Nigeria as presently constructed is a contraption of uncertainties with a deeply entrenched system of inequalities. This is reflected in the nature of distribution of constitutional powers amongst arms and institutions of government, citizenship and indigeneity clauses, eligibility age to run for offices to mention a few. Some of these challenges are often adduced to the nature of the post-colonial state, Nigeria inherited. However, I hold the view that Nigeria is too large to be a unitary state and too small for a confederacy. 

In the last 100 years, Nigeria has undergone several phases of restructuring but none of these efforts achieved national cohesion, reduced inequality or eliminated exclusion. By all standards, Nigeria appears more divided and sectionalized. Restructuring has been a struggle of the elite, led by the elite to serve the interest of the elite. Through all its years of existence down to this present fourth Republic, Nigeria has operated several forms of government, operated nine constitutions and created more states. While as a nation, we can lay claim to some marginal gains, we’ve also recorded monumental theft of public resources, ethnic fragmentation and rise of ethnic militancy.

In recent times, the concept ‘Restructuring’ has gained prominence in national and international discourse on Nigeria. It is not surprising because as a state exogenously built, there are bound to be intractable implications for the unity and development of the state. Before the advent of British colonialism, Nigeria existed as disparate entities, with differing levels of socio-economic, cultural and political consciousness, leadership and development.[1]The amalgamation of 1914 ushered a new regime of structurally deformities that has remained unaddressed till date. It is therefore not surprising that virtually all sections and regions of the Nigerian State have one time or the other expressed their dissatisfaction with the Nigerian State project as presently constituted. Two of Nigeria’s post-independence leaders (late Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Sir Ahmadu Bello) in various discussions on Nigeria pejoratively asserted that the country is a “mere geographical expression” and that the “mistake of 1914 has come to light” respectively?[2] However, it is important that the agitation for restructuring will persist as long as issues of marginalization, inequality and exclusion remain unaddressed.

Restructuring and the Conceptual gap

The debate on restructuring predates this current agitation. It is a very important contemporary Nigeria discourse because it borders on the future of a great country – Nigeria. What is more interesting with the debate is the divergent views on the conceptual meaning and its implication for Nigeria. There are three predominant challenges with the debate on restructuring Nigeria. First is the challenge of definition, scope and methodology. Perhaps, the numerous definitions advanced by different sections of society simply suggests that restructuring isn’t a monolithic concept.Several meanings have emerged on what restructuring means. These include but not limited to devolution of power, regionalism, fiscal federalism, form of government, state creation, local governance etc. Therefore, any discourse on restructuring must evolve from a broad conceptual understanding of the concept. Secondly, the form or process of restructuring is another challenge. There is lack of consensus on how Nigeria should be restructured. Systematic and periodic constitutional review; sovereign national conferences, referendum or dissolution of government with the institution of an interim government are some of the modalities highlighted for a proper restructuring of the country. The most feasible amongst all the processes is the systematic constitutional amendment process. I subscribe to the normative argumentthat in a country where the dissolution of the exogenous and forcefully formed or built state is not a favored option, the legitimization of such a state and the amelioration of its perceived anomalies and shortcomings could be achieved through building a gradual process of periodic constitutional transformation.

Whose interest does restructuring serve?

The debate on restructuring has seen the emergence of three categories of people; protagonists, antagonist and the fencists. Each has legitimate reasons for holding their views. What has remained absent is the fact that the debate isn’t between citizens and government but a class struggle between the ruling elite from different geographical extraction. This debate is in no way rooted in the wishes of the Nigerian people. Or how do we classify a debate about the future of the country, where the over 100 million of the country’ population that is “the youth” who are the present and future of this country, are not involved in this conversation.  Africa’s population reached a record high of 1.2 billion in 2015 and will increase to 1.7 billion by 2030[3]. By 2050, Africa’s population will more than double. The largest concentration of youth in Africa are in Nigeria and more importantly, Nigeria is projected as one of country expected to have the concentration of these population growth between 2015 – 2050. This explain why the British council in a recent study stated that youth, not oil will be Nigeria’s most valuable resource in the 21^st century. This social category is critical to the growth and development of the Nigerian state and it is this category that Nigerian elite has not reflected in the discussion on restructuring.

