by
O. Igho Natufe, Ph.D
INTRODUCTION
This essay is in honour of the MIDWEST HISTORY MONTH 1999.
Before dealing with the subject matter, I would like to thank Dr. Nowa
Omoigui for his foresight in initiating this event. In my reply to him
on July 30, 1999, when he invited Midwesterners to participate in this
historical milestone, I thanked him "for reminding us of our being". Too
many of us have either forgotten or do not care about our history. To
Midwesterners, and to Nigerians in general, the creation of the Midwest
State on August 9, 1963, will for ever remain a key factor in
determining the future of federalism in Nigeria. As a student and
teacher of comparative federalism, I have always supported the
federalist movement in Nigeria. In one of my weekly columns in the
Observer Group of Newspapers, the Sunday Observer, (Benin
City, August 7, 1988, p. 12), entitled "On Nigerian Federalism" I wrote:
"While Bendelites are celebrating the Silver Jubilee of the creation of
their state this month, 567 Nigerians are continuing their assigned
debate in Abuja to rewrite the Nigerian Constitution." In that same
piece I argued as follows:
"As Nigerians, we assume we are operating a federal state when in fact we are not. ....Nigerian federalism ensures that the central government dictates to the governments of the federating units, thus negating a key aspect of federalism ...It may not be necessary for each state to have its own constitution, provided the agreed division of powers underlining the independence of each state is written in the Federal Constitution. It is obvious that Nigerians do not want unitarism, but where they elect to adopt federalism then they should be prepared to pay the price of federalism. The Constituent Assembly members should give Nigerians a Federal Constitution that is truly Fedral in all aspects. "
Eleven
years later, we are still addressing the same concerns I articulated on
the Silver Jubilee of the Midwest State. The purpose of this
anniversary piece is to underline the significance of the creation of
Midwest State in Nigeria’s federal polity. We will also invite other
concerned Nigerians to (re)examine the federal structure of Nigeria in
such a way that recognizes the independence of the federating units.
THE CREATION OF MIDWEST STATE
After
more than two decades of selfless struggles by the representatives of
the peoples of the region, the Midwest State was created on August 9,
1963. The creation of the Midwest State is significant for the following
reasons:
- It was the first state to be created in Nigeria.
- It remains the only Nigerian state to be created by constitutional means, and not by a military fiat.
- Its creation facilitated a stronger voice for the articulation of minority rights in Nigerian Politics.
But
the journey to August 9, 1963 was not an easy one. We. Midwesterners,
must remain eternally grateful to those who fought for the creation of
the state. Prominent among those was the Oba of Benin, Akenzua II,
without whose personal intervention and guidance the state may not have
been created in 1963. The others whose names must be recognized were
Dennis Osadebay, Jereton Marierie, and James Otobo. It is instructive to
note that Otobo was the only prominent member of the Action Group (AG)
from the region who fought publicly for the creation of the Midwest
State. As we celebrate the 33rd anniversary of the Midwest
State, I am sad to declare that we have not done anything to immortalize
the lives of those four freedom fighters.
In
constitutional debates, many may argue that Midwest State was a product
of the series of commissions of inquiries that called for the creation
of states for Nigerian minority groups. It would be a gross
oversimplification to do so, because the inquiries by themselves
did not create the Midwest State. While the results of those inquiries
were powerful arguments in favour of the proponents of state creation,
the contour of pre-1963 Nigerian politics denied state creation for any
minority groups. Let me explain.
The
Richards’ three regional structure of 1947 rendered moribund the
Lugardian north-south amalgamation that gave birth to "modern" Nigeria
in 1914. The event of 1947 coincided with the formation of the three
main political parties that eventually governed the respective regions.
We all accept that Nigeria is a creation of British imperial rule. The
hitherto independent kingdoms of present day Nigeria were colonized,
"united" and christened "Nigeria" by Britain. When these disparate
kingdoms regained their independence on October 1, 1960, it was not as
separate independent entities which they were, but as a political
community called NIGERIA. They were brought together by Britain to
experiment with the art of governing a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual
polity. Since 1960 Nigerians have been grappling with this experiment.
