1999 Constitution Review: No Deal For The South-East

The results of the zonal and public hearings for the review and amendment of the 1999 Nigerian constitution was made public recently. The voting and discourse pattern still reveals that ethnic, political and even religious considerations had overriding influence on the outcome of the exercise.   As a fallout of the voting pattern and strength, the overall interest and aspirations of the Igbo people who form a monolithic unit in the South East Nigeria were not taken care of; no thanks to a lopsided geopolitic that has left the Igbo nation under represented since after the war and which the Nigerian nation is not in a hurry to address.

By Chukwudi OHIRI

When the train of the Senate Committee on Constitution review arrived Enugu State House of Assembly on Thursday, November 15, 2012 for its public hearing in the South East Zone, hopes were high that perhaps, the views of the zone would count in the proposed constitution review. Not a few persons were of the view that if the exercise is got right and the input of the various zones adequately captured, perhaps the recent outcry for a sovereign national conference to address issues of national importance will take backstage as the review would have taken care of those pressing issues.

Setting the agenda for the public hearing, the chairman of the committee on the review of the 1999 constitution, Senator Ike Ekweremadu announced that there will be no specific agenda for the exercise. However, such issues as Devolution of Powers, Creation of more states, Recognition of the six Geo-political Zones in the Constitution, Role for Traditional Rulers, Local Government (Taking out the following from the Constitution: Land use Act, NYSC Act, Code of Conduct), Fiscal Federalism, Amendment of Provisions relating to the Amendment of the Constitution, State Creation and Boundary Adjustment to remove ambiguities would form focal points to be looked into at the various zones. Also included were issues of Immunity Clause, Nigeria Police, Indigeneship, Judiciary, Executive (i.e Rotation of Executive Offices among Senatorial Districts of a State), Gender and Special group, Mayoral Status for the Federal Capital Territory Administration, Residency and Indigene Provisions as well as any other matter that will promote good governance and improve the Nigerian State, but which requires amendment to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution would be considered.

Hopes were even further amplified that most of the issues bothering the minds of the South-Easterners would receive favourable attention when it was observed that the headship of the Senate committee on the review of the constitution hails from the south East and is incidentally, the deputy Senate president just as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Emeka Ihehioha was virtually in charge of proceedings of House Ad hoc Committee on Constitution Review for the public sessions set up at the green chamber.

The lower chamber, on its part held what it termed, People’s Public Sessions simultaneously across the 360 Federal Constituencies in the country on November 10, 2012. A 43-item template of issues/questions was made available by the house for voting in each of the constituencies, the result which was to form the basis for further deliberations on the proposed amendments to the constitution.

When on Thursday, April 18, the House made public the results of the People’s Public Sessions it conducted and the outcome simply revealed what many observers described as clear picture of ethno-geographic biases and leanings of the various zones as political and sectional economic interests, rather than a consideration for the public good, appear to have influenced voting patterns. For the South-East, it is nothing short of a forlorn hope and shattered dreams if the outcome eventually forms the basis of the new amendments to the 1999 constitution.

The template questions, according to Hon. Ihedioha covered such areas as “Recognition of the Six zonal structure; issues with respect to States creation; The Structure, Funding and Creation of Local Governments; Residency, Citizenship and the Indigeneship question; Justiciability of economic and social rights; Fiscal provisions; Separation of office of Accountant General of the Whole Federation and Accountant General of the Federal Government; Separation of office of Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice; Process of sending the Revenue Allocation Formula to National Assembly; Independence of State legislature; amendments to the Exclusive Legislative List; Fiscal federalism; Abolition of State Electoral Commissions; Immunity clause; State Police Question; Zoning and Power sharing; Term of office of Governors and President whether single term of 5, 6 or 7 years or a renewable term of 4 years; Independent candidacy; Voting age; Improved women representation; Disability rights; Diaspora voting; Single National chamber legislature; Presidential or Parliamentary system; Role for traditional rulers; Judicial Reforms; as well as Further electoral reforms.”

