National Dialogue and Constitutionalism (II)

When IBB wanted to create new states out of some existing states in the North Central zone, he slashed the most endowed part of Kwara State and added it to Niger State. He also excised the present Western and Central Senatorial Districts comprising the Yoruba-speaking and Igbirra peoples of Kwara to make up Kogi State […]

When IBB wanted to create new states out of some existing states in the North Central zone, he slashed the most endowed part of Kwara State and added it to Niger State. He also excised the present Western and Central Senatorial Districts comprising the Yoruba-speaking and Igbirra peoples of Kwara to make up Kogi State while returning the Igala segment of Kabba province previously annexed with Benue State to Kogi State. Now, what is the survival potential of Kwara and Kogi States as they are presently constituted? Jigawa, Yobe, Adamawa, Zamfara, Kebbi, and so on, were slashed off states that were themselves struggling for vitality and constituted into states that cannot survive, ab initio.
Again, this is why I cannot agree more with the Distinguished Senator, whom I am quoting for the last time, in spite of areas of disagreement, when he asserted that our new federal structure must be based on economic strength, survival and viability potentials, not on whimsical exigencies and irrational political expediencies and calculations that will not stand the test of time in a competitive global economy;  ‘The argument has been made that the present structure of Nigeria was necessary to curb the strength of the regions, and ensure the stability of the country. The result has been an over-kill. We now have states that are clearly incapable of meeting even the elementary requirements of organized modern government, and not to mention preparing its citizens to compete in the global economy. Every federation succeeds on the strength of its federating units, to create a federation where the federating states have no capacity, authority or freedom to deliver is a tragedy.
In our search for true (that nebulous word again!) federalism, besides global economic competitiveness, we must consider governance deliverables to the electorate and the citizens. What is the value of a democracy in which the citizens derive no basic benefits that are essential for their happiness and comfort within the borders of their nations? Some of the Nigerians I met in Canada carry dual citizenships as the government of Canada is very liberal with its citizenship offered to responsible people from across the world. Yet, some of these Nigerians may have come from societies in Nigeria which alienate them on the basis of constitutional obfuscations with nebulous clauses and dichotomies on citizenship and settler-ship. People have lived in places in Nigeria for over five decades and they are still regarded as non-natives, aliens and settlers. They cannot compete for elective offices because they are not indigenes. They are meted differential treatments in matters of rights and privileges. Their children cannot gain admissions to universities in the states which are basically the only homes that their children have grown to know as their states of origin. They have to go to their so-called original states, where they never lived in, to obtain certificates of origin or citizenship before they can obtain admission into schools, colleges and universities. Part of the causative factors of the violence and insecurity in our country today results from such non-definitiveness of the citizenship of Nigerians because our constitution is unclear or is simply grey on such matters. Thousands of lives are lost or such needless and irresponsible constitutional silences. 
We must never make the mistake of thinking that Nigeria is more important than its citizens; the future of Nigeria as a united country is meaningless and unachievable except it guarantees the safety, security and prosperity of its people.
In the end, no matter what amendments we bring to our constitution and the thoroughness of the Bills and Acts that emerge there-from; no matter the level of participation, either through referendum or through elective representative participation in arriving at the reviewed Constitution; no matter what policies are thus extracted to run the various tiers of government from the Constitution; no matter what strong structures emerge from the federal constitution; not much will happen if we do not remove the scourge of unsustainable policy implementation in the nation’s body politic. Nigeria has always been short on structural continuities because governments in Nigeria have functioned as discontinued structures with each emerging governing leadership acting as if it met a vacuum and thus must create its own convenient structures to a government. There are no sustained and operated frameworks for planning and monitoring strategies of governance in Nigeria. We have no workable and working designs for measuring progress or lack of progress of sustainable development in our system such that transparency and accountability in government can be ascertained and evaluated. Yes, we need strong structures but we need a political system that will bring to power visionary and committed leadership that will ensure implementation of the content and spirit of a constitution that ensure full involvement of all Nigerians in the way we are governed and the way we derive social and welfare benefits from the strong structures that will, hopefully, be put in place after this welcomed dialogue and through this ‘almighty’ constitution review for a truly federated Nigerian Republic.
And less I forget, the stake-holders, the ethnic nationalities and their representatives at the confab must insist on the parameters upon which the National Assembly should base its consideration of the documents that will emerge from the dialogue. Even though find it curious, if not totally pre-emptive that the outcome of the dialogue will be subject to further tinkering (it cannot be otherwise since the Assembly will only consider it, in part, for inclusion in its amendment exercise), there is need for the manner of usage of the outcome of the dialogue should be part of the document itself. For it will amount to an exercise in futility if the National Assembly is at liberty to alter, amend, review or re-discuss any aspect of the emanating document from the national dialogue. There is need for the President to come out with a clearer statement on the nature of ‘use’ of the dialogue blueprint by the National Assembly, so that the dialogue itself can discuss what should be the minimum principle acceptable to the nation in the deployment of the document by the legislature. Whatever happens, the dialogue must be totally transparent, unbridled and uninhibited by any and all of the tiers of governance in this country. Any attempt at any form of manipulation will return the nation to its pre-confab status and that will be the day.