Regrettably, Nigeria is moving slower than its potential. Despite its ranking as one of the fastest growing economies in the world, poverty and inequality are on the rise. In 2016, OXFAM reported that the total wealth owned by the five richest Nigerians can lift Nigerians living below the poverty line at$1.90 out of poverty for one year. This degree of extreme poverty coupled with rising unemployment creates opportunities for social disharmony and instability. Nigeria’s unemployment rate is fixed at 14% with youths making up 68% of country’s total unemployed and underemployed population (NBS,2016). According to a recent report released by the  Bureau of Public Service Reforms, this figure is bound to rise as to maintain the current unemployment rate of 14%, Nigeria needs to create 3 million jobs per annum.[4] However, the view being espoused by the champions of restructuring tend to suggest that Nigeria’s developmental challenges, poor economic growth, social discontent will be addressed once the country is politically and economically restructured to devolve power as well as vest control of natural resources in subnational entities. While this sound plausible, the current realities negates this school of thought. The cumulative federal allocation to the South-south is around 30% of the national budget with Akwa Ibom and Bayelsa receiving the largest share. The prodigious lifestyle of our elected government officials calls to question such a benefit. For instance, how do we reconcile state executives who elect to embark on bogus projects as a conduit for siphoning public funds rather than investing same in ventures that will improve the livelihood of its citizens and lift young people out of poverty. We are all in this Nigeria, where state governors are owning workers’ salaries despite receiving interventionist funds from the federal government. The recently distributed Paris club palliative by the federal government, have been misappropriated by several state governors without addressing the salaries owed workers. The Nigeria story is showing that poverty and inequality are not driven by lack of resources but ill-use, misallocation and misappropriation of public resources[5].

It is safe to say that theongoing debate onrestructuring is focused on moving some items on the exclusive legislative list to the concurrent list in the constitution. Yet, this same people who are clamoring for devolution of power are in the same way advocating for centralization of power. How do we explain the proposed abolition of State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIEC) from the constitution and vesting the independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with powers to conduct local government elections. Or how do we reconcile the constitution review process and the agitation for restructuring. Obviously, the ongoing constitution amendment process presents a unique opportunity to restructure Nigeria. However, the National Assembly in July 2017 voted against several amendments, that could have doused the tension created by the restructuring debate. For instance, the outcome of the votes on devolution of power is a testament that the restructuring debate is a class struggle between the elite and not for the interest of the people. The constitution is not just the grundnorm of a country but is also a mechanism for addressing all forms of inequality and exclusion but the present constitution of Nigeria seems skewed to addressing the interest of a few.

While I am not campaigning against the restructuring of the country, but restructuring must serve the interest of all citizens and in particular young people and women. In reality, this means not just inclusion in governance process but importantly investment in health, education, political and economic empowerment. It is only then that as a country we can think of harnessing the democratic dividend and opportunity presented us.

For the average youth, the Nigeria of our dream is country that is not built on ethnic, regional or religious pacts; not a country where livelihood is contingent on geographical extraction; not a country where political participation is limited and access to governance is determined by your age, sex and language and ethnicity, nor a country where we don’t have to spend over 50% of our budget on recurrent expenditure; and in particular a country where there’s no celebration with pomp  and pageantry to launch the construction of a borehole, primary health care center etc.

In conclusion, restructuring makes no meaning to Nigeria if doesn’t guarantee good governance, accountability and service to the people.

Being excerpts from a presentation on Next Generation Nigeria: Youth, Opportunity and Governance for the future by Samson Itodo at the Chatham House, London on October 25, 2017

Itodo is an elections and constitution building enthusiast. He is the executive director of the Youth Initiative for Advocacy, Growth & Advancement (YIAGA). Send comments and feedback to sitodo@yiaga.org

He tweets @DSamsonItodo

References

[1] See, for instance, Claude Ake, A Political Economy of Africa (England: Longman, 1981), 60-61.

[2] A Adeniran, Nigeria: The Case for Peaceful and Friendly Dissolution (Lagos: Unitype Enterprises, 2002).

[3]UN World Population Prospects (2015 Revision)

[4]Bureau of Public Service Reforms, Policy Note on Youth Unemployment, 2017

[5]Ibid

Source: The Cable

Ex-Head of state, General Yakubu Gowon has said that restructuring Nigeria is impossible.

