An Essay in honour of
MIDWEST HISTORY MONTH 1999
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment