As restructuring stirs heated debate in the polity

President Muhammadu Buhari

 Over one month after former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar canvassed the need to restructure the country for effective governance, the dust generated by the call has yet to settle, FISAYO FALODI writes

It was meant to be a reasonable call on the President Muhammadu Buhari-led Federal Government. Backers said the current parlous state of Nigeria’s political and economic situation made the demand more rational and necessary than before. They all agreed that without restructuring Nigeria, the opportunity to tackle the recurring challenges confronting the country such as militancy, unemployment, insecurity and the poor management of the nation’s resources would continue to elude the leaders.

Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, a chieftain of the ruling All Progressives Congress, set the stage for the current call for the restructuring of the country on June 1, 2016 during the launch of a book by Chido Onumah, entitled, “We are all Biafrans,” in Abuja.

Among others, Atiku held that restructuring the country was the key to resolving the agitations caused by alleged marginalisation among the nation’s component units. The former vice-president had explained that the call was not an attempt to advocate for the dismemberment of the country.

According to him, Nigeria, as it is currently structured, is not working and as such, it is necessary to take a second look at the structure with a view to reforming it into a workable entity.

While stressing that the current structure of Nigeria had been a major impediment to its economic and political advancement, Atiku said, “The call for restructuring is even more relevant today in the light of the governance and economic challenges facing us.  And the rising tide of agitations, some militancy and violence, require a reset in our relationships as a united nation.

“Some may say that we are saddled with more urgent challenges, including rebuilding our battered economy, creating jobs, fighting corruption and securing our people from terrorism and other forms of serious crimes.

“I believe, however, that addressing the flaws in our federation will help us address some of those very economic and security challenges facing this country.”

Atiku buttressed his point with a claim that a united country, which most Nigerians desired, should not be taken for granted or taken as evidence that the citizens were content with the current structure of the country.

Many other eminent Nigerians and socio-cultural groups backed Akitu on the call for the restructuring of the country. Nobel Laure­ate, Prof. Wole Soyinka; a former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku; a former Governor of old Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa; and an ex-chairman, Nigerian chapter of Transparency International, Maj.-Gen. Ishola Williams (retd.), among others, agreed that a restructured country would facilitate stability, development and healthy rivalry. They identified it as the key to na­tional development and integration.

Likewise, the pan-Yoruba socio-cultural group, Afenifere, and the apex socio-political association of the Igbo, the Ohanaeze Ndigbo, expressed the belief that a restructured Nigeria would make every component of the country to be free, proud, develop and be ready to innovate. According to the proponents, restructuring the country would reduce cost of governance in view of the country’s prevailing economic challenges.

The advocates of restructuring, however, made themselves clear on one point. Like Atiku, they said the call was not meant to advocate the balkanisation of the country.

Unfortunately, what was meant to be a noble call appears to have divided the polity along ethnic lines. A former National Publicity Secretary of Arewa Consultative Forum and spokesperson for Northern Delegates for the 2014 National Confab, An­thony Sani, does not believe in the call. He dismissed the clamour for the restructuring of the country.

Sani said the nation’s problem was not about restructuring, but the collapse of moral values among the citizens.

He also dismissed the argument that a restructured country would engender a healthy competition among the federating units and address the various acts of uprising like militancy in the Niger Delta.

Sani had said, “There is noth­ing universally accepted as true federalism. And that is why there are no two countries with fed­eral systems that are self-same or clones of one another.

“All federal systems depend on circumstances of their emergence. For example, 13 American colonies came together and formed the United States and evolved to be what America is today, while in the case of Nige­ria, the national government has created the federating units. But the common mantra in all federal systems is a national government that is strong enough to keep the country under one roof but not too strong as to tilt the country into unitary system.”

Similarly, the call also tends to cause division among the All Progressives Congress leaders. Out­spoken APC chieftain, Senator Joseph Waku, came hard on the proponents of re­structuring. He described them as being self­ish. He said the proponents, including Atiku, were not patriots and were enemies of Nigeria, saboteurs and hypocrites.

Waku expressed the belief that the recurring call for the restructuring of Nigeria was meant to negotiate the break-up of the country. He perceived issues such as state police, devolution of power and fiscal federalism, which a restructured country will promote, as bunkum.

Waku had said, “We have been staying togeth­er as one nation since over 100 years ago when amalgamation of the Northern and Southern pro­tectorates took place under Lord Lugard. Then as an independent country, Nigeria is now about 55 years old. What are we now talk­ing about? Those calling for re­structuring are indirectly calling for a break-up of the country or a return to the era of regionalism, but we have gone beyond those stages.”