General Gowon said Nigeria’s restructuring is impossible because the country is made up of over 500 ethnic groups with ethnic dialects and languages which would not allow each group to yield to another in terms of concession of certain benefits.

The Former Head of State gave the statement while speaking at Minna, Niger State. According to him, there would be various definitions of what restructuring is by the various ethnic groups and that this would make it impossible for the groups to come to general conclusion as to what it really should be. General Gowon who urged for a united Nigeria however doubted the buoyancy in finance by state governments to fend for themselves if the country is to be restructured to regional bases as being pushed by some.

According to him, “Nigeria is made up of over 500 ethnic groups, languages and dialects and so many various groups called nationalities and they want restructuring.”

“This restructuring everybody is asking for, we will have about 500 different ideas of restructuring. There is call for restructuring to reduce the number of states to only a few either back to the old region or to the zones.”

“Those are some of the ideas that I do not know whether it will be possible for any state today to wish to be merged with another state. Let us see whether our politicians will see guidelines to be able to achieve what they want.”

“But I have my problem whether the states will be financially capable so they will be able to run there states properly.”

Source: Vanguard

Amid agitation by leaders of the South East for the creation of an additional state in the zone, Kaduna State governor and chairman of ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, Committee on True Federalism, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, has declared that it would be a grave injustice to agitate for “equal unequals”. 

According to him, even in population and resources, the regions  of the country are not uniformly endowed.

He, however, said though the representatives of the agitators were few in number, “the majority must always win.” 

Speaking at a town hall meeting organised by his committee to get inputs from youths, the governor said when people talk about restructuring, most proponents think of their zones while no one thinks of the country. 

He said:  “The greatest injustice is trying to make equals unequal and unequals equal; things are not done like that. What do I mean by that? There are those who have said that Nigeria and United States are the same. 

“It is just like saying everyone who is six feet, five can play basket ball. As human beings, we are equal but you cannot come and stand here and say we should create nine states in each zone, Nigeria is not equal, likewise the population and resources, you can’t do that. “The representatives of the agitators are few in number and so the majority must always win. The president of the country exists, the Senate exists and there are 36 states of the federation. 

‘’We the old ones are still here, some of us are good, some are bad, like the youths but you must learn to live with us because we are still here. 

“Now, some people say because we have oil, let us have resource control.   We must think of what is in the overall interest of Nigeria. 

‘’By that I mean what works for everyone. Because what works for one part of the county will not necessarily work for the other and so as long as we are from one country, we must seek for what is of common good, not the one that serves one interest group.

Read more  via vanguardngr.com

Governor of Sokoto State, Rt. Honourable Aminu Waziri Tambuwal has said that the North is not against restructuring but stressed that restructuring must first and foremost be understood in very clear terms before a concrete decision could be made either for or against it.

He expressed this at a two-day conference holding in Kaduna with the theme “The North and the future of the Nigerian Federation” organised by the Arewa Research and Development Project (ARDP).

Governor Tambuwal who was the Chairman of the occasion said, the idea that the North is against restructuring because it benefits most from the current state of things is circumscribed and patently false.

He stressed that the fact that some people continue to parrot such a lie only help to give credence to the flawed argument.

“Let us be clear: the North wants restructuring as much as anyone else. However, as a people we do not easily jump unto the bandwagon because we are always there for the long haul. We believe that any decision we take must be inclusive, and respect procedures and processes so that the outcome is sustainable.

“I think we should first, as a country, agree on a mutual definition of the term restructuring. In my view, if restructuring means taking stock of our arrangement to ensure that no state takes a disproportionate amount of the resources, or most of the available space in the education or job sector, or subjugate the others’ culture or religion, or lords it over the other so that the number of the poor and uneducated whose future is circumscribed by their circumstance is shared proportionately, then we are game.

“We all want a country where there is peace and progress, where justice is a given, where all lives are safe and people can pursue their legitimate livelihoods wherever they choose. I believe each state in this country has areas of comparative advantage and life is a cycle so that what was once the largest revenue earner can in time become less so while something else takes ascendancy”.

Towards this end, he said as a country, we must look to the future and agree on what in the long run will benefit us all. “I must give kudos to the organisers for choosing such an appropriate theme for this conference, The North and the future of the Nigerian federation” he stressed.

