Given the eagerness with which Governor Ganduje is pursuing the creation of new emirates in Kano state, the question on many lips is why other development and governance issues are not pursued with the same speed and commitment. If they are, Kano will be a shining example and model of good governance in Nigeria. As I moved around Kano sometime in February, I prayed that God will grant the leaders the fortitude to truly appreciate and address the development crisis very evident in almost all parts of Kano and the North generally. With Ganduje’s swiftness, there is no doubt that while he might have jotted a few notes from his in-law, out-going governor Ajimobi of Oyo state, it is not clear if he exercised some patience to properly learn of the complexity and consequences of Ajimobi’s actions. Even though Ganduje’s group argues that the creation of the new emirates is on the need for further development of the emirates and rural areas, it is also widely perceived especially by Sanusi’s group as Ganduje’s retaliation strategy against Sanusi’s attacks on the government.
The interesting aspect of the ongoing Kano episode is that a deeper examination of the issues helps to better understand our development trajectories and crisis as a country. Just as Kano is presently caught between formal and informal institutions, the key take- away is that it is also the fulcrum of our national development crisis. We are basically suffering from a clash of two sets of norms and values or two sets of legal systems- the informal and formal legal systems. While Ganduje is operating within the realm of the formal legal system, Sanusi’s influence and authority is from our deep rooted and powerful informal legal system (norms and values). Based on these two divides, the question is who will win. With insights from institutional economics and socio-cultural research particularly, Williamson’s (2000) four levels of social analysis, Ganduje will lose while Sanusi will win.
In the four levels of social analysis, the first level is our social embeddedness that is deep rooted and takes about 100-1000 years to develop. It is who we are as a people and relate to our norms and values, culture and informal legal systems that distinguish us broadly as Hausa/Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, Efik, Kanuri etc. The second level is the institutional environment which represents our adopted formal legal system. It takes about 10-100 years to develop and it is where Ganduje derives his powers from. It is followed by the governance system which is the third level that runs from 1-10 years. This level is exemplified by our democratic governance term limits of four years. The fourth level is the resource allocation which is continuous and presently being exercised by Ganduje who won an election using the formal laws of the institutional environment to govern Kano for 4- 8 years. In societies such as ours that context greatly matter and the very long years (100-1000) that it takes to develop as compared to the other levels, the lasting power and influence rests within the social embeddedness which Sanusi represents. As Ganduje is presently enjoying very short and temporal power and authority that lacks deep institutional origin, his actions might succeed but will be short-lived.
The reason is that all the remaining three levels (institutional, governance and resource allocation) are significantly influenced by our social embeddedness (informal norms and values). While there is also a feedback or influence from the formal to the informal as Ganduje is presently doing, the formal has a lower connection and less intrinsic influence on the informal especially in our limitedly integrated country. It will be recalled that upon attaining political independence from Britain in 1960, the over 250 ethnic groups that make up Nigeria experienced very limited integration and as such, the real governance of the different groups (one which is accepted and internalized) is mainly through our social embeddedness which is the informal legal system (norms and values) of the respective tribal groups. It is through this prism that we engage and participate in the national governance of the country. As the legal system used in the formal governance of the country is the formal legal system that is not properly understood, accepted, internalized and as such limitedly complied to, there is an inherent conflict of legal systems that results in crisis of governance and unending competition for power along ethnic lines.
To further clarify, when either PMB/Yemi Osinbajo or Atiku Abubarkar/Peter Obi were selected as the presidential/vice-presidential candidates of APC and PDP respectively, they were selected not based strictly on their unparalleled competences but mainly based on our social embeddedness. Even though that INEC conducted the election and announced the results using our adopted legal formal system, the strong influence of our social embeddedness was very pervasive in the whole process especially the voting patterns which the results clearly exposed. It is also the same reason why it is almost impossible to win elections in many states such as Osun, Oyo, Sokoto, Edo, Anambra and Kano if the governor is fighting with the foremost traditional ruler in the states such as Oni of Ife, Olubadan of Ibadan, Sultan of Sokoto, Oba of Benin, Obi of Onitsha and Emir of Kano.
As Governor Ajimobi might have learnt and Governor Ganduje will likely learn after four years, fighting our social embeddedness might be a short-lived and futile effort. The confusion and contradictions arising from the usage of two legal systems expectedly lead to higher transaction costs of doing business in Nigeria. Two further illustrations will be helpful. In buying a land in most parts of Nigeria, you have to first buy from the villagers and after complying with all the terms and conditions of the informal legal system, you then proceed to the formal government system to get the formal certificate of occupancy after complying also with the terms and conditions of the formal governance system. This is also the same with marriages where you are normally expected to comply with traditional, church/mosque and court requirements before the marriage is deemed as consummated. In the end, one marriage has about 3 or more sub- marriages. As it is land and marriages, so it is in other areas and as such very high cost of governance in all aspects of our human existence as a people and country.
As the sustainable development of every society depends among other factors on the effectiveness of the legal system (rule of law), the lesson is that our progressive development as a country depends on the extent to which we deeply and genuinely resolve or reconcile the two contending legal systems through effective legal reforms. And for the reforms to be effective, the pre-eminence, intrinsic acceptability and internalization of our informal legal system need to be properly appreciated and utilized.
Franklin Ngwu
Dr. Ngwu is a Senior Lecturer in Strategy, Finance and Risk Management, Lagos Business School and a Member, Expert Network, World Economic Forum.
