Two days into the lockdown of three territories, the Federal Government reversed itself virtually by allowing four hours for shopping in Lagos and Ogun States as well as the Federal Capital Territory. The decision came as a surprise to many and a relief to persons already lamenting the deleterious effect of the shutdown. It also came after the Federal Government itself led in disregarding the lockdown instruction.
Federal Government officials led by the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, Hajiya Sadiya Umar Farouq, took to the streets of the FCT distributing cash in the conditional cash transfer scheme. The Federal Government claimed it gave out N20, 000 to each recipient, representing grants for four months. In 24 hours, according to the government, it gave out N3 billion!
More significantly, the Minister and her aides ignored the prescriptions on social distancing, handling of cash and the gathering of large numbers of persons. Recipients turned out in large numbers and queued to physically collect their share of this national cake.
Justification for the lockdown was the imperative of containment as the number of persons positive to coronavirus in the country jumps daily with improved testing. At noon on Thursday, 2 April, the National Centre for Disease Control board registered 174 cases, nine discharged and two deaths. Lockdowns have worked in containment in several countries and Nigeria. Does the four-hour window for daily shopping not effectively negate the lockdown? Is it a better price to pay than the prospect of increased infections?
Before the untidiness of cash distribution against the official policy to push for a cashless economy, there were issues around the procedures, legality and implications for federalism of the lockdown directives. President Muhammadu Buhari ordered the lockdown of the Federal Capital Territory, Lagos and Ogun States in a presidential broadcast on March 30. States such as Lagos, Rivers, Delta, Kaduna and Ekiti had also ordered shutdowns of their territories.
The lockdowns raised significant and not-so-significant issues. Is it right, logical and legal for states to shut off their boundaries that serve as connecting links to other states? What does that say for the right to freedom of movement, assembly and economic activity? Who pass the price for the delayed transactions and added costs arising from the actions?
By Thursday, the restrictions were telling on the availability of goods. The Nigerian market may be open and fluid but there is a method to the flow of goods and services.
Evident in the boundary closures was the absence of coordination. Each state played from its hymnbook and to a different orchestra. The Federal Government intervention in ordering lockdowns in three states only was a mimicry of what the states had done rather than an improvement.
There was also the matter of procedure. Many states cited the Quarantine Act. However, declaration of emergency in almost all cases requires the concurrence of the legislature. At Federal level, the National Assembly had quickly abdicated its responsibility by taking a coronavirus leave as did the Federal Government in postponing meetings of the Federal Executive Council. Who was making these decisions?
Central to democracies are the matters of principles and procedures as well as adherence to the rule of law. Some of the proclamations by state governors sounded like military decrees. Does the end justify the means?
There was also the matter of definitions of boundaries and borders. It was not mere splitting on grammar or definitions. Many state governors spoke of the borders of their states. The border is at the outer edge and refers to the dividing line between countries while a boundary is the dividing line between two areas in the same geography.
Finally, there is the matter of our federalism. In the absence of a somnolent federal government, the states decided on their measures. For a moment it approximated to the ideal of a federal state where the states could run their affairs. Except that their decisions impinged on the welfare and operations of other constituent units. The Federal Government belatedly frowned at the actions of the states yet failed to provide a compass.
There are many lessons in the handling of the lockdown that policy makers should note for learning and action in the days ahead.