Of the three major political parties that defined the landscape of
contemporary Nigerian social and political history, only the National
Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) was established as a
national political party. Both the AG, a creation of Egbe Omo Oduduwa,
and the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC), were founded to promote Yoruba
and Hausa-Fulani interests respectively. That the NCNC later became to
be perceived as an ‘Igbo’ party was not entirely the design of Igbo
political elites, but rather the machinations of some powerful Yoruba
nationalists who did not cherish the notion of an Igbo, Nnamdi Azikiwe,
becoming the premier of Western Nigeria.
As
the leader of the NCNC, Azikiwe was to be the first premier of Western
Nigeria following the elections of 1951, with Obafemi Awolowo, a Yoruba,
the leader of the AG, as the leader of the opposition in the House of
Assembly. It should be recalled, with profound sadness, that prominent
Yoruba traditional leaders and political elites exerted pressure on a
number of Yorubas elected on the NCNC platform to "cross carpet" in the
House and join the AG, in order to deny Azikiwe the premiership in
favour of Awolowo. The concept of "carpet crossing" was thus introduced
into Nigerian political discourse. Azikiwe had assumed the leadership of
the NCNC following the death of Herbert Macaulay, a Yoruba. There would
have been no basis for "carpet crossing" if Macaulay, and not Azikiwe,
were elected premier of the West on the NCNC platform in 1951.
As
a result of this blatant injection of ethnicism into Nigerian politics,
Azikiwe was compelled to "return home" to the East where he became the
premier of the government. It is safe to postulate that, were it not for
this event, the post 1951 development of Nigerian politics could have
been spared much of the instability and crisis the country has
experienced. This was a vital turning point in the political history of
contemporary Nigeria. It helped to influence most Igbos to seek
political shelter in the NCNC, just as the AG became privatized by most
Yorubas, and the Hausa-Fulani political elites sought comfort in the
NPC.
Following
the 1959 federal elections, the NPC, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as the
prime minister, formed a coalition government with the NCNC. Obafemi
Awolowo, the leader of the AG, became the leader of the official
opposition in the Federal House of Representatives. Samuel Akintola
replaced Awolowo as the premier of Western Nigeria, while Michael Okpara
replaced Azikiwe as the premier of Eastern Nigeria. Ahmadu Bello, the
leader of the NPC, remained as premier of Northern Nigeria. As part of
the NPC-NCNC coalition, Azikiwe became the governor general, and
subsequently the first (ceremonial) president of Nigeria, when Nigeria
became a republic on October 1, 1963.
It
was against the above background that the debate for state creation
took place. The movement for a Midwest State was the most topical. For
the past 50 years the political development of Nigeria has been viewed,
rightly or wrongly, as a power struggle for hegemony by the three
dominant ethnic groups: Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo. Scholars later used the
appellation, "Hausa-Fulani" to depict the symbiotic relationship
between the Hausa and the Fulani as a result of the strong Islamic ties
that bind the two dominant ethnic groups in the northern part of
Nigeria. Before August 9, 1963, when Nigeria had three constituent
parts, the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo political elites exercised
hegemonistic powers in the North, West, and East respectively. It is
interesting to note that while none of them wanted a separate state
created in their region, they supported the agitation for state creation
in the opposing regions. This position was identical to the concept of
preventive imperialism of 19th century European imperialism in Africa. I refer to the Hausa/Igbo/Yoruba hegemony as a tripodal conspiracy to subjugate the minorities of Nigeria. We will return to this issue later.
We
identify three premises of Nigerian federalism. These are (1) the
equality of the federating units; (2) the Hausa/Igbo/Yoruba tripodal
conspiracy; and (3) the question of minority rights. If Nigeria were a
normal political entity, we would expect the first premise to be
dominant in the polity. The fact that the Hausa/Igbo/Yoruba tripodal
conspiracy determines the form and content of Nigerian federalism is
reflected in the way the political leaders of those three ethnic groups
viewed the minority areas within their provinces as their respective
colonial possessions, just as European colonial powers regarded their
African colonies. It was a scramble for Nigeria by the Hausa, Igbo, and
Yoruba to maintain their power over the minority areas located in the
regions that they controlled. (See Table I below) It was against this
background that the battle for the creation of the Midwest State was
fought and won.