Though Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo, also major stakeholder in the APC, canvassed deeper understanding of the restructuring debate, a statement issued by his spokesperson, Laolu Akande, quoted him as expressing support for the establishment of the state police, one of the benefits a restructured country was said to promote. This was after Afenifere and a former Governor of the old Anambra State, Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife, carpeted the vice-president for his earlier opposition to the restructuring of the country. They said Osinbajo lacked a proper understanding of the problems besetting the country.

Nevertheless, a political analyst, Mr. Waheed Adekunle, said the proponents might be right, he cautioned that such an exercise should be handled with utmost care to avoid further heating up the polity.

Apart from agreeing with proponents that the current structure of Nigeria is antithetical to the concept of federalism, Adekunle raised many issues which he said should be critically addressed before the country should be restructured along regional lines or the six geo-political lines, depending on what the people wanted.

He said, “What the proponents said was that the country should be restructured along regional lines like we had in the First Republic when each region had sufficient muscle and the political will to develop their respective territories.

“When Ahmadu Bello spoke from the North, everybody wanted to hear what he said and no Tafawa Balewa could look down on him. When Obafemi Awolowo spoke from the West, Balewa could not look down on him and when Michael Opara spoke from the East, his opinion was always respected. That is what the proponents of restructuring are saying; they said unless the country is reorganised in such a way that each of the federating units is respected, the country would continue to suffer economic backwardness.” Adekunle said restructuring Nigeria along regional lines might be the best option, but claimed that it was unattainable at the moment. He pointed out issues that might likely pose as threats to the call.

He asked, “Is it possible to return to regionalism? Will the people of Ekiti agree to come to Ibadan to bow down? Will Lagos be part of the West? Will the people of Lagos agree that Ibadan should be the capital of the West? Or will the people of Ibadan agree to come to Lagos as capital? These are some of the issues that need to be addressed.”

Adekunle added that the same scenario would play out in the East and in the Middle Belt.

He asked again, “Have we forgotten the clamour for COR State –Calabar, Ogaja and Cross River? Have we forgotten what happened during the civil war when the southern minority in the East revolted against the region? Will the people of Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Rivers and Bayelsa states agree now to fuse and merge with the East and accept Enugu as their capital?

“Also, will the Middle Belt – Benue, Plateau and Taraba – agree to collapse their structures and return to Kaduna?”

Adekunle, however, said while it might be a blunder to have allowed the First Republic to collapse, he said new thinking and new development appeared to have overtaken the call to restructure the country along regional lines.

He did not also share Anyaoku’s position that Nigeria should be restructured along the six geo-political lines.

Anyaoku had said, “The present governance arrangement we have, with the country comprising 36 non-viable states, most of which cannot pay the salaries of their teachers and civil servants, is not the best. Rather, we should return to an arrangement, where the six regions will form six federating units.”

But according to Adekunle, this will also not address the nation’s problem.

He, therefore, asked Nigerians to see the restructuring of the country as a long term political pursuit that must not be rushed to avoid greater problem in the polity.

Adekunle suggested that the 68 items on the exclusive list should be reduced to 10, as well as have concurrent and residual lists in place for easier administration of the country.

“He said, “Why should states not have power over rail? Why should it be the Federal Government that will decide where to put rail lines and the states will be waiting? Why should states wait for licences from the Federal Government to mine solid minerals in their respective territories?”

Prof. Jonah Onuoha of the Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, dismissed the fear of those opposed to restructuring. He said Anthony Sani and Waku should not entertain unnecessary apprehension over the call as it was meant to reoganise Nigeria along six geopolitical zones as proposed by a former Vice-President, Dr. Alex Ekwueme, and Anyaoku, for effective governance.

He said contrary to the views expressed by those opposed to the call, the restructuring would achieve many things.

Onuoha said, “The six geopolitical zones will be the focus of governance, rather than the states, as many of them cannot pay their workers’ salaries for now. Each zone will have the power to harness its resources to take care of its people. It will be easier to have six leaders, instead of 36 governors, as well as reduce the cost of governance. The cost of governance is so high that Nigeria may not be able to sustain it, if the country is not restructured along the six geopolitical zones.

“It will reduce the struggle for the centre. The agitation for who will be the President or not will be reduced to the political zones. You must be able to conquer your political zone before you can move to the centre. It will create the platform to prevent miscreants, who will never do well, from participating in governance.”

He, however, disagreed with Adekunle that the framework for the restructuring would address the misgiving anyone might have against the exercise.

“The region framework will accommodate everybody; there is nothing to fear,” Onuoha said.