in Africa, and chose Nigeria.

About 200 years ago, the territory now called Nigeria was occupied by over 250 ethnic nationalities that existed as autonomous tribal entities, trading with each, but often at war. Some swallowed others while some others entered into treaties for protection or to serve the other. When the Europeans discovered the area, they first traded with the natives (many say looted the natives) and later set up colonial administration that started with indirect rule and creation of protectorates.

In 1914, the protectorates were amalgamated into a country called Nigeria. The nation tasted and tested nonfederal system, unitary, federal systems of administration until now it seems neither unitary no federal. Nigeria has 36 states and a federal capital that draw financial blood from the centre where all resources are sent to. This has created a political system of bread-cutting and not baking. Every aspiring president wins by showing how he would share the cake, not how to bake a cake.

Many say the states and 774 local councils were created by few persons in the army who had power and privilege to donate such entities to selves, allies and even in-laws. Many weep that certain sections of the country with military advantage got states and local councils that line up monthly to carte away billions and hundreds of millions of naira from the centre at the decline of other regions or sections. They also say appointments into juicy positions are lopsided to the disadvantage of some ethnic groups, thus retarding their development on a permanent basis.

Even when some agreements are reached to ameliorate the perceived injustices like rotational principle, some states such as Imo and Benue have disobeyed it and nothing happened and some geopolitical sections have been denied the presidency in perpetuity and nobody cared. These are said to have fueled agitations and drums of war.

Three strong efforts have so far been made in the recent past to reset Nigeria; by Sani Abacha in 2005, by Olusegun Obasanjo in 1995 and by Goodluck Jonathan in 2014. Many people are calling for restructuring but others including Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, say the callers have different things in mind or are outright opportunities. This is why opinion leaders have demanded for the resurrection of the recommendations of 2014 National Conference (Confab) so as not to start the rat race again. Others have pointed to some other recommendations from the conferences convoked by Sani Abacha in 2005 and Olusegun Obasanjo in 1995

Key issues that cause rancour in Nigeria that were addressed by the 492-member Confab led by Idris Kutigi include scrapping the current system of 774 local authorities (to save money and reduce corruption, and for states to set up their own local systems); creation of 18 new states including one for the south-east, permission for willing states to merge; reducing share of national income going to the federal government and increasing share for the states; modified presidential system of government that combines the presidential and parliamentary systems of government, (the president should pick the vice-president from the legislature); power should be shared and rotated at all levels of government. (Presidency should rotate between north and south and among the six geo-political zones of the country. Likewise, the governorship post should rotate among the three senatorial zones in each state).

War mongering

At the moment, cry for war and blood seems to be high in the air, prompting some residents in the north calling their relations home or important persons to inquire whether to run back home or stay.

The new tension began when Nnamdi Kanu used an online radio system (which Ralph Uwazurike claimed to have opened for him in London to direct) to pour what many listeners said were inciting and provocative broadcast on a daily basis. The broadcasts allegedly insulted most other tribes with beastly remarks and derided fellow Igbo men who either lived in the north or supported other tribes in politics.

This year, the group issued stay-at-home order but many said this was achieved with threats and scarecrow. The silence created by the May 30, lockdown of areas and businesses across Nigeria looked like military exercises by the US near North Korea, seen as a threat. Some regions especially south-south and north saw this as a demonstration of power and hint of who controlled the areas. Some states in the south-south reacted by allegedly threatening to decree price reduction laws that were obviously targeted at traders. The north reacted by issuing quit notice intended to disrupt the economic life of the south-easterners in their midst. Many said anybody who hits businesses has hit the Igbo.

This seemed to produce a rash of quit notices which was easily seen as a prelude to a confrontation that may easily lead to a conflagration, such that no armed forces could control.

Before this, the health situation of the number one occupant of Aso Rock, and the political implications especially in relation to power balance and rotation seemed to cause a stir in the north and by extension, the army. As if afraid of the repeat of the Jonathan-Yar’Adua episode, the north rang out threats to show they would not accept loss of power should anything happen to the president who is now in UK hospital. The army was said to have pre-empted that such that talk of coups became open.

