The National Conference and its modalities

Their point that Nigerians needed to sit together to discuss their problems, including to decide if they still want to continue to be together, and if yes, on what basis, resonated well with many Nigerians. No Nigerian, even those who benefit the most from the current arrangement doubts that there are gargantuan challenges and that […]

Their point that Nigerians needed to sit together to discuss their problems, including to decide if they still want to continue to be together, and if yes, on what basis, resonated well with many Nigerians. No Nigerian, even those who benefit the most from the current arrangement doubts that there are gargantuan challenges and that the social distance among Nigerians is widening – more than 100 years after the Nigerian state was formally constituted. The fact that virtually every part of the country feels marginalized from the scheme of things is telling enough. That each section of the country has its tales of woe with an institutionalized memory of hurt and pain to boot calls for at least a cathartic outlet. This may perhaps end up being the main, if not the only gain of the planned National Conference.
In the political chess game that is Nigerian politics since 1999, each section of the country has its master move, its joker so to say: the North complains perennially about the system of revenue allocation, in particular the principle of derivation and the onshore/offshore dichotomy and would play its population card on a whim; the south-south has Resource Control as its master move, the South-east reminds everyone it is the only geopolitical zone that has less than six  States and the only major ethnic group which has not produced the President of the country in this dispensation and would, on a little provocation, launch its perennial project of producing a President of  Igbo extraction for the country. Sovereign National Conference has always been the master card of the South-west.  Quite often these master moves are mere bargaining chips or tools of blackmail in the game of politics played by the various regional and ethnic factions of the Nigerian elite.
A crucial question is whether the planned National Conference will be successful in neutralizing the South-west’s master stroke, and if so, whether the outcome of the Conference will similarly render passé the master cards of the other sections of the country. If it does, the Conference will have succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. If it does not, then it will have become another jamboree, a diversion tactic akin to Babangida’s transition to nowhere that kept the political class busy for most of his eight- year rule. Whatever really motivated President Jonathan into embracing the idea of the National Conference only him alone can tell. What is obvious is that the Senator Femi Okunrounmu- led Presidential Advisory Committee on National Conference surpassed expectation, in my opinion, in its recommendations on how members of the planned Conference will be constituted. The Committee’s recommendations are far from perfect but they are a creative balancing act to accommodate several contending interests. For instance, if the Conference was based strictly on ethnic representation as some are arguing, it would give the wrong impression that ethnic groups, as important as they are in our type of society today, are the only stakeholders in the Nigeria project. They are not. As a matter of fact, Nigeria has never been a federation of ethnic groups. When colonialism formally started in 1900 after the Royal Niger Company sold the territory to the British government for 865,000 pounds sterling, there was no talk of federation of the ethnic groups, which were in any case not even consulted when the Nigerian colonial state was formally constituted. It was not until 1939, under the then Governor-General, Bernard Boudillon, that the foundation for federalism was laid when he created three provinces. From 1901 when formal British indirect rule began, Nigeria was divided into two regions: Northern and Southern, both of which were divided into provinces. In essence, it could be argued that the federating units in Nigeria were the North and South, not ethnic nationalities.  In 1914, the North and South were amalgamated and in 1946, the country was re-organized into a federation of three regions – Northern, Eastern and Western regions.
The point therefore is that those who believe the planned National Conference ought to be made up of only ethnic nationalities are being ahistorical.  I think it is right that the Presidential Advisory Committee recognized other stakeholders in the Nigeria project without losing sight of ethnicity and regionalism as key organizing principles of the Nigerian state. They did a delicate balancing act:  all the stakeholders represent the six geopolitical zones – leaving it to the zones to determine which ethnic group gets what.  It is instructive that from the various categories of stakeholders, each zone of the country will send at least 80 representatives to the Conference. While I believe the Advisory committee has done well in the balancing act between ethnic nationalities and other critical stakeholders in the Nigeria project, I am however disappointed  that the President is given the powers to appoint the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Conference –  rather than  the confab being allowed to elect its own leadership. There is also a rather opaque distinction between the President and the Federal Government. For instance in the stakeholders’ category of “Former Political Office Holders including former governors, Senators Forum, House of Reps Forum and the Association of Former Speakers”, which shall each “nominate one delegate per geo-political zone making it a total of 24 delegates”, the “Federal Government of Nigeria” was empowered to “nominate 20 delegates of which at least six will be women.” In another category of stakeholders, the “National Academies including the Academy of Science, Academy of Engineering, Academy of Education, Academy of Letters and the Academy of Social Sciences”,  which were empowered to “each nominate 1 delegate”,  the released modalities stated that in this category,  the  “President shall nominate six persons not currently serving on the bench from the Judiciary”.  What is the difference between the Federal Government and the President, one may ask? With the “President” and the “Federal Government” given the right to appoint so many of the delegates, including the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Conference,  the impression is given that it is a Conference designed not to displease President Jonathan rather than to find solutions to the numerous challenges facing the country.
There are also a few issues with unclear or improper delineation. For instance we were told in the released modalities for the Conference that: “Socio-Political/ Cultural and Ethnic Nationality Groups shall nominate 15 delegates each, per geo-political zone to reflect religious and ethnic diversities’. This is ambiguous. Why will socio-political/cultural groups be lumped side by side with “ethnic nationality” groups? Wouldn’t it have been simpler to talk of umbrella organization of ethnic nationality groups?  When you talk of “Socio-Political/ Cultural and Ethnic Nationality Groups” you are including  cultural groups like a group of dancers learning new dance steps and social clubs – all of which, under this rubric, can claim entitlement to be represented.  Even limiting it to ‘umbrella organisations of ethnic nationality groups’ will not be without problems. For instance given that there are at least 250 ethnic groups in the country, (some without umbrella organisations), how will such umbrella ethnic organisations jostle for the 15 delegates each per geopolitical zones?
I am also disappointed that that the issue of Nigerian unity was declared a no-go area. While I believe I will feel diminished if Nigeria is dismembered, I recognize this as my personal opinion, which I have no right to impose on anyone. In fact making the unity of Nigeria a no-go area serves to glamourize the thoughts and politics of the separatist forces. It is however possible that red-flagging the unity of the country as a no-go area was meant to reassure those who believe that Jonathan became a later day convert to the idea of a national conference because he has a hidden agenda of presiding over the dissolution of the country, especially if he fails to win re-election next year. If this thinking is right, it means that the opportunity of the Conference removing the quiver in the arrow of separatist forces will be lost.
Another problematic modality is the requirement that the “National Conference shall advise the government on the legal framework, legal procedures and options for integrating the decisions and outcomes of the national conference into the Constitution and laws of the country.”  Integrating the decisions of the Conference into the “Constitution and Laws” of the land obviously is a euphemism for saying that the outcomes of the Conference will be debated and legislated upon by the National Assembly rather than such being adopted in a referendum. Though this is probably another balancing act meant at getting members of the National Assembly to buy into the idea of the National Conference, it risks turning the Conference into another Constitution review exercise. The opaqueness of the language could also be a deliberate ploy not to antagonize the faction of Nigerians that wanted the conference to be sovereign, with its decision either automatically made the laws of the land or approved in a referendum.
Overall, given the numerous interests to be balanced, I do not expect the Conference to achieve much. Its greatest achievement may however be as a catharsis, an outlet for people to release their pent-up anger and frustrations.