Northern delegates not part of Dokpesi report –Prof. Yadudu

Chief Raymond Dokpesi spoke on the report reportedly drafted (Terms of Agreement of the Six-geopolitical Zones) and circulated to delegates. Even though he mentioned your name on Monday but you were not allowed to speak. What is your take on this?I wish I was giving the opportunity on the floor so that I would tell […]

Chief Raymond Dokpesi spoke on the report reportedly drafted (Terms of Agreement of the Six-geopolitical Zones) and circulated to delegates. Even though he mentioned your name on Monday but you were not allowed to speak. What is your take on this?
I wish I was giving the opportunity on the floor so that I would tell it to his hearing. First of all, the high chief (Dokpesi) was wrong to have said that I was not even a member of the committee. He was also dead wrong to say that this report (displayed report) which is titled Terms of Agreement of the six geopolitical zones, he was wrong to have said that it is the product of the Consensus Bridge Building Group that he has been chairing; it is not.
I will give reasons why it is not. When we started this conference, he, Raymond Dokpesi and a few others, with Ambassador Gambari constituted Consensus Building Group and the group was meeting every Tuesday to try and generate a consensus over controversial issues. I had attended one or two of those meetings and it was very clear to me that this document was absolutely never an issue that was discussed at that consensus building group.
The consensus building group never considered, discussed or adopted this report. Then you will ask how has it come about in its existence? You can confirm from Professor Gambari or any other person in the consensus building group; this was never an issue.
Dokpesi was also wrong; he gave an erroneous submission that this report, the terms of agreement of geopolitical zones was a summary of the decisions submitted by the committees; he said more than 98 percent of it was that. That is wrong and incorrect; I will tell you why it is wrong and incorrect. What we understand on how this report emerged was that we have noticed when we were doing the consensus building meetings which held every Tuesday that we would be invited to meeting but then the other groups would not show up. It later emerged they were meeting separately. When I say the other group I meant the South East, South West, South-South and by some account, what you may call the Middle Belt Forum. We are not sure about this but they would bring us to the meeting, and they would go to some other venue and hold their own meeting and this is what emerged from their own meeting of some geopolitical zones which have reached agreements not on the committees’ reports but on issues that were not even addressed by the committees.
By the way, zones could meet, groups could meet, they could reach agreement on any issue but the impression that it is an agreement of geopolitical zones and that it is based on the committees’ reports is incorrect and we viewed ourselves as having been called to this meeting to rubber stamp what others have done behind our back so that it passes as an agreement reached by all.
We would have discussed these issues if we were invited at the same meeting but we were not and we have a more fundamental reason attacking this report.
The fundamental reason is that Chief Dokpesi said over 98 percent of it is from the committees’ report; I say over 50 percent of it is outside the committees reports. It is the partisan report which those groups have, which they have failed to implement in the committees which they now have injected into this so that we will just endorse it.
I will give you five instances why if you check any of the committees, you will not find anything. Let me start with the paragraph two of that document. It speaks of the supremacy of the constitution; if any committee should speak of the supremacy of the constitution, it is my committee (law, judiciary and legal reforms). We have no recommendation about the supremacy of the constitution and we have made no recommendation about a constitution for the federating units. No committee has made any recommending about the federating unit having its constitution, but here it is. So, where did this come from?
Item number two which is more worrisome is the state creation. You have just listened to the presentation of the restructuring committee; their recommendation is very clear. One, create one state for the South East. Two, create additional state for the other zones on merit and that they had received over 40 requests which they attached. That is all. But this one (waving the document), this report which they called part of that, not only is it saying create one state for the South East, but it has gone ahead to even create states from zones and even given them names. I give you one example; they have gone ahead to recommend the creation of Edu State, I have no problem with that, Apa and South Plateau states for North Central. You were there, the restructuring committee, nobody recommended that; where did they get it? They recommended for the North East, Savannah State, Katagum State and Amana State. There are requests for these states by the way, but the restructuring committee did not recommend that. For the South East they recommended Aba, Adada and what they called Eliti. For the South West, and I will come back to this point, have said names of states would be supplied. So, there must have been some discussions amongst groups to even say, give me some states, names yet to be supplied. For South-South, they are proposing the creation of Ogoja and Anioma states. For the North West, we are so unlucky that, yes, they recommended three states but even recommended Kainji State. Kainji is in Niger, but look at it, North West, they are recommending the creation of Kainji. Who did they consult in the North West to recommend Gurara, I will support Gurara and Gari but whom did they consult? So this is point number two that this is not part of the report.
I will not bore you with other details but the third major issue that was never in any committee report is that the committee on devolution on power which we are going to take by consensus, they have not recommended an increase in revenue formula that is existing; the report has not yet been presented but we know.  But what they have done in this report is that they are recommending for 50 percent derivation but to start gradually from 23 percent. Where did they get that recommendation in the report?  The revenue derivation principle which another committee has made clear recommendation has been ignored because this is not their recommendation but that of some other people.
The fourth issue that was never in any committee recommendation is the issue of revenue allocation formula. Presently, the revenue allocation formula assigns a percentage to states, federal and local governments. On value added tax (VAT), this report has gone ahead to say 50 percent shall be given to any state where VAT is collected. Where did they get that other than their recommendation?
Finally, the most serious one; they have created what they called State List and Exclusive List and what they have done which is very dangerous in my view is to remove for example, when people complain about having worries on state police, you will see something more worrisome. The Concurrent List; they have now put Arms and Ammunitions under concurrent list; it is on Exclusive List. They have put Bankruptcy and Insolvency in the state list; it is not there; it is not on the report of the committee concerned. They have put Aviation on the Concurrent List; it is on the Exclusive List. They have put Maritime and Shipping on the Concurrent List from the Exclusive List. They have removed Evidence from the Exclusive List and put it on Concurrent List. They have removed Labour, and I know the labour people will be up in arms because labour has fought the devolution of powers committee not to take out labour issue from the exclusive list. They have found a way of now putting it in the Concurrent List.
The point I am making here is, this report, contrary to what Chief Dokpesi said is an invention by some zones which have lost out on all major issues in committees and they have reintroduced them through the back door and they call them terms of agreements for the geopolitical zones.
We have not been part of that process, we would not find it nice to be called and be confronted with this. That is why, yes, the secretariat has said it had nothing to do with it, I have no reason to doubt them.
But if you are looking for the origin of this document, it is a set of agreements reached by South-South, South West, South East and to some extent, the Middle Belt Forum precisely to completely overturn decisions arrived at by consensus by committees and to claim these are decisions arrived. So, I don’t know where Chief Dokpesi found his two percent analogy or that only two percent was put here. The issue of state creation for instance, we should support state creation; we support it in principle but who has given you the mandate to decide which states would be created and even to be so outrageous to bring Kainji from Niger to  North West. I don’t know how they are going to do that unless if they are splitting up the country. That is the account I can give of this report.
There are fears that Dokpesi report may end up being smuggled into the conference and rubber stamped by delegates.
No, I don’t entertain any such fears but just wait and see. We will hold our vision, we are happy that the conference leadership has washed off its hands on this and of course those who want to canvass these positions are entitled to do so but they should not be surreptitious about it, they should not dress it up and mislead the conference and the nation on their designs.

To be continued