AFTER the June 12 election annulment, Nigeria was left at the mercy of the Ibadan/Lagos political lobby, which embarked on sustained critique of Nigeria’s federalism, and forceful advocacy for power shift away from the North, lending credence – rightly or otherwise – to the abnormality of the Nigerian federation.
The cream of the Ibadan/Lagos lobby is dominated by the offshoots of those vehemently opposed to the transfer of power to those regarded as Northern Uncle Toms in 1960.
With a National Assembly as a constitutional lapdog, and a judiciary at his beck and call, a Nigerian president could pull anything. He could withhold statutory funds due to local governments in a state; could, under any guise, declare a state of emergency in any state; could violate any constitutional provision without sanctions; could upgrade a geopolitical zone to a federal territory, degrading other zones to mayoral districts. Such a president could choose which constitutional provisions to enforce and which to ignore, underscoring the selective constitutionalism of the current democratic dispensation.
But far from being monolithic, the lobby is made up of diverse political groups with a synergy of perspectives against Northern dominance of national politics, preference for true and fiscal federalism and power shift. The Middle Belt Forum (MBF) and the Southern Kaduna Peoples Union (SOKAPU) are two of the Northern political and cultural groups whose agenda dovetails with the lobbyists.
ALSO READ: A New Nigeria Is Possible; By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
If true federalism is an agreed union of diverse peoples, cultures, faiths, underscored by a satisfactory functional constitutional power dispersion among the constitutive political units, United States federalism, cemented over two centuries ago, could be its archetypal model.
Since Nigeria’s federalism isn’t an agreed union, the vociferous cries against it leave one no choice than to conclude that if there is any fake federalism in the world, its prototype would be Nigeria’s.
From the lobby’s sustained critiques of the Nigerian federation, one could discern that its bane includes: condescending colonial origin; economic parasitism of one of its sections; subversion by military rule; the enormous powers vested in the federal government by the 1999 Constitution and the selective constitutionalism defining the 4th Republic.
ALSO READ: The National Industrial Relations Policy: Matters Arising; By Ivo Takor
The paternalistic colonial origin of Nigeria’s federalism provided regional political leaders the arsenal to differently attack the original union, laying the foundation for future attacks. Political groups incapacitated to democratically capture federal political power, or in forming effective political alliances to that end, needed scapegoats for their political plight.
The decades long negative profiling of the North’s dependence on federal revenues, conditioned the region to regard itself as a fiscal liability, and the prodigal son of the Nigerian federation. Similarly, most of the Northern elites have been conditioned to live in mortal fear of restructuring, true and fiscal federalism.
The North’s fiscal and revenue vulnerability, threatened balkanisation from within and without, and uncertainty in a problematic federal union – some of its states were excised by the coupist, Gideon Orkar in 1990 – led the North to trade off its political right with lessened diatribe against it, seamlessly transferred political power to the South West in 1999.
ALSO READ: When The Nigerian State Chooses To Play Rogue; By Owei Lakemfa
The vast executive powers embedded in the nation’s presidency makes the president the lord of the federation. Dictatorially-inclined presidents could extend their powers beyond their constitutional reach.
Having lost both power and the economy, the North could only pray for a federal structure envisaged by the Patriots, with substantial power devolution to the constitutive geopolitical zones to revive its economy, improve its security architecture, and rebuild bridges along ethnic, cultural and religious fault lines.
With a National Assembly as a constitutional lapdog, and a judiciary at his beck and call, a Nigerian president could pull anything. He could withhold statutory funds due to local governments in a state; could, under any guise, declare a state of emergency in any state; could violate any constitutional provision without sanctions; could upgrade a geopolitical zone to a federal territory, degrading other zones to mayoral districts. Such a president could choose which constitutional provisions to enforce and which to ignore, underscoring the selective constitutionalism of the current democratic dispensation.
ALSO READ: MONTHLY FOCUS: How To Secure A Financial Future; By Pastor Favour Abuh Onoja
These peculiarities of Nigeria’s federalism have dangerously raised the stakes for the capture of federal political power because whoever controls such powers literally exercises the power of life and death in the nation.
Since federalism is induced by diversity (ethnic, cultural, economic, religious, etc.), and since each of these divides is defined by historical specificity, there could hardly exist a one-size-fits-all true federalism formula. Despite the ballyhoo, neither of the two constitutional conferences (2005 and 2014) could produce true and fiscal federalism. Therefore, the sustained tirades against Nigeria’s federalism and advocacy for true and fiscal federalism were a smokescreen for seamless power shift and the eventual domination of the national economy by the Ibadan/ Lagos lobby groups.
ALSO READ: Buhari: May Our Subsequent Leaders Die At Home (3); By Hassan Gimba
Okello Oculi, 1942-2025: The Poet Who Taught Politics Creatively; By Jibrin Ibrahim
Along with the 1999 power shift to the South West, over two decades later, the control of the national economy has been entirely shifted to the cream of the Ibadan/ Lagos lobby group. Its trepidation of power shift, its apprehension with true and fiscal federalism, has transformed the North into a victim of double shifts: power and the economy leaving it wretched and vulnerable.
Having lost both power and the economy, the North could only pray for a federal structure envisaged by the Patriots, with substantial power devolution to the constitutive geopolitical zones to revive its economy, improve its security architecture, and rebuild bridges along ethnic, cultural and religious fault lines.
Northern delegates to any future constitutional conference should fight for a sort of a mini Marshall plan, to compensate the deliberately neglected geopolitical zones and states before any restructuring takes effect. Anything short of that would be inequitable.
Jahun, a public affairs analyst, writes from Dutse, Jigawa State Capital. He can be reached on 07039038088.
