By
Chukwudi OHIRI
(Send your comments to 08060321965
or chuksohiri@yahoo.com or on the comment box of this post)
When
parochial sentiments, ethnicity, selfishness, greed and other socio-political
vices take the place of national interest in the pursuit of national goals,
sound arguments are usually sacrificed in the altar of frivolities. This seems
to be the direction the recent clamour for the creation of additional states in
the federation is heading to.
Many agitators seem to have sheathed
their swords. Others find themselves divided over the issue while some are
still hell bent on seeing their demands met whether by hook or crook. Among the
later, are those who joined the wagon just to make names for themselves
probably as progenitors of the states. Others simply want to create empires for
themselves where they will become lords and king makers, deciding how to share
the collective patrimony that will accrue therefrom. All in all, both the
‘ayes’ and the ‘nays’ had seemingly good reasons for their astute positions.
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the man always in
the eye of the storm for his frankness and candour in his submission questioned
the rational for creating new states when most of the already existing ones are
far from being viable. According to him, remove the federal allocations, some
states would go into extinction. Economically, they contribute nothing to the national
coffers. As usual, those hard hit by this crystal clear truth called for his
head. Obi Nwakanma of one of the
national dailies once said: “He is no withdrawing man, nor does he think he
should keep his light under the bushel…It is just that he gets into trouble for
candour, and some also think much of his candour comes from bloated
self-regard. He’s gained something of a reputation for abrasive loquacity in
the Nigerian public imagination.
In summing up the arguments of those
vehemently opposed to creation of more States, Nwakanma captured Sanusi’s
position thus: “Nigeria does not need the current number of states.
Thirty-six states is a burden on the resources of Nigeria in many ways. It expands the epicenters of public governance in ways that are unnecessary. The
current number of states, some of them in conditions of abjection and stupor
cannot be called states because they lack the organizing capacity to produce
and manage resources for the highest number. Many thoughtful Nigerians have
advocated seriously for a collapse of the current states into a six- regional
structure with more critical devolution of power… All that the creation of the
36 states did was to bloat government without creating organic and efficient
systems of the delivery of public service. Let us abolish the states and start
afresh. Let us return to the constitution of the Republic and reconstitute this
federal republic on the principles contained therein, with the single advance
of creating a six regional federation to be agreed upon by referendum”. For me,
Sanusi’s submission is full-proof, but there is another angle to it.
Yes, I wish the present configuration of
the federal structure could be shrunk as advocated by those opposed to the
creation of new states, but one ingredient is an apt necessity. Shrunk or
bloated, without the principle of equity, balance and fairness, the polity may
never attain true nation-building where parochial, ethno-religious and
primordial sentiments will give way to mutual respect, triumph of sound
arguments and the promotion of national interest. I will explain.
The nation Nigeria was built on a tripod
which was later ‘sextupled’. As in a tripod, where any of the stands appears longer/heavier
or lighter/shorter than the other, the result is usually an unhealthy tilt
which in the long run is inimical to the overall well being of the body masse.
This has unarguably been the bane of our country since the departure from three
regional structure of our federalist state.
The present constitution of both the
Senate and the House of Representatives reflects the unhealthy tilt I am
referring to in this piece and as long as it remains so, whether in inflated or
deflated form, the decisions and actions of both Houses will continue to
reflect bias, ethnic chauvinism and cancerous growth.
Imagine a National Assembly where the
109 senators will be drawn from the six geopolitical zones in equal proportion
of 18 from the North-West, 18 from North-Central, 18from North-East, 18 from
South-South, 18 from South-West and 18 from South-East. Assuming the House of
Representatives is drawn from the six geopolis in the same equal ratio of
60:60:60:60:60:60 respectively, every group would come to the House with mutual
respect for one another knowing that to have your way, on any topical issue,
you will need as a matter of prerequisite, the vote of the other person. The
era whereby a certain geopolitical zone will come, hand in pocket and with
shoulders high wearing some air of supremacy over others will be a thing of the
past.
How about the quality of decisions? The
result will be awesome. Each group will earnestly strive to win the cooperation
of the other genuinely and with sound arguments. Ethnicity would shrink for
nationalism while each geopolitical group will genuinely need one another for
accelerated national growth and development emanating from the bills and policy
decisions reached thereof.
Driving home this point, for as long as
the South-East remain the underdogs of the family with 5 States as against six
from other geopolitical zones and 7 from one of the zones, it will continue to
cry blue murder. Decisions and outcomes from the polity will continue to elicit
suspicion and tilted and the end result will be ‘endless agitations and consternations’
which may remain injurious to the corporate unity of the nation.
Permit me to end this discuss with the
position held by a prominent Igbo statesman who unequivocally is also opposed
to the proliferation of states in Nigeria though with an exception to the rule.
In his words bemoaning the inequity and injustice in the creation of states in
Nigeria said: “But there is also one issue that is different, the issue is that
there is only one region, the South-east that has five states. In this case, it
is totally different from what we are talking as regards the issue of state
creation. In 2005 National Political Conference, Nigerians endorsed one extra
state for the South-East as exceptionally required for justice, fairness and
equity. I was one of the forty two leaders who took that decision, and this is
how we stood: one person abstained, two voted against, while thirty nine voted
for; we have not had that kind of consensus before that particular one. Though,
we Igbos blame Nigerians for our woes, but sometimes, Nigerians show concern.”
quoting Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife.
Unfortunately, the cacophony of voices
that sprang up at the commencement of the debate for this hydra-headed monster
of state creation became so proliferated that even discerning minds now have
difficulties in deciding who is genuinely aggrieved. The unavoidable truth is
that unless the right and just thing is done to rest this recurring issue,
there may never be an end to the clamour for creation of more States and other
issues of marginalization. This may negatively affect our efforts towards
nation-building.