TABLE I: VIEWS OF THE GOVERNING PARTIES TOWARD STATE CREATION
| REGION |
PARTY IN POWER |
STATE CREATION IN THE REGIONS |
||
| EAST |
NORTH |
WEST |
||
| East |
NCNC |
Oppose |
Support |
Support |
| North |
NPC |
Support |
Oppose |
Support |
| West |
AG |
Support |
Support |
Oppose |
As
shown in the above table, the demand for state creation in any
particular region enjoyed the support of the opposing political parties
in that region. For example, while the NCNC opposed the agitation for a
COR State (Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers) in the East, they strongly supported
the agitation for a Midwest State in the West and a Middle Belt state in
the North. Thus, for the Midwesterners, the AG was the "enemy" party on
the issue of a Midwest State. The debate over state creation in the
various regional houses of assembly was dictated by the ideological
prism of the ruling political parties. With Awolowo, Anthony Enahoro and
other prominent members of the AG facing charges of treasonable felony,
the AG opposition to the creation of the Midwest State gradually became
insignificant. The AG crisis that began in May 1962, following the
party’s convention in Jos, fundamentally altered the alliance construct
of Nigerian political parties in the 1962-1965 period. This provided an
ideal constitutional framework for the Midwest State movement. The
crisis also offered the NPC -NCNC coalition government a golden
opportunity to crush the AG.
Meanwhile,
deserters from the AG, led by Akintola and Ayo Rosiji, established a
new political party - the United Peoples’ Party (UPP) - which in mid
1964 was renamed the Nigerian National Democratic Party (UNDP). As
premier of the West, Akintola emerged as the leader of the party. In the
Federal House of Representatives, Rosiji led the pack of former members
of the AG to "cross carpets" to swell the cell of the NPC. The disarray
of the AG, and the impact of the treasonable felony trial against
Awolowo, Enahoro and other leaders of the party, created ideal
situations for the NPC. The NPC no longer seem to need its alliance with
the NCNC, and thus became politically arrogant towards its coalition
partner. Akintola, who as the premier of the AG-led government of the
West had opposed the creation of a Midwest State, now began to view the
creation of the state through the same ideological prism of the NPC, a
party with which his UNDP was now aligned. Thus, the governing parties
of the East (NCNC), the North (NPC), and the West (UNDP) now all agreed
on the creation of the Midwest State. The houses of assembly of the
respective regions had little difficulty passing the required
resolutions in support of the proposal to create the Midwest
State.
Irrespective of its growing schism with its coalition partner at the
federal level, the NCNC voted with the NPC and the UNDP at the Federal
House of Representatives in favour of the creation of the Midwest State.
With the above scenario, the subsequent plebiscite of August 9, 1963,
became a mere formality as Midwesterners overwhelmingly voted for the
creation of their STATE. Midwest thus became the first STATE of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria.
WHY NATIONS FEDERATE
Simply put, nations decide to federate for one or a combination of the following reasons:-
1 socio-economic;
- political; and
- security.
A nation decides to federate for socio-economic reasons because it:
- possesses shared values with other independent federating units;
- wants an access to a larger domestic market;
- desires a secured access to a sea port;
- seeks access to a higher standard of living; and
- would enhance its welfare policies.
Politically, a nation decides to federate in order to:
 |
|
|
strengthen existing relations with its co-federating units
|
|
possess a stronger voice internationally.
|
Thirdly, a nation decides to enter into a federation in order to be able to protect itself from real or imagined threat to its national security.
The
above factors, in varying degrees, could be said to influence the
leaders of Nigeria’s three regions to federate after they had obtained
their respective independence. We recall that the East and the West
obtained their self government status (independence) in 1957, while the
North obtained theirs in 1959. Each could have opted to go its own way
as we witnessed in the case of the former federation of Rhodesia and
Nyasaland, which metamorphosed into the independent states of Zimbabwe,
Zambia, and Malawi. More importantly for us Midwesterners, the above
factors influenced our decision to remain as a constituent unit of the
Nigerian federation in 1963. None of the federating units became parts
of a federal Nigeria in order to forefelt their
independence. It is essential that we take this point into consideration
in our discussions of Nigerian federalism.
IMPLICATIONS OF FEDERALISM
1 The central government represents the federation as a subject of international law.
- Federating units cannot represent themselves as subjects of international law.
- Federating units independence within own jurisdiction must not do harm to the federation
- A highly centralized central government does harm to the federal polity as it could lead to a quasi federal (or unitary) system.
- A decentralized federalism could destabilize the federal polity as it is capable of eroding the powers of the central government and making the federating units too powerful.
- The two levels of citizenship - state, and central - could be entangled in perpetual conflict if the central government and the federating units fail to agree on vital issues of interest to the federating units.
