Adeyinka Grandson posted: Restructuring our federation: Some specific points Written by Diran Apata  MY message of last Sunday focused on the speech which the leaders of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) delivered to the meeting of the Yoruba Unity Forum at Ikenne on December 15, 2012. Last week, I dealt with the speech’s central proposition – the proposition that no change is called for in the structure of our federation as it is. Today, I want to deal with certain specific points raised in the speech. On these important questions concerning the status of our ethnic Nationalities, Geo-political Zones, and Local Governments in the Nigerian Federation, the ACF speech says as follows: “There have been talks on the structure of the country in the areas of federal system made up of ethnic nationalities or recognition of the six geo-political zones in the constitution. Some say complete independence for local governments is desirable. But some of these arrangements, apart from the cost, will probably make Nigeria about the first country with four tiers of government or federating units, with all the attendant complications. Many are indeed at a loss and find it extremely hard to figure out how over 250 nationalities can reasonably become the federating units in a country where certain ethnic groups are in tens of millions while others are a mere few thousands”. The concerns stated together here are very critical. Obviously, the best way to answer them is to state the case for the restructuring of our federation. It goes as follows. In a country consisting of different nationalities, the best form of government is a federation, and the federating units are, in principle, the nationalities. However, it happens in many countries that some nationalities are large while others are small or even very small. The obvious examples are Nigeria, many countries of tropical Africa, India, Indonesia etc. In such a country, the solution is to make each large or sizeable nationality a federating unit, and then to combine small and contiguous nationalities in various parts of the country to form federating units. Here is how India did this. After India’s independence in 1947, the strongly Muslim provinces of the far north immediately separated from the country and ultimately became Pakistan and Bangladesh. The rest of India was still a very large country – in land area the largest country in the world. It was also a country consisting of about 2000 nationalities. Many Indians began to demand that the federation should be restructured, using the nationalities as the basis. A huge national debate ensued. The most powerful politicians, including India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, first opposed such proposals, out of fear that it would lead to the breaking up of the country. But by and by, most Indians agreed that using the nationalities as the basis for federating units was the best for a country like India. A Restructuring Commission was set up to work outthe details, and the country then carried out the restructuring. They made each of the big and sizeable nationalities a state or federating unit. Then, they combined the small nationalities in each area to form a federating unit. They ensured that no nationality was split up – that is, that no nationality had a partof it in one state and some other part of it in another state. In short, they respected the integrity of every nationality. When the exercise was completed, the Indian Federation (or Indian Union) had 28 states. Essentially, what the minority nationalities of Nigeria, and some powerful leaders (notably Chief Awolowo) were demanding before independence was very similar to the Indian Union solution. In the Northern Region, the Kanuri and related peoples of the northeast demanded a Region of their own; the many nationalities of the Middle Belt demanded a Region of their own; and the Yoruba people of Ilorin and Kabba Provinces demanded that they be merged with their kith and kin in the Western Region. In the Western Region, the many peoples of Benin and Niger Provinces demanded a Midwest Region of their own. In the Eastern Region, the many peoples of Calabar, Ogoja and Rivers Provinces demanded a C-O-R Region of their own. That would have given our federation a total of seven Regions. What the advocates of restructuring are demanding today is something roughly along the same lines. Commonly, they are asking that our country should respect the integrity of our nationalities. Some ask that the geo-political zones that have somehow arisen in our political discourse should be made the federating units of our federation – that is a North- central Zone (consisting of our Hausa- Fulani nationality), a Northeast Zone (consisting of the Kanuri and related peoples), a Middle Belt Zone (consisting of the many nationalities of the Middle Belt), a Southwest Zone (consisting of all the Yoruba people of the southeastern parts of Nigeria, including the Yoruba of today’s Kwara and Kogi States), a Southeastern Zone (consisting of all the Igbo peopleeast and west of the Lower Niger), and a South-south Zone (consisting of all the many peoples of what we now call the South-south) – a total of six federating units. Some others are demanding a slight modification of this. They are suggesting that the broad Middle Belt, stretching across almost from the Nigeria’s eastern borders to Nigeria’s western borders, may be constituted into two federating units; and that the peoples of the South-south may be constituted into two federating units (more or less the old Midwest and C-O-R) – an arrangement that would result in a total of eight states. The advantages of any of these lines of restructuring are obvious. They impart a rational structure, at last, to our federation – they accord due recognition and respect to our own indigenous nationalities. They end most of the anxiety and stress that our nationalities have always felt in Nigeria. They thus enhance the prospect of harmonious co- existence among our nationalities. Each federating unit, taking cognizance of its internal composition, will determine its own internal constitution. Local Governments, as a subject, belong to the internal constitution of each federating unit. The restructuring also deals finally with an issue that we all worry about – namely, that the cost of administration is far too big in our federation. We will have only a Federal Government, and six or seven or eight State Governments (a total of, at the most, nine governments instead of the 37 governments of today). Restructuring also demands that the powers allocated to the federating units will return to what they were until 1966 – before a succession of Northern military dictators began to mangle up our federation. It demands that federating units will have an agreed level of control over their own resources. It demands that, in the allocation of federally distributable revenues, the federating units together will get a percentage larger than that of the Federal Government. (In India, the current percentages are 85% for the federating units, and 15% for the Federal Government). And it demands that each federating unit will have its own internal security (or police) system. All in all, it will restore to the federating units the powers and assets that will make it possible for the federating units to serve confidently as the centers of dynamic socio-economic development in our country – similar to what we had during our country’s most productive and most hopeful years, 1952-62
Posted on: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 20:47:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015