He further expressed gladness that the organisers have noted the critical role that education must play in any part that the North eventually chooses to take, adding that the truth is that the modern world is one that puts premium on human capital rather than natural resources. “The development of that capital therefore must take precedence over anything else we want to do as a people” he said.

“I want to assure participants that the outcome of this conference will form a critical part of the aggregate views of Northern States on restructuring and will be useful to our current effort at ensuring that we do a thorough job on behalf of our people.

“I therefore call on everyone who has any view on the matter or any suggestion that will make this great country move forward and strengthen our unity to come forward and express those views” he emphasised.

Culled from leadership.ng

At an All Progressives Congress public hearing on true federalism held in Kano recently, the governors of Kano, Abdullahi Ganduje, and Aminu Masari of Katsina, opposed attempt to restructure Nigeria or devolve power from the federal to state governments to reflect true federalism.

Ganduje and Masari said their aligned position (a strong coordinating federal government as against stronger states or regions) was on behalf of the North-west geo-political zone. The seven states of Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, Jigawa, Sokoto, Zamfara and Kebbi make up the North-west.

“True federalism should not be misconstrued for a weak central government but rather a Federal Government that should be seen as a strong coordinating unit that will be entrusted with the responsibility of equitable distribution of common resources, among the federating units,” submitted Ganduje.

Over time, the North-west have shown to be the geo-political zone most opposed to restructuring. Judging from landmass and population figures (figures that play key roles in how much monthly federal allocation accrue to states), it is easy to know why the North-west is anti restructuring. It becomes even much easier to understand when you compare the North-west states allocation to what they individually make from Internally Generated Revenue, IGR, and ultimately contribute as Value Added Tax, VAT, to the commonwealth.

FIRST, A BIT OF HISTORY

Aside being classified as regions (North and South), Nigeria is further divided into geo-political zones, namely, North-east, North-west, North-central, South-east, South-west and South-south. The six geo-political zone structures, although not recognized by the 1999 Constitution, is a major division principle for the country’s economic, political, and educational resources.

LANDMASS & POPULATION

According to data obtained from the National Population Commission, based on figures from the contentious 2006 census, the North-west zone is the most populated in Nigeria: Kano (9,383,682), Kaduna (6,066,562), Katsina (5,792,578), Jigawa (4,348,649), Sokoto (3,696,999), Zamfara (3,259,846), and Kebbi (3,238,628). The zones combined population is 35,786,944.

The zone has the third largest landmass. Individually this is what they get: Kano (20,680Km2), Kaduna (43,460Km2), Katsina (26,785Km2), Jigawa (22,605Km2), Sokoto (25,973Km2), Zamfara (39,762Km2), and Kebbi (41,855Km2).

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY REPRESENTATION

Out of Nigeria’s 774 Local Government Areas, the North-west has the largest number with 186. While every state is evenly represented by 3 senators at the Senate, that is not the case with the House of Representatives. The 360 members of the Lower House are elected in single-member constituencies using the simple majority system. Out of this figure, the North-west has the highest at 86. The zone also has the highest number of senators at 21.

ALLOCATION SHARING FORMULA

Nigeria relies heavily on oil revenue to fund its budget, and every month the states through their Commissioners of Finance go to the capital Abuja to attend the Federal Accounts Allocation Committee, FAAC meeting and to collect their share of the oil revenue. Now, how this oil money is shared has a lot to do with each individual states population and local government areas.

While the federal government receives 52.68 percent, the states and local government councils get 26.72 and 20.60 percents respectively. Because the North-west has the highest combined number of LGAs and population, this means the zone gets the biggest share from the 44 percent revenue that accrues to both states and local governments. This is after we minus the 13 percent derivation that accrue to the Niger Delta states for housing the oil deposit.

Another source of revenue shared between the federal, states and local governments is the Value Added Tax, VAT. While the federal government takes 15 percent, the states and local governments get 50 and 35 percents respectively. The sharing formula for the VAT is similar to how the oil revenue is shared.

Based on this lopsided formula that does not recognize hardwork and creativity, lazy states whose sole claim to bigger share of the allocation is in their population and landmass, get bigger share of the VAT generated by hardworking states like Lagos.