Some sections of the armed forces openly disassociated themselves from such plans, thus signifying that some other arms may be associating with it. The UK seemed to confirm by sending official warning against any coup attempt in Nigeria. These were followed by visits to top former army generals around the country by former president Olusegun Obasanjo. Does the rabbit move about at noon for nothing?

Many reasoned that any attempt by any ethnic group to enforce a quit order would lead to instant explosion, a war nobody would win. Many accused members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) for threatening the peace of the nation by causing breach of public peace from town to town. MASSOB (Movement for the Survival of the Sovereign State of Biafra) led by Ralph Uwazuruike, who did the sit-at-home stunt with IPOB, was to move to the north to dissociate his group from threat to the nation, rather blaming all on his partner, Kanu. IPOB was to react few days ago, saying it meant no war but that its agitation for self-determination was legitimate, supported by international conventions.

Whatever the case, the combined effects of the stir in the army over the health of the president and the tensions caused by activities of IPOB helped to heat up the nation to breaking points. The year 2017 began to look and smell like 1967.  Some politicians who profit by instability seemed to add their cup.    

Osinbajo, peace shuttle, and the choir leaders

Many Nigerians may publicly posture for break up but nobody wants the collapse of Africa’s largest democracy to come from his family. The late only brother of the former President Jonathan had told this writer in an exclusive interview in his hometown, Ogbia, that his family’s singular message to their son was that he should never allow Nigeria to break up in his hands. When this seemed real in 2013, Port Harcourt streets were full of news of how the mother went to her son in Aso Rock, pleading with him to follow her home and forget second term instead of any calamity.

Yemi Osinbajo is in control now (the way Effiong was in Biafra when Ojukwu went on exile) and threats of war and break up came real. His family may have sent to him what the family of Jonathan sent too. The Acting President dusted his shoes and went to the various power centres in Nigeria with a single message: Save Nigeria. Just the way he saved the oil economy with his shuttle diplomacy, he went now on what the early Christians called the Second Missionary Journey. He spoke to any leader, serving or retired that could influence a group, and this restored sense of relevant nostalgic leaders that longed for recognition and relevance. Opposition governors became important again like in the days of the united Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF).

Soon, Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State denounced IPOB for calling for secession; Nyesom Wike of Rivers State traveled to Sokoto and wore agbada for the first time (hugged his Benue counterpart, Samuel Ortom), Ohanaeze chiefs and APGA leaders said Kanu was not the leader of Igbos, etc. From the north, Niger State Governor said Igbos were safe, Benue Government asked Igbos to please come there, and others began to support peace. Tension seems to be cooling off.

New apostles for true federalism

For the likes of former military strongman and longest serving military head of state, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) to openly support restructuring (or True Federalism) must be taken very seriously. This was interpreted that the threat level to Nigeria’s continued existence must have hit critical alarm stages, as the UK secret police would describe it.

Abubakar Atiku, a former vice president and leader of a very powerful political group that wielded power for decades, was the most visible northern leader to openly call for restructuring, but many waved the bravery off as a mere latching on the mood of the nation for crass opportunism. They may not have known the capacity of Atiku to know what goes on in critical centres anywhere in Nigeria. He must have seen that addressing the desires of the majority of Nigerians and ethnic groups for the nation to survive was better than holding on to a strong centre and lose all.

Babangida must have known from years in the army and in African disasters that the bloodshed Nigeria was capable of producing should a mass rebellion or civil war break out would be unheard of in history. When he joined his voice to call for restructuring, many realised that Atiku may not be crying wolf for nothing.  It must rather be a lion. His voice joined those of Ifeanyi Okowa of Delta, Ben Ayade of Cross River, those from Sokoto, the business sector, and diplomatic sectors to appeal for peace and for appeasement through restructuring.

Now, the voice for a genuine attempt at discussing Nigeria’s unity, equity, fairness, balance, and progress seems to be louder. Former opponents of national balance seem to cross over to restructuring or eventual true federalism.

Who is afraid of restructuring?

Despite the rising calls for restructuring, voices are beginning to rise against it. Some analysts believe that not even the presidents that initiate restructuring really wanted to do it. Most of them seemed to throw a conference during heated agitations merely to keep sections busy and probably provide job for the boys. There is also a hint that the agitations seem fraudulent; only those losing out of power at any point in time seem to launch agitations with cry of imbalance or injustice (Oduduwa before Obasanjo; Ijaw before Jonathan, Arewa before Yar’Adua, and now Biafra which many accuse of being a gimmick for cash calls). The presidents that organised conferences either claimed to be studying it or hand them over to others to implement. Nobody has tried to implement.

