At least once a year, during the time we remember the outcome of their struggle for the liberation of our dear country from colonial imposition, we have an obligation to revisit the labours of our heroes past. And since we do not always give them credit for unanimity of views on the question of structure, which is central to our political discourse these days, it is imperative to revisit our history before it condemns us.
In the thick of the recent struggle against military rule and the warped state that it has since bequeathed to us, the question “what do these people want?” was a common refrain, because of the relentless demand for a true federal democracy.
What the questioners failed to appreciate was that those demanding a true federal structure were simply being true to the intent of the founding fathers and mothers of the nation. It was therefore a struggle for the full realiasation of the dream of independence for all Nigerians, a dream which could only be realised with a political framework that gives adequate recognition to the multinational character of the country.
Even though it cannot be denied that the Southwest leaders had consistently led the charge, it is also true that all nationalities eventually recognised the wisdom in a federal structure for the nation. If only for the need to be true to the faith of all our fathers, we must all commit to the struggle for the achievement of their dream under the mantle of restructuring and true federalism.
What was the position of each of the founding regions on the question of political structure?
Chief Obafemi Awolowo was the most vocal in his insistence on a Nigerian state, which respects its multinational character through a federal system that gives adequate recognition to the inviolability of its federating nationalities, no matter how small or big. He wanted a state that promotes equal justice for all its citizens and makes a sacred commitment to the secularity of its character.
There was a good reason for Awolowo’s position. For as far back as 1920, even the British did not expect Nigeria to survive as a unitary state. That was Governor Hugh Clifford’s assessment:
“Assuming the impossible were feasible that this collection of self-contained and mutually-independent native States, separated from one another—by great distances, by differences of history and tradition and by ethnological, racial, tribal, political and religious barriers, were indeed capable of being wielded into a single homogeneous nation—a deadly blow would thereby be struck at the root of national self-government in Nigeria, which secures to each separate people the right to maintain its identity, its individuality and its own chosen form of government and nationality, the peculiar political and social institutions which have evolved for it by the wisdom and accumulated experience of generations of its forebears.”
Notice that Clifford recognised the founding nationalities as “mutually independent native states.”
Every nationality was adversely impacted. It is not easy now to conjecture where each would be. The nationalists knew this and accepted their fate but wanted to make it as effective as possible. Hence the attraction of a federal system of government that still permits each nationality to move at its own speed and promote its culture as best it could. This was the point that Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa made before the Legislative Council in 1948:
“I am beginning to think, Sir, that Nigeria’s political future may only lie in federalism, because so far as the rate of regional progress is concerned, some of the regions appear to be more developed than others, and I think that no region should be denied self-government because the others are not ready for it…”
This fear was shared by all the regions. Therefore that was the beginning of the movement towards regionalism which the Richards Constitution had captured only partially, “to enable the various groups to develop distinctive authority in their own spheres” as a means of strengthening the unity of Nigeria.
The struggle of our founding fathers for constitutional improvement led to the McPherson Constitution, the distinctive contribution of which may not have been so much in what it achieved, namely the strengthening of federalism, but in the process that it adopted to achieve it with elaborate consultations with the people.
Constitutional conferences were held at village, district, provincial, regional and central levels, with the Select Committee of the Legislative Council saddled with some of the most serious questions that we are still grappling with today. Prominent among these questions are the following, which should strike one as quite similar to the issues confronting us today. What is shameful today is that after almost 70 years of the posing of these questions, we still do not have a resolution:
- Do we wish to see a fully centralised system with all legislative and executive power concentrated at the centre or do we wish to develop a federal system under which each different region of the country would exercise a measure of internal autonomy?
- If we favour a federal system, should we retain the existing regions with some modification of existing regional boundaries or should we form regions on some new basis such as the many linguistic groups which exist in Nigeria?
- Should Regional Legislatures be granted legislative and financial powers instead of being advisory?
- What functions and powers should be reserved to the Central Legislative Council in order to achieve the overriding objective of maintaining and strengthening the unity of Nigeria?
- Should the system to be introduced in all these matters necessarily be the same in each region or should each region be given freedom to decide on modifications to suit its own peculiar circumstances and needs?
Each of the regions—North, West and East—presented responses from their conferences to these questions and all the responses confirmed the federal structure. Indeed the Northern position in 1948 had favoured a con-federal arrangement, which would have vested sovereignty with the regions.
The West favoured the classic form of federalism with boundaries adjusted such that each region/state should be ethnically or linguistically homogeneous to protect the cultural heritage of each state and allow for varying rates of development.
The East, on the other hand, wanted a federal structure but “the regional legislatures would exercise a measure of autonomy only on certain specified matters to be delegated to the regional legislatures by the central legislatures.”
Thus the 1951 constitutional conference affirmed Nigeria as a federation and the constitution was in operation until 1953 when another constitutional review Conference was announced. The aim was “to provide for greater autonomy and for the removal of powers of intervention by the centre.”
The NPC, prior to the London Conference, stated through its leaders, that it would ask for greater regional autonomy at the Conference “if the two major southern parties were prepared to have one Nigeria.”
Significantly, the Conference agreed to more regional autonomy and to residual powers remaining with the regional governments rather than the central governments, where it had been vested in the 1951 constitution. The centre was to deal with defence, external relations, foreign trade, water control, central Court of Justice. The Concurrent List in which both the central and the regional governments would be competent included higher education, industrial development, power, insurance, regulation of labour, etc.
With respect to revenue allocation, the emphasis of the 1954 Constitution was on the principle of derivation. Thus the Lyttleton Constitution gave more power and autonomy to the regions than the McPherson Constitution, thereby perfecting the practice of federalism.
A pertinent question is this: if it was thus perfected in 1954, what is responsible for its perversion in 1999? This is the question that all zones, states and local governments have to address and find a suitable resolution for the sake of the labours of our heroes past.
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE ANNIVERSARY!
END
Be the first to comment