No doubt, the process that was to yield the result seemed quite transparent and laudable as it was the first of its kind in the history of constitution making in Nigeria. The process was brought home to the people to have a say even if they did not have their ways in the end. Perhaps, this is why the House of Reps dubbed the process “a novel idea in the history of constitution making in Nigeria”. Unfortunately, the imbalance and inequity in the geopolitical configuration has remained an albatross to the attainment of real justice and fairness in the exercise and others before it. Ethic biases were conspicuously reflected in the outcome and rightly too, you may not readily cast the blame at the door step of any particular institution or person but the intrinsic structural defects of the Nigerian polity institutionalized by the constitution.

Irked by this structural defect, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, erstwhile governor of Abia State recently  lamented the plight of the South Easterners in a piece he dubbed ‘Igbo have precarious future in Nigeria’. The piece read in part: “The Igbo in Nigeria have become the receptacle of anger, hatred, envy and frustration oozing out of their fellow compatriots. But this is on the level of the transactions between private citizens. How about the place of the Igbo in respect of the manner in which public affairs are conducted by the Nigerian Federal Government and its agencies? The simple answer is that the rain has continued to beat the Igbo. …We, the Igbo have strived but thus far failed to persuade the Nigerian establishment about the hurt and humiliation and deprivation that come with the idea that we as a people are legally condemned to third rate status in our own country.

The implications of this calculated fraud against my people are so massive and go entirely untold: unequal allocation of resources, unequal voice at the Federal Executive Council, unequal representation at the National Assembly (the gravest of all), unequal participation in the administration of justice in the federation, unequal participation in the federal civil service and adjunct bodies, unequal representation in the armed forces and para-military organisations, unequal representation in the diplomatic corps ensuring incapacity in showcasing the Igbo culture as part of a pan-Nigerian culture in our foreign missions and embassies, fewer primary, secondary and higher education opportunities for our children, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. These structural disparities are constitutionally entrenched (please see the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999), thus their grave implications for Ndigbo are beyond the primary questions of inequity and marginalization”.

Going further, he bewailed: “The histories of nations are replete with evidence of existential threat to any group whose marginalization is made a subject matter of constitutional enshrinement. With unequal voice in the Federal Executive Council, in the National Assembly, on the federal judicial benches and a vast array of other fora in which the Igbo suffer sub-parity representation, the strength of the advocacy of our problems and priorities is thus diminished. Little wonder, then, that the South-East Zone, the area inhabited by the Igbo, still manifests the physical characteristics of a conquered and occupied land, 43 years after the civil war.

Quite apart from the psychological assault it represents for Igbo people, the practical issues of unequal representation and unequal allocation of resources are calculated to retard the development of our region and our people. The massive difference, which the resources and human empowerment that we are denied might have made in our society, is something that calls not just for a sober reflection but a gritty resolve to bring about their speedy resolution,” Kalu concluded. Dr Orji Uzor Kalu’s thesis as clearly enunciated above evidently played out in the outcome of the zonal and constituency public hearings on the constitution review and may continue if the disparity persists unchecked.

After tortuous postponements, the results were finally released and again, the fears of the South-Easterners became more real. The issues that ordinarily would have been more directly beneficial to the people of the zone and proven to them that they are not really third-rated citizens in Nigeria as widely insinuated could not garner prerequisite votes to sail through for very obvious reasons—weak numerical strength of the zone in its national representation.

The Deputy Speaker of the House and Chairman, House Ad hoc Committee on Constitution Review, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha in presenting the cumulative report on the peoples’ public session said:“From the report made available to the House, the sessions across the 360 federal constituencies of Nigeria were all very well attended by ordinary Nigerians and also by representatives of labour, the Nigerian Bar Association and other professional organisations, Nigerian Union of Teachers, pro-democracy and civil society organisations, youths and students groups, women groups, special interest groups and indeed, the plurality of interests in the constituencies such as artisans, journalists, religious groups, town unions and associations…Deliberations at each of these sessions were free, robust, and participatory. Nigerians got the opportunity to state their minds and air their views. The results are the voice of the Nigerian people who have expressed their views on what changes they would like to see in any amendment being made to the national legal grand norm – the Constitution of Nigeria.”