Jonathan seemed feeble to agitators when he gave ‘no-go areas’ and said one Nigeria was not part of the debate. Buhari that is now on seat had derided the entire Confab as a waste of resources. Many say it is hardly his area of attention, even if he had the health and energy. Osinbajo is an acting president whose stay on seat seems to be determined by what happens in a London hospital and in some rooms in Kaduna. Many ask, where will the muscle to restructure Nigeria come from?

The chairman of the ruling party, John Odigie-Oyegun, has rather said restructuring was not Buhari’s priority. It is not clear whether he was speaking for the party or the presidency in the sense that the APC had clamoured for true federation years ago for which it won the hearts of the minority and the south. Oyegun rather said Buhari-led APC government was currently focused on rebuilding the economy, creating jobs and ensuring the security of lives and property.

Outside the presidency, some state governors have started denouncing restructuring, let alone secession. From the heart of Igboland where the agitation is fiercest comes not just Okorocha but Ebonyi State Governor, David Umahi, who just said restructuring would not favour Ebonyi. He was quoted thus: “When the issue of Biafra or restructuring is discussed, my heart jumps because Ebonyi State is not ripe for any. Ask yourself, what is it that we are producing? We totally depend on the federal government for allocation. Investors are not coming into the state and our IGR is nothing to write home about, because the idea of an investor is, supposing the allocation that comes from the centre stops, how do I get back my money?”

The governor made his comments while responding to the presentation of a consultant on Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), Mike Abani, during the state executive council meeting at the Government House, Abakaliki.

The governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has also spoken from the north. He said those calling for the restructuring of Nigeria were political opportunists and irresponsible persons. While speaking on Sunrise Daily, a Channels Television programme, El-Rufai said the Buhari’s administration in two years has taken some practical steps towards restructuring the country through various means. He said governors of all the 36 states in Nigeria were currently more involved in policy making at the national level in the present administration. “We meet every month under the auspice of the National Economic Council and working together with the Federal Government we chart directions of economic policy and that is part of shifting the federal-state balance.” To him, Nigeria has already been restructured.

Secession, break-up or restructuring?

Some are calling for break up, others for secession, and many more call for restructuring, yet numerous others say those who make restructuring impossible make break-up faster. Break up is when the major components of Nigeria decide to go their different ways and the nation collapses. Secession is when the agitating Igbos are allowed to walk away from the union, in peace or in crisis. Restructuring is when a process is put in place for the imbalances in the nation to be corrected specially through adoption and implementation of the three latest recommendations (2005, 1995, 2014).

Interviews by this writer towards this report showed that while most Nigerians clamour for break up or secession, they settle for a new deal or restructuring. A proper survey may however show that persons from certain sections of the country or of certain age brackets want break-up or secession badly. Most intellectuals and business leaders who spoke with this Correspondent demanded for resetting of the nation.

Emilia Ekama Akpan (CEO, Showers Group & national vice president, MAN)

Nigeria is in dire need of justice and equity. A country is however, stronger together but equity and fairness must be present.

Uche Okwukwu: Lawyer, Secretary-General, Ohanaeze Ndigbo

Ndigbo are desirous to live in a negotiated Nigeria. Freedom is the oxygen of the soul. We need to live in a just society with full citizenship rights. Before restructuring or referendum, the right of any unit to pull out should be part of the national conference

Any further injustice against Ndigbo makes Biafra inevitable. An additional state must be created in the south-east as a matter of urgency, and an Igbo must be appointed secretary to the federal government (SFG).

William Wodi, (PhD), Uniport

Whatever language they may call it, Nigeria needs resetting to compete with other countries in the world that constantly discuss the basis of their national unity.  We don’t need to break up the country, but a fundamentally flawed federal structure will inevitably break the country.  Big is better, but there must be justice.

Clinton Ezekwe (PhD, Uniport)

My opinion on this can be gleaned from my posts on social media. This country is dead. It’s like Jericho, a land consuming its inhabitants. We need a roundtable now to avoid an impending socio-political Hiroshima!