VAT CONTRIBUTION & ALLOCATION

According to data from the Economic Confidential magazine’s 2016 Annual State Viability Index ranking of states by Internally Generated Revenue compared to Federation Account Allocation, for contributing a dismal amount to the nations purse, states in the North-west zone get a great percentage of the oil revenue and VAT, on account of their local government areas and population.

These are the North-west states and what they got in 2016 as Federal Account Allocation in relation to their IGR: Kano got N111billion and contributed N31billion in IGR; Kaduna got N78.5billion and contributed N17billion in IGR; Zamfara got N53billion and contributed N4.7billion in IGR; Sokoto got N65.9billion and contributed N4.5billion in IGR; Katsina got N83billion and contributed N5.5billion in IGR; Jigawa got N68.5billion and contributed N3.5billion in IGR and, Kebbi got N60.8billion and contributed N3.1billion in IGR.

Except for Lagos and Ogun state (both in the South-west zone), the North-west states, just like the rest states in Nigeria cannot run their government using their IGR. Five states in the North-west (Zamfara, Sokoto, Katsina, Jigawa and Kebbi) are part of the poorest contributors to Nigeria’s ‘national cake’.

CONCLUSION

The North-west’s obtuse argument on restructuring and devolution of power portray their governments as bereft of ideas, uncreative and lazy. Truth be told, it is only an insipid and lazy government that would clamour for the retention of the current structure, best described as a “feeding bottle system”, where state governors go to Abuja cap-in-hand as beggars.

In a restructured Nigeria where power is devolved from federal to the state governments, the landmass and population figures wouldn’t count; rather what would matter is how much Internally Generated Revenue figures individual states can boast of. The North-west’s dismal contribution to the nation’s commonwealth and what lies ahead (an end to this lazy culture where ‘monkey dey work baboon dey chop’), is why the zone is opposed to restructuring.

Maduekwe is editor at Discussing Africa. Follow him on Twitter @Ojo_Maduekwe

Source: www.thecable.ng

National Leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Senator Bola Tinubu, has proposed a seven-point agenda, which he said, would revive the country’s troubled economy and drastically reduce her dependence on petrodollars.

Tinubu explained that the development of a national infrastructure plan; the return of commodity exchange boards and the promotion of government-backed housing programmes were important measures that could help to reposition the national economy.

The proposals are contained in the text of a recent lecture the APC leader delivered in Lagos, where he said the decline in oil prices had revealed the travesty of the country’s extant economic model.

He proposed a national industrial policy fostering the development of strategic industries, which he said, could create jobs as well as spur sustainable economic growth.

He said: “We must realise that no populous nation has ever attained broadly- shared prosperity without first creating an industrial capacity that employs large numbers of people and manufactures a significant quantity of goods for domestic consumption or export.”

Tinubu noted that England, America and China had implemented policies to protect key industries, promote employment and encourage exports, explaining that these countries represented the past, present and immediate future of national economic achievement.

He said: “A strong common thread is their policies of buffering strategic industries in ways that allow for the expansion and growth of the overall economy. So, we must press forward with a national industrial policy fostering the development of strategic industries that create jobs as well as spur further economic growth.

“Whether we decide to focus attention on steel, textiles, cars, machinery components, or other items, we must focus on manufacturing things that Nigerians and the rest of the world value and want to buy. We must partially reshape the market place to accomplish this,” Tinubu declared.

He also proposed the need for the federal government to develop a policy of tax credits, subsidies that insulate critical sectors from the negative impact of imports.

He equally recommended a national infrastructure plan, noting that roads, ports, bridges and railways need enhancing, and new ones need to be built with the goal being to develop a coherently-planned and integrated infrastructural grid.

The APC leader said: “A national economy cannot grow beyond the capacity of the infrastructure that serves it. Good infrastructure yields a prospering economy. Weak infrastructure relegates the economy to the poorhouse. The government must take the lead.

“The focus on infrastructure has important corollary benefit. Federal expenditure for needed infrastructural spending has empirically proven in every place and in every era to boost recessionary economies and provide employment when sorely needed.

“Deficit spending in our own currency to advance this mission is neither a luxury nor a mistake. It is a fulcrum of and balanced and shared prosperity. We must overcome the economic, political and bureaucratic bottlenecks preventing us from achieving reliable electrical power,” he stated.