Truly, commendations have trailed the report as being very thorough and apt, but the teething question is: ‘if the reports are adopted line hook and sinker, would it assuage the thirst and yearnings of the various zones, especially those that are genuinely calling for justice, equity and probity? Will the outcome aid true national cohesion and development it set out to address ab initio? Will it breed a permanent solution to the myriad of challenges bedeviling the nation or just an ad hoc panacea? These and many more are the nagging questions pundits are posing to the National Assembly?

What The South-East Bargained For

 The aggregate opinion of the South East no matter how discordant was aptly captured by a submission made by the umbrella Pan Igbo union, Ohaneze Ndigbo and this also formed the kernel of their presentations during the nationwide public hearings.

According to Ohanaeze Ndigbo, a group often seen as the ‘de facto elitist’ representatives of the South-East , “the central objective of the Constitutional Review must be to keep Nigeria as a whole (not a group or section) strong. Accordingly, the Centre (Federal Government) should have all that it genuinely requires to keep the country together, with minimum risk of abuse of power by the Central Government”. A few other submissions will be captured below.

As usual, demand for the creation of an additional state in the South East geopolitical zone dominated   presentations before the public hearing on the review of constitution in the zone but with some disagreements on the composition and location of the proposed state. However, the stance of Ohanaeze Ndigbo took a more coordinated shape and tended to represent the overall interest of the zone.

First and foremost, the South East advocated for a truly federal nation called Nigeria with an effective corruption-free equity oriented government, whose primary objectives shall be the welfare and well-being of the peoples of Nigeria irrespective of creed or culture. To achieve this, they called for a restructuring of Nigeria into six regions recognized by the constitution and where each of the regions can decide to have as many states and local governments as it desires. Under this arrangement, power will be decentralized in favour of the regions. This, the group believes, would put an end to the endless call for state creation by the South East that now seems to be a herculean task. It was also the wish of the South-East that power be rotated among the six geopolitical zones under a single six-year term arrangement.

Other highlights of the submissions of the Ohanaeze group include: Revenue-sharing between the centre and federating units must be comprehensively reviewed to reflect “fiscal federalism”. Under this, it suggested a revenue sharing formula based on principle of derivation at the ratio of 50:50 between the central government and the regional government. The South East unequivocally supported the call for resource control. They also advocate that the “Federal Character Principle” should not be restricted to man power only but expanded to include project citing and budgeting as well as execution by the federal Government. Thus there must not be undue disparity between the six Regions in Annual Budget.

On the issue of Citizenship Rights and Indigenship, lack of which has led to the endangering of national cohesion and unity as a result of the destruction of lives and properties in ethno religious incidents in the recent past and at present, the group considered it absolutely necessary to have Citizenship Rights clearly enumerated and guaranteed by both the federal and regional governments it proposed.

It was the view of the South-East that there be established a two-tier Police structure, to wit: REGIONAL POLICE whose jurisdiction shall be limited to the geographical areas of the Region, and National Police which shall have inter-regional jurisdiction.

The inequities and injustices of previous exercises need to be redressed as it concerns state creation. It was therefore the esteemed view of the pan Igbo group that this should become part of the delineation exercise for the new six regional federal structures. These are just some of the key demands of the South East that might affect them directly apart from the others that are in the general interest of the entire nation.

A critical review of these demands would reveal that whereas some other regions are demanding for special and preferential considerations, the South-East simply want equitable and modest considerations accorded them as equal partners in project Nigeria.

What The South-East Got According To The Constitution Review Committee Report.   

