Chief Afe Babalola, a highly respected legal luminary and elder statesman, recently stirred up a hornet’s nest, and found himself in the eye of the storm, for advocating the postponement of next year’s general elections and the establishment of an interim government to restructure Nigeria and create a brand new Constitution. It was a profound intervention. Few public comments by prominent Nigerians have provoked such an intense cacophony of responses across the country.
But despite the high decibels of critical voices, no one can accuse Chief Babalola of flippancy. Here’s someone who, at 92, writes weekly newspaper columns, thinking through Nigeria’s problems and proffering solutions; here’s someone, who, as founder and president of one of Africa’s best universities, recently ranked as Nigeria’s best – Afe Babalola University – is an intellectual, a man of ideas. So, Chief Babalola’s views can’t be dismissed blithely.
Yet, even a sage’s ideas must be subject to scrutiny. However, in responding constructively to Chief Babalola’s intervention, we should separate his diagnosis and prognosis of the problem from his prescription
Yet, even a sage’s ideas must be subject to scrutiny. However, in responding constructively to Chief Babalola’s intervention, we should separate his diagnosis and prognosis of the problem from his prescription. If we agree with his description of the problem, then the onus is on anyone who disagrees with his prescription to propose their own, as I aim to do in this piece.
But, first, what’s the problem as Chief Babalola sees it? Well, the legal icon argues that Nigeria is not working, that the state has failed woefully to secure the welfare and security of the people.
He posits that the root cause of the problem is the current Constitution: first, it’s illegitimate because it wasn’t made by “We, the people,” as its preamble fraudulently claims, but by the military; second, the system of government – presidentialism – and the governance structure – pseudo federalism – that the Constitution creates are the main obstacles to Nigeria’s unity, stability and progress.
Consequently, Chief Babalola argues that Nigeria is in dire need of a new Constitution, in dire need of restructuring. However, despite all efforts by well-meaning Nigerians, including himself, to get the National Assembly to restructure Nigeria and create a new Constitution, the legislators and President Buhari have shown adamantine unwillingness to do so. That’s the context of Chief Babalola’s proposed way forward.
But what’s his prescription? Well, he postulates that since President Buhari and the National Assembly are unwilling to restructure Nigeria and create a new Constitution, they should set up an interim government that would come in after the expiry of their tenures to do so within six months.
According to him, the interim government would consist of former presidents and VPs, former governors and members of prominent professional bodies.
Chief Babalola argues that if next year’s general elections go ahead, as scheduled, the same politicians who currently refuse to restructure Nigeria and craft a new Constitution would return to power and do nothing; it would be business as usual. So, the general elections should be postponed and take place only after the interim government has created a new Constitution and restructured Nigeria, including returning to the parliamentary system.
Well, in response, my first point is that Chief Babalola’s diagnosis and prognosis are absolutely accurate. Truth is, Nigeria is a fragile state; it displays, to an advanced stage, universally-recognised symptoms of fragility, such as the prevalence of organised non-state violence, weak capacity for essential functions and a deeply divided society. So, I agree with Chief Babalola’s description of the problem. He’s right that Nigeria is a failing state, verging on regime collapse.
However, I disagree with his prescription. The idea of an interim government to restructure Nigeria and give it a brand new Constitution is deeply flawed and unworkable for many reasons, three of which I set out below.
First, the proposal is almost certainly unconstitutional. Section 1(2) of the current Constitution only recognises a government established democratically by elections, not an unelected interim government, and it’s highly contestable whether one could be created through the instrumentality of a state of emergency under s.305. Chief Babalola says that s.9 of the current Constitution allows the National Assembly to “alter any” of its provisions, and thus they can invoke the provision to introduce an interim government.
But even if s.9 could be invoked, can the alteration of the Constitution to create an interim government be “approved by the votes of not less than four-fifths majority of all the members of each House (of the National Assembly), and also approved by resolution of the House of Assembly of not less than two-third of all States”, as required under s.9 (3)? That’s a tall order!
Second, the optics are bad. The idea of an interim government doesn’t resonate well with Nigerians. Most Nigerians still remember unhappily the Interim National Government that General Ibrahim Babangida set up after his annulment of the presidential election of June 12, 1993.
That contraption was successfully challenged, with a court declaring it “illegitimate”. Although the interim government proposed by Chief Babalola would be bequeathed by a civilian administration and established by statute, it would still be a subject of intense litigation, and, if declared illegal by the court, would plunge Nigeria into deep crisis.
Third, the idea is counter-intuitive. If we say the current Constitution is illegitimate because it was created by the military, why should a new Constitution be created by unelected interim government consisting of former presidents, former vice presidents, former governors and representatives of professional bodies? The interim government would replace the current government after its expiration on May 29 next year.
So, Nigeria would have an unelected interim government for six months, crafting a new Constitution for the country. Who would ratify the new Constitution? What if the interim government can’t finish its work in six months, where’s the National Assembly to extend the period? In any case, would the unelected interim government have legitimacy in the eyes of Nigerians? It’s a nightmarish scenario.
Which brings me to my prescription: a National Unity Government. Recently, Afenifere, the Yoruba socio-cultural-cum-political group, proposed a national unity government, but they wanted it now to restructure Nigeria before the next general elections. Well, the time horizon is too short for that to happen. Furthermore, a unity government is impossible under the current febrile election season.
By contrast, my proposed unity government will take place after next year’s general elections. This is something that I have been calling for since 2015. During the 2015 general elections, I wrote a piece titled “Nigeria needs a political settlement, and so a unity government” (BusinessDay, March 30, 2015); ahead of the 2019 general elections, I wrote another piece titled “Nigeria needs a unity government” (Vanguard, December 13, 2018). So, I have been consistent in my advocacy for a unity government in Nigeria.
But why unity government? Well, truth is, Nigeria must be restructured to succeed, but it cannot be restructured under a zero-sum, winner-takes-all politics, without inclusivity and elite consensus.
There must be inter-party, inter-ethnic and inter-elite consensus. Countries, such as South Africa and Kenya, that successfully negotiated and created enduring political and constitutional settlements, did so under a national unity government, with a common purpose, rather than oppositional identities.
So, here’s my proposal. Each of the main political parties should make a commitment now to form or join a National Unity Government after next year’s general elections.
The unity government, underpinned by strong technocracy, should last for four years with an agenda to restructure Nigeria, create a new Constitution, tackle insecurity and undertake critical reforms of the economy, the public sector, etc.
As we know, there are no ideological differences between the parties to make a unity government unachievable. The only obstacles are personal and sectional interests. But, for once, Nigeria’s politicians should put the national interest above parochial interests. A four-year purposive unity government is the way forward! And it’s doable!
