WOW!!! watch the most amazing things in the planet earth click the link below to watch.. ...Money4Refer/index.php?refcode=27874 JUST TO REFRESH YOUR memory Asymmetric federalism: Solution to the crisis in Nigerian federalism THERE is a major crisis brewing in the Nigerian Governors’ Forum. The Northern Governors, with the exception of Plateau State, have rejected the call for State Police, which they had formerly proposed along with their Southern counterparts. They now reject the proposal, whilst all the 17 southern governors and the Plateau State Governor remain steadfast in the demand for State Police. The result of this is that 18 governors favour State Police whilst 18 governors are opposed to it. The present debate on the issue seems focused on which of the two groups will prevail. That approach is totally uncalled for. If the northern governors oppose the establishment of State Police, why can’t they have their way with regard to their own states, leaving Plateau and the 17 southern states to also have their way and establish State Police in their own states? Must there be uniformity of states on every matter? No. It is this penchant for stifling uniformity that is choking Nigeria to death. We are not the same people. “Nigeria is not a nation”, remember? It is a state or country of many nations. There must be flexibility and space for each state to express its individual identity and will. If the North does not want State Police, let them not have. But they should not be allowed to impose a life style or governance style that is convenient for them on all other states, for whom that style is not convenient. There is nothing unique about different states in a federation exercising power in different ways over different subject matter. The concept is known as asymmetric federalism, and it is being practiced all over the world. As it is described in Wikipedia, asymmetrical federalism is found in a federation in which different constituent states possess different powers. In such a situation, one or more states have more autonomy than other states. The division of powers between the states is not symmetrical (as in present day Nigeria) where no distinction is made between constituent states. There are two types of asymmetric federalism. We have the de jure asymmetry, in legislative powers, representation in central institutions and in rights and obligations that are set out in the constitution. The second type, de facto asymmetry reflects agreements, which come out of national policy (not constitutionally expressed). It is the outcome of negotiations leading to ad-hoc deals with specific states, involving opting out (for example of federal police) none of which are entrenched in the constitution. Quebec, the only French-speaking province of Canada, is the beneficiary of many de facto asymmetric agreements. Although tax collection is normally solely a federal responsibility, by agreement, both the federal and Quebec governments are entitled to collect corporate, personal and sale taxes in Quebec. In other provinces, only sale taxes are collected by their governments. Quebec operates its own pension plan, whilst the other nine provinces are covered by Federal/Provincial Canada Pension plan. Again Quebec has extensive authority over employment and immigration issues within its borders. These matters are handled by the Federal Government in all other states. In the Malaysian federation, which has 13 states, Saba and Sarawak states enjoy significant autonomy in excess of that enjoyed by the remaining 11 states, particularly in the area of immigration control. In India, special provisions are made for the states of Jammu and Kashmir. By these provisions, with exception of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance and Communication, the Indian Parliament needs the state governments’ concurrence, before applying other laws to those states. Similar protections for unique status exist in the tribal areas of India, including those in Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Andamari & Nichobar Islands and Nagaland. Even in Nigeria, there have in the past been laws and constitutions with asymmetrical objectives and effect. By sections 7 and 14 and schedule 1 of the 1964 Constitution of the Mid-West Region, the Akoko-Edo, Isoko, Western Ijaw and the Warri areas of the Mid-Western Region were proclaimed special areas. Under this provision, each of these minority areas was to be represented by four persons in the Mid-western House of Assembly. Only persons belonging to specific ethnic groups were eligible to represent the four minority areas in the Mid-Western State House of Assembly as follows: 1.Akoko-Edo Area – Yoruba speaking Edo ethnic group 2.Isoko Area –The Isoko Ethnic group 3.The Warri Area (i.e. the Present Warri-North, Warri-South and Warri South-West,Itsekiri Ethnic group Local Government Areas 4. Western Ijaw –The Ijaw Ethnic group The special area constitutional provisions were made to protect the minority ethnic groups in that region from gradual assimilation or annihilation arising from influx of people from outside the special area. Additionally, it was intended; to ensure that these indigenous minorities were not politically swamped by ‘invading’ majority groups who would take over political office and power from the indigenous minority by their sheer numbers. This is a clear example of an asymmetrical constitution, because this principle limiting the right to contest elections in minority areas did not apply to other parts of the region like Benin, Ishan, Afenmai, Owan, Urhobo and Ibo. Again, arising out of the case of Obi v. INEC, governorship elections are no longer held on the same day in Nigeria. They are now staggered. Indeed, it was argued by INEC and PDP in that case, that if Peter Obi’s four-year tenure was to commence from 17th March, 2006 when he took the oath of office as governor of Anambra State, it would truncate the election time-table in Nigeria, that is, it would be impossible to hold all governorship elections in one day. The Supreme Court (per Aderemi JSC) saw nothing wrong with the turn of events. In fact, the Court saw it in a positive light. According to the learned Justice of the Supreme Court: “I do not buy that argument. In the first place, there is nothing in our 1999 Constitution, which says all elections to political offices in this country at the Federal and State levels, should be held at the same time. If there was a provision to that effect, that would negate the concept of Federalism, which we have freely chosen to practice”. This is clear case of judicial support for asymmetrical federalism, representing true federalism, as against stifling suffocating anti-federal uniformity. (See Obi v. INEC [2007] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565 at p. 644) It is important to point out that the northern and southern governors and their zones represent different tendencies in their attitude to federalism. Those who do not want State Police tend to be the groups that want a strong central government, controlling virtually everything, leaving the states prostrate. Such groups tend to be the dominant ones, who lacking in easily exploitable natural resources, seek to control resources from other zones through the control of a powerful central government. The other group tends to be those who want true federalism, with significant autonomy and resource control for the states, the federating units. In the search for a suitable formula for the harmonious political association of the ethnic nationalities of Nigeria, asymmetric federalism seems the only way forward. The three southern zones and the old Middle Belt demand a fundamental restructuring of the country, involving extensive transfer of powers and resources from the federal to the proposed regional governments or the existing states. But the political elite of the northwest and northeast are unwilling to entertain such a restructuring. In view of the stalemate between the two sets of geopolitical zones, I propose the introduction of asymmetrical federalism in which the northwestern and northeastern zones, and parts of the north central zone, can retain the centralised federation of the 1999 Constitution. Others can choose a looser, restructured federation. Under this system of asymmetrical federalism, the southern zones and the parts of the north central zone sharing the same view would establish their own independent police forces, organise their own population censuses, electricity generation, control labour and industrial relations and control their mineral resources, independent of the Federal Government. The reluctant zones, by contrast, could operate a single police authority with the Federal Government and allow the latter to continue conducting population censuses, generating electricity, controlling their mineral resources and determining minimum wages, centrally on their behalf. Under this arrangement, every zone and nationality would operate under the type of federalism that it prefers. In this manner the Nigerian federation will remain unbroken. Once asymmetrical federalism is adopted, every federating unit can achieve its hopes and aspirations and Nigerian states can achieve a high level of harmony. The eradication of uniformity with its strangle-hold on true federalism and stifling its effect will go a long way to make unity in diversity achievable, thus paving the way for mutual tolerance, solidarity and co-operation within a loose federation. Like · · Share
Posted on: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:08:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015