National Conference: The end game

The first month of plenary sessions witnessed much grandstanding and bombast. Then things settled down to more nuanced negotiations at the committee level. There are twenty or so committees and from all indications they have done worthwhile work. Almost every aspect of the life has been put under a microscope, by some of the most […]

The first month of plenary sessions witnessed much grandstanding and bombast. Then things settled down to more nuanced negotiations at the committee level. There are twenty or so committees and from all indications they have done worthwhile work. Almost every aspect of the life has been put under a microscope, by some of the most experienced and cerebral people in the country. From what I see in my own committee (Politics and Governance), each of these working groups will end up producing a big tome of analysis and recommendations, that will go back to full plenary as early as next week.
Giving the conflicting interests of delegates to the conference, there has been a remarkable cordiality and even consensus in decision making. Shorn of the good-for-television rhetorics (and there are many TV cameras about!) and an abiding sense of victim hood, we can see that in spite of differences, the challenges of life in Nigeria is the same for everyone. At one level, this is a conference seemingly  convened to give  minorities groups a platform to form a new super majority. So the plenary will have to deal with a sleuth of recommendations aimed at protecting or advancing ethnic minority rights, that the bigger groups may find hard to swallow.
There are other unpalatable offers on the menu. A majority of delegates, who spoke at the plenary said the solution to our dysfunctional union is to “restructure” the country and a return to a stronger regional model. The details differ, but delegates from the South and especially South Eastern Nigeria, want  six regions (with one more state in the East) and rotation of the presidential office.
It is mostly left to Northerners to raise voice in a rearguard battle to keep the Nigerian federation as we know it. My view as a delegate, is that some form of rearranging of the federal form into larger units may make citizens more attentive and leaders more responsible. But you can also restructure a federation to death.
This was my position during the plenary submissions: “ Also Mr Chairman, there are certain things that cannot be restructured, if we are to retain even the semblance of a federation. We all have and sometimes share certain values that time does not change. And at the core of the justice necessary for unity, the weight of every man’s vote must be equal. Democracy may be slow and disappointing but it allows people of different backgrounds to coexist without rancour”. In other words, while a new federal structure and the attendant devolution of powers can work, power at the centre must be contested based on one man one vote.
There are a few issues about which it will be difficult to achieve an agreement. Resource control is the most prominent example. The committee working on an equitable revenue formula has been deadlocked for weeks. The key issue is whether contiguous states can pocket the preponderant revenue from both on-shore and off-shore oil exploration. On this most non-oil states would prefer that most offshore proceeds should accrue to the federation account.
Finally, what happens when the conference finishes it work and present it’s compendium of recommendations to President Jonathan? Feelers at the conference indicate that most of the delegates “ in the know” expect that it will form the basis for a brand new constitution. One well-informed member told me that the government may prepare a constitution based on the report and ask Nigerians to make a choice between the extant constitution and the new one. The thinking is that a direct plebiscite or referendum is ultimate measure of the will of the people.