Nwamazi Okoro: Lawyer (PH)

Restructuring without total consideration and recognition of the rights and respect of all Nigerians will be playing to the gallery. Nigeria was founded on a forceful and faulty “unity”, therefore, secession for better understanding and respect for the sanctity of human life, tolerance of religion, tradition, culture and belief would be a better option.

Romanus Osegbo, Estate manager (Aba)

I support restructuring on the line of empowering regions. We have jointly done enough to make Nigeria a great nation. Tribal sentiment and hate speeches will do us no good. Those calling for secession and singing war songs should ask people that witnessed the civil war to advise them.

Chike Nze, Enugu-based businessman:

I am an advocate of restructuring; it is better than recession. True federalism will be better for us than division. Nigeria will be better and stronger as one nation using our various ethnic talents. We will be better off in Africa and even in the world. If we are able to be one indivisible country we will be better. Our diversity will be our strength if we have good leaders. Secession will not be good for us now.

Victor Okeh, student, Enugu:

If we have true federalism our country will be a better place, and our diverse cultures can serve as a great adventure both in tourism, revenue and history-making. Even in true federalism, if the Igbo can exercise harmony within themselves it will be a great. Still in true federalism we must have leaders who are ready to be accountable and also ready to groom the youth on leadership and national reforms. If we talk of secession it is not the best because it might lead to war, brother fighting brother will be bad.

Restructuring: Before or after 2019?

Many favour restructuring, but not many have given a thought to its time table. Elections, Nigeria’s biggest threat period, is less than two years ahead. Political leaders seem to be repositioning and re-strategising, also heating up the polity. The PDP leadership tussle is merely waiting for the Supreme Court verdict to take a new turn that would unveil what plans are hidden under the carpet. Those expected to handle the restructuring may not gain enough confidence of the opposition in such a sensitive exercise.

The president is still hospitalised and may not be very sound in the coming months. Many say the Acting President already has his hands full without adequate confidence or powers to deal with certain power blocs.

This alone has affected the much-postponed national census. Many wonder whether such an exercise as restructuring would easily be executed before the general elections or after. Attempting it with 20 months could be haphazardly done and therefore, more dangerous, according to analysts. Leaving it till after the elections could look like the Jonathan style or may attract reactions from those who are already threatening the elections.

Many say this stage must be treated swiftly so Nigerians can know exactly what to expect instead of allowing this aspect to linger and cause more bad blood.

 Restructuring: Via the 2014 Confab

According to Ikechukwu Eze, press secretary to Jonathan, the former president did his part by sending the Confab recommendations to NASS as an executive bill. This is why the NASS is now calling for it to be represented.

Restructuring, referendum, costs and health of a president

If restructuring is the way out, how would this be done? Would the FG simply implement the various recommendations or attempt a review? Would the items be subjected to a referendum or would the FG simply assume it is all right? Would it be tabled before the National Assembly to represent the entire nation or would groups kick that they did not have confidence in the NASS to know the wishes of the people?

If referendum is to be used to decide critical aspects of the restructuring issues especially resource control and right to quit the union, is the FG and the economy capable of such an exercise?

The elections would surely gulp over N100billion; the census is expected to gulp almost N150billion, would a referendum gulp less than N120billion? Would the outcome not be subjected to judicial disputes that would linger for years and threaten the nation even further?

Even if all these funds were to be available, would the chief presiding officer of the federation not need all the energy, time, tact, skill and alertness of mind to deal with the various groups and forces that would pull at the centre of gravity? Can the economy survive another hit from political sabotage, crisis, costs and distraction after what Boko Haram, militancy and oil-glut (recession) have jointly done in recent years? 

Conclusion

A young man once told his elder brother that his was to fight anyone who offended him or make maximum trouble, but that it was left to his elder brother to resolve the consequences. Those beating war drums and those demanding for restructuring or even secession have made their stand clear. It may have to be the duty of the ‘elder brother’, those elected into office and those who are paid to lead the rest of us to think out how to aggregate these demands and aspirations and implement the will of the masses.

Doing this without crashing the ship of nation, making this omelet without cracking any egg may not be an easy task.

Ignatius Chukwu