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.
