On October 1, 1960, Nigeria gained its political independence and operated under a regional arrangement, with three Geopolitical Regions: the Eastern, Western and Northern Regions. The Mid-Western Region was subsequently carved out of the Western Region in 1962.
From 1960 and even up till 1969, the various Geopolitical Regions enjoyed reasonable regional and fiscal autonomies and were allowed to take up to 50 percent of the revenues- derived from their Regions, while the Federal Government took 20 percent and the remaining 30 percent was in left in the pool.
The various Regions, during the 1960s, progressed at their own different levels. For instance, the Eastern Region, through an uncommon economic leadership, had a regional economy that grew faster than, those of then China/the Asian Tigers and invested substantial parts of its budgets inequality education and delivered quality public infrastructures and facilities.
Similarly, the Western Region, through a competent, focused and reformed-minded leadership, radically revolutionised its educational sector and opened up its knowledge space, which brilliantly and uniquely produced some of its best intellectual and human capital stock.
Also, the Northern Region, opened up its agricultural capabilities and produced groundnuts, cotton, tin and other quality products such as leather – which were well sought after and exported to many parts of the World.
But, following the two military coups of 1966, and the subsequent civil war that followed from 1967-1970, the regional arrangement was dismantled and dislocated in favour of states – with diminished political and economic autonomies.
Since then, the collection of revenues and revenue allocation powers have progressively been left in the hands of the Federal Government at the centre, thereby causing other lower levels of government to be dependent on the Federal Government for economic survival.
Also, the abilities of the Federating States to control and manage interstate roads, interstate commerce and mining rights over natural gas/petroleum resources/oil fields and even the setting of educational standards/curricula etc. have been left exclusively in the hands of the Federal Government.
Thus, overburdening the Federal Government, with many exclusive regulatory items (over 66 items are currently under the exclusive control and management of the Federal Government) and on the contrary- sub-optimising, the regulatory roles, capacities and overall public finances/economic autonomies of other Federating units.
However, since 1999 when a democratically elected civilian government assumed office, there have been strong clamours for the restructuring of the Federating units of the country, in line with the principles of true federalism.
These agitations- which later turned into militancy in the Niger Delta Region, have partially been resolved through various political negotiations and fiscal committee recommendations- which culminated in the revenue sharing allocation formula of 13 percent derivation (for the Oil Producing States- since 1999), and 52.68 percent, 26.72 percent and 20.60 percent for the Federal, States and Local Governments respectively.
But these agitations have continued- especially from the Southern Region of the Country and have been worsened by corruption, poor infrastructures, youth unemployment, unfavourable economic conditions, political violence and insecurity across the country.
In response to some of these agitations, the then Government of the former president, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, summoned a national conference in 2014. The conference deliberated and made notable recommendations:
• That, the three tiers of government should share funds from the federation account in the order of 42.5 percent, 35 percent, and 22.5 percent for the Federal, State, and Local Governments, respectively.
• That states should be allowed to have their own State Police to ensure adequate protection of lives and property.
• And, that the office of the presidency should be rotated between the North and the South and among the six Geo-political Regions of the Country.
However, not one of the above key recommendations has been implemented, fuelling stronger agitations, especially from the South- East, Niger–Delta, and South-West and even from the North Central/Middle Belt Regions.
But, why restructuring?
Nigeria is currently a Country in progressive crises and one that, is deeply divided along ethnic/tribal and religious lines. The fear of any ethnic/tribal/religious domination over others, continues to take a life of its own and has become an issue- that has not been properly addressed.
So, a properly restructured Nigeria would as a matter of urgency, defuse this pervasive fear and de-escalate the endemic ethnic and tribal rivalries. And give all ethnic/tribal nationalities a sense of inclusion – that could unleash ‘the required patriotic capital’-to urgently begin the proper reconstruction of Nigeria.
Again, a restructured Nigeria, would promote a healthy competition amongst the constituent units of the Federation, as seen during the 1960s – where Regions competed favourably amongst themselves. And would promote efficiency in governance and creativity, ingenuity and economic diversification- across the Geopolitical Regions.
Similarly, it would give the lower tiers of Government, the flexibility to effectively use taxes and levies as instruments to drive, economic prosperity. For instance, a rich commercial state such as Lagos, with enormous internally generated revenue potentials, could use tax concessions, waivers or other fiscal tools to creatively attract more businesses and investments into the State – if, afforded the opportunity to administer key taxes, such as: value added tax(VAT) etc.
The same is also true for other commercially orientated States, such as: Anambra- in the South – Eastern Region and Kano- in the Northern Region.
Furthermore, a restructured Nigeria would make the elective positions and appointments at the Federal Government level, less attractive, thereby spreading out such pressures across the various Geopolitical Regions- which would in turn elicit greater scrutiny and accountability at the lower tiers of Government. And would minimize the mindless political violence associated with, the vicious contestations for the control of power at the centre.
But, in spite of the above glaring advantages, why is the issue of restructuring, such a contentious issue in Nigeria? Why the resistance? The possible answers are as follows:
• There appears to be an ‘elite disunity and mistrust’ -across the various political/economic interests and even within members of the same political interest- on the issue of restructuring.
• Thus, the issue of restructuring connotes different meanings and invokes different feelings to the various political/economic interests. To some- restructuring represents: inclusion, merit and competition. Yet, to others, it invokes fear and possible loss of economic and political privileges.
• Also, to some- restructuring means mere devolution of fiscal powers (on specific items) to the lower tiers of Government. While, to others it means more: A greater fiscal autonomy and in addition- the complete devolution of powers in critical areas, such as security(in the form of State and Community Police), control and management of interstate roads, interstate commerce, water resources, setting of educational standards/curricula. And the control and management of resources (at the lower levels of Government) and even the setting of minimum wages on a state by state basis, amongst other far-reaching reforms.
• Also, to some other political interests/groups- restructuring connotes the complete, dismantling of the Nigerian union, into smaller independent Nations, with loose- economic, political and social ties amongst the nations, which initially constituted the dismantled union.
In search of solutions:
So, in the midst of several mixed views on restructuring, it is reasonable to ensure that, all the dominant viewpoints are properly and well understood. And, present a harmonised viewpoint- that could, possibly be acceptable and agreeable to the majority of all the dominant interest groups.
Second, it is pertinent to identify the best possible, workable and peaceful political or democratic pathway that could, drive the restructuring agenda.
Third, it is important to identify, the key possible incentives, political/economic gains, which are available to all the dominant interest groups- and use such as possible motivations and considerations-to drive the restructuring agenda.
Fourth- It would require the sincere commitment and buy-in of key political/economic actors such as the political representatives of the people, the foremost socio-cultural groups, frontline political parties, respectable Nigerian citizens, the media, advocacy groups, notable political influencers, representatives of companies (with enormous economic and informational power), first class traditional rulers, notable faith-based organisations, labour unions, frontline youth/separatist movements, etc.
These groups need to come together and agree on practical solutions to the restructuring agenda. Furthermore, the recommendations of the various expert and technical committees on fiscal federalism/resource control and even the 2014 national conference and other legacy conferences should also provide the necessary baselines for the restructuring agenda.
The time, to begin the process is now.
Chijioke Churuba
Churuba, a managing consultant, writes from Umuahia, Abia State