- Citizens' loyalty gravitates towards their respective federating units than to the central government in a highly decentralized federal polity.
- A central government's inability to equitably relate to the federating units could give rise to centrifugal forces that could destabilize the federal polity.
- It is more expensive to run a federal system than it is to run a unitary system because of the levels of governments in the former.
- The system of checks-and-balances is more evident in a federal polity than in any other system of government.
The
1963 Republican constitution of Nigeria recognized the independence of
the federating units. It was an example of how a federal constitution
should look like. Unfortunately, we have witnessed a systematic erosion
of that independence since the military intrusion in the governance of
Nigeria. As I indicated in "If Nigeria Must Survive", in the Sunday Observer,
(August 28, 1988, Benin City, p. 5) "A mere criticism of the military
regime does not, and could not, imply that Nigerian civilian governments
have performed creditably in operating federalism". The performance of
the Shehu Shagari administration of the Second Republic continued the
pattern established by the previous military regimes, while that of the
current Olusegun Obasanjo’s civilian administration is an extension of
his own military administration of the 1970s. I referred to the
Hausa-Igbo-Yoruba triumvirate as a tripodal conspiracy in our brief
discussion on the creation of the Midwest State above. No where is this
more glaring than in the area of revenue allocation.
TABLE II: EVOLUTION OF REVENUE ALLOCATION FORMULA IN NIGERIA
| YEAR |
FORMULA PERCENTAGE
|
||
| DERIVATION |
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT |
FEDERATION ACCOUNT |
|
| 1953 |
100 |
nil |
nil |
| 1954 |
50 |
20 |
30 |
| 1964 |
50 |
15 |
35 |
| 1970 |
45 |
25 |
30 |
| 1975 |
20 |
nil |
80 |
| 1979 |
nil |
nil |
100 |
| 1982-89 |
1.5 |
nil |
98.5 |
| 1999- |
13 |
nil |
87 |
It is interesting to note that, the decline of the amount due each state of the federation coincided with the growing significance of oil as the main stimulant of the Nigerian economy. The current revenue allocation formula, as defined in Section 162 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999,
discriminates against the minority ethnic groups of the oil producing
areas of the country. We should also note that, this formula is not
applicable to other natural resources as iron, hides & skins, cocoa, palmoil
which, again coincidentally, are situated primarily in the non minority
regions of Nigeria. When these products constituted the mainstay of
Nigeria’s economy, the revenue allocation formula favoured the
respective federating units. But the game was changed when oil became
the dominant single produce sustaining the Nigerian economy. Who changed
the rules of the game? The answer is simple: members of the tripodal conspiracy group! Ask we say in Nigeria, monkey de work, bamboo de chop.
Not only did the change violate the principles of federalism as they
were when Midwest State was created, it also demonstrates a gross misuse
and abuse of the power of the majority to subjugate the minority. As I
have argued elsewhere ( "The Nigerian Polity." Sunday Observer,
Benin City, September 18, 1988, p. 5), the "federal revenue allocation
to states should be made to correspond proportionately to the revenue
generated within each state. It is only in this way that states will
begin to be serious and strive to be independent and autonomous, instead
of waiting for a national cake shared on a wrong formula whereby the
bakers get less".
CONCLUSION
The
current structure of Nigeria federalism will lead to the demise of
Nigeria, except a thorough restructuring of Nigerian federalism is
urgently put in place. A key consideration in a democratic polity is for
the dominant political and economic class to recognize and respect its
limits to power. It should be prepared to discard its own selfish agenda
where this conflicts with the national interest of the nation as
expressed by the population in given circumstances. It should not
appropriate to itself the right to determine what should be the national
interest of the nation. It is the task of the ruling class,
particularly in an embryonic democratic polity like Nigeria, to always
ensure that democratic principles prevail. Members of the tripodal
conspiracy have failed in this regard. This is reflected in the entire
body of the current (1999) constitution where the federating units are
described as subordinates of the central government. The concepts of independent and coordinates,
key prerequisites of federalism, have been completely discarded.
Furthermore, the proposed Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) bill
which President Obasanjo recently submitted to the Nigerian Senate is a
graphic display of the machinations of this tripodal group. The bill
outlines a strategy of how to systematically dismantle a federal state.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MIDWEST STATE
No comments:
Post a Comment