He said lack of electricity was perhaps the single greatest impediment to the country’s economic advancement.

According to him: The lack of power inflates costs, undercuts productivity, causing havoc to overall economic activity and job creation. Our economic situation is literally and figuratively in the dark.

- Advertisement -

“The hurdles we face are not technical in nature. We must convince those political and economic factors currently impeding our quest for reliable power to step aside so that we may obtain this critical ingredient to economic vitality,” he pleaded.

He further proposed a credit-based economy, stating that credit for business investment was too costly in Nigeria. “The long-term economic strength of the nation is dependent on how we deploy idle men, material and machines into productive endeavor. And this is highly dependent on the interest rate,” Tinubu said.

Consequently, he asked the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to cure its affection for high-interest rates, arguing that lower rates were required for industrialists to borrow without fear that excessive costs of borrowing would consign them to irredeemable debts.

He said: “The normal profit rates in most business sectors cannot support the burden imposed by current interest rates. If our industrialists do not invest in more plants, equipment and jobs, the economy will stagnate. The banking system would have achieved its goal of low-interest rates at the greater costs of economic growth.

“Consumer credit must be more accessible to the average person. The prevailing norm is for a person to purchase high -priced items such as a car in one lump sum. This is oppressive. It defeats the average person and constrains transactions in real estate, vehicles and appliances that could vitalize the economy,” he noted.

Tinubu said government-backed home mortgage system must be re-engineered, contending that mortgage loan agencies must be better funded and should liberalize their eligibility requirements so that more people could qualify for them.

He said: “They need to provide longer-term mortgages with manageable interest rates. The government should provide the supporting guarantees to make such financing a reality. By sparking the effective demand for housing, the overall economy is enhanced. The construction sector and the industries allied to it will surge.”

He argued that a workable credit system would reduce corruption, adding that the current lump-sum payment requirement tempted people towards misconduct. “They see no other way to secure such large sums. Their wages will not suffice. They must steal the money, beg for it or forego the purchase,” he said.

According to him, having an accessible credit system that provides for periodic instalment payments would place a purchase within the reach of people’s wages.

He said agriculture remained the backbone of the country and challenged the federal government to help common farmers by improving rural output and incomes, explaining that this could best be done through ensuring minimum prices for crops strategic to food security.

Tinubu told his audience: “Though effective, this policy was shunned because it conflicted with the free market totems that we were asked to erect against our own interests. We must return to commodity exchange boards, which will allow farmers to secure good prices and hedge against loss.

“An agricultural mortgage loan corporation should be inaugurated to further promote these goals. The proposals stated above are largely within the province of the federal government. Focusing on these and other such things will keep the federal government sufficiently busy,” Tinubu stated.

Source: today.ng

The debate about the expediency – or otherwise – of restructuring has increasingly become a top-drawer issue, gaining momentum by the day and suggesting that it may be one of the dominant issues of the 2019 election. The main political parties in the country are now more or less, in my estimation, obliged to clearly state their stand on the issue to be taken seriously in the next poll. The ruling All Progressives Congress, which had been rather lukewarm about the matter despite having devolution of power as a precept in its constitution, has hit the road with its committee collating the views of its members across the country on restructuring. The opposition Peoples Democratic Party is also said to be weighing in on the issue.

On September 7, many Yoruba leaders and leaders of socio-political groups in the South-west gathered in Ibadan, the region’s political capital, to state their position on restructuring. The highpoints of the deliberation contained in their 16-point communiqué include a return to the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, both of which espoused the regional structure and granted wide powers to the regions. Also canvassed was overhaul of the revenue allocation formula that will see 50% going to states, 35% to the proposed regional governments and 15% to the central government.

While it must be emphasized that it was not every stakeholder in Yorubaland that attended the summit let alone agreed with the entire proposition, the question whether this makes the submission any less valid is a moot point. In the North, some of the region’s leaders including governors are also talking and demanding devolution of powers and other variants of restructuring. Also, the National Assembly, which had curiously dumped devolution of power as an item on its constitution review plan, is now having a rethink.