Apart from the critical issue of citizenship and Indigenship which got a majority vote in most of the constituencies, other issues that directly address the plight of the South-East were rejected according to the voting pattern released by the committee. Evidently, “Political and sectional economic interests, rather than a consideration for the public good, appear to have influenced voting pattern at the Peoples Public Sessions on the review of the 1999 Constitution, an analysis of the document indicate,” according to analysts. It is also the opinion of these analysts that the perennial crisis in Jos, rather than the status of the South-Easterners who dot the entire landscape of most of the 36 States that was overwhelmingly considered in the voting. In fact, there are palpable fears that the issue of indigeneship may still suffer monumental setback when the real business of constitution amendment begins and upon the later realization that it is the South-Easterners who stand to benefit more from the law in the long run.

Beyond the citizenship question, the result indicated that Nigerians want more states to be created but could not specify the number of states to be created. However, it specifically rejected the demand of the South-East that a state should be created in its geopolitical zone to balance up the number of states available to each of the geopolitical zones.

The undying quest by the South East nay the Igbo nation to be treated as an equal with other federating constituents with the creation of an additional state to the existing five to bring it at par with other zones was clearly defeated.  This apparent short change of the South East has been at the root of all marginalization flowing from the Nigerian state. For lack of numerical strength on representative democracy, the South East can never have its say or way in a matter that affects it since it will always have lesser number of voting power at the federal level on account of being the only zone with five states as against six states other zones have including a zone that even has seven states. This has been at the root of Igbo marginalization and will remain so unless the imbalance is duly corrected.

Going further, a total of 275 constituencies voted against the agitation for the rotation of the Office of the President between the northern and southern parts of Nigeria. 210 constituencies kicked against the insertion of a provision in the constitution to make the Office of President rotate among the six geo-political zones of the country. Instead, they opted for meritocracy. Merit, ordinarily would have favoured the South East, but producing the president of Nigeria goes beyond merit. Building of consensus as well as numerical strength of voters is key and the South-East is in huge shortage of this essential prerequisite. Only a compromise or altruistic consideration anchored on national interest can deliver the presidency to the South-East. It therefore means that any deliberate foreclosure of rotational presidency would perpetually leave the South-East as the weeping dog no matter how pretentious they tend to see it.

The North which has more of the constituencies voted against item 35 of the question template which states: "Should Nigeria implement the practice of federalism that allows states to control up to 50 percent of their resources and pay the remainder to the federation?" This item is part of what the South-East strongly advocated for with a view to introducing a healthy competition among the six geopolitical zones as was the case in the sixties. Unfortunately, the idea was jettisoned according to the result.

Whereas the South East (in the submission by Ohanaeze Ndigbo) called for a single term of six years for the president and governors, the report of the committee indicated that majority supported retaining the present two-term tenure of four years in the constitution.

Another issue that is key and dear to the heart of the South-Easterners (though not exclusive to them) is the issue of creating a formidable State police. Nigerians, according to the committee report, rejected creation of State Police just as it also rejected State Governors’ control over State Commissioners of Police.

The indication from the above analysis is that most of the issues that are dear to the average South-Easterner were thrashed out helplessly implying that if the report were upgraded to a law, there will be ‘no deal for the South-East in the new constitution’. The remote implication of this is that in no distant time, agitations would resurface throwing the nation back to square one if these preliminary results are taken as the aggregate wishes and input of Nigerians to the constitution amendment.

Conclusion

No doubt, the National Assembly has done a good job in clearly capturing and encapsulating the aggregate wishes of the Nigerian people in its report, it now behooves on it to review the report more altruistically for the national good and in the interest of national cohesion with a view to delivering a permanent, rather than ad hoc solution to the perennial national questions it set out to address.

Similarly, for a genuinely people-oriented constitution to be operable and justiciable, the wishes and aspirations of the federating units should be adequately taken care of otherwise the yearnings for a roundtable discussion in the form of a national conference will continue to resonate for a long time to come.