The fact that political leaders and stakeholders are talking and complaining loudly about the present political structure suggests, in my view, that something is awfully wrong with our situation and that an urgent remedy is required. And I think we are gradually getting to that point where we must confront the problem. At every turn, the popular mantra is now restructuring. Until last weekend, the question which has been on nearly every lip is this: When would the APC National Leader, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, speak about the issue? After bidding his time, putting together his views, consistent with what he has always stood and fought for over time, Asiwaju eventually unfolded his position last Saturday in a keynote address as Principal Guest of Honour at the 2017 Annual Dinner of the King’s College Old Boys’ Association (KCOBA). That speech was further proof that Tinubu knows when to speak and how to do it with some aplomb. As one commentator on a national television succinctly put it last week: “Knowing when to speak and how to speak should now be added to the worth of Asiwaju Tinubu, widely regarded as a consummate politician, strategist and administrator”.

Asiwaju spoke on both the economic and political imperatives of the moment. It was a landmark speech, highlights of which bear restating here. In the lecture entitled ‘A New Nigeria or A Better One: The Fitting Tools of A Great Repair,’ Asiwaju left no one in doubt that he desired a better Nigeria for the people. “What I seek is a better Nigeria. I care not whether something is old or new but whether it shall make us better”. He lamented that a nation as diverse as ours had not taken the time to give our legal marriage its proper functional underpinning. “We all lined up to call ourselves Nigerian without gathering to discuss what it meant. Thus, we inhabit a nation that has not sufficiently defined its governance. We may be defined by political borders and boundaries but we have not glued ourselves to collective purpose and vision. Too many of us are born in Nigeria but not of it”.

Nigerians, he said, must listen to those clamouring for secession to determine what they actually mean, explaining that many secessionists cry separation because their personal ambitions would be better served by such. Expressing his belief in one Nigeria, he argued that breaking up the country would solve no problems. He concedes, however, that some problems remain in the nation which needs to be fixed. “That I am a foe of disunity does not mean I have blinded myself to the truth that our nation is in need of great repair,” he said. “We all see the nation for what it is. Some look further to see the nation for what it is not and they rush to condemn it. I choose to see the nation for what it can be and thus seek to nurture and cultivate it so that this Nigeria may bring forth the fullest blossoming of its riches, resources and ingenuity of its diverse people”.

Asiwaju’s thematic prognosis outlines a foundation for a new Nigeria. And despite the evident brilliance, he would rather see it as his humble initial contribution to the long overdue discourse on how to mould and shape our political economy. He condemned Nigeria’s over-dependence on oil revenue and on the rent-seeking behaviour such revenues encourage. “Even at the best of times and with the highest of oil prices, the economy was characterized by imbalance and inefficiency. Widespread poverty, gross inequality and massive unemployment described the condition”.

Among his many remarkable prescriptions were the creation of an industrial capacity that employs large numbers of people and manufactures a significant quantity of goods for domestic consumption; national industrial policy that fosters development of strategic industries that create jobs as well as spur further economic growth; focus on manufacturing things that Nigerians and the rest of the world value and want to buy; institution of a policy of tax credits; subsidies that insulate critical sectors from the negative impact of imports and lowering of interest to make credit available for business investments and consumer credit accessible to the average person.

Others included a national infrastructure plan, addressing the power problem to obtain this vital ingredient to economic vitality, government-backed home mortgage system, re-invigoration of agriculture with the reintroduction of commodity exchange boards and agric mortgage loan corporation to help the common farmer to improve output and income and a re-calibration of the revenue sharing formula in order to give more funds to the states. Noting that the central government was doing things the states can do better, the APC leader said giving heed to the recommendations above will keep the federal government busy. It was at this point that he restated his often-stated call for true federalism. He argued that the imbalance between the roles of the federal and state governments lies at the root of the nation’s difficulties.

Moving many of the 68 items in the Exclusive List to the Residual List as was the case in the 1963 Constitution will help ensure true federalism, he said. These items include police, prisons, stamp duties, regulation of tourist traffic, registration of business names, incorporation of companies, trade, commerce and census. He said those eager to dispense with federalism in favour of “more rash and impractical remedies should allow us to first truly practice federalism before we deem it a failure”.

Sadly, it has to be said though that the reportage of this speech in one or two newspapers and commentaries by a few on social media seemed to have misconstrued some of Asiwaju Tinubu’s standpoints. A few clarifications would suffice here in that regard, as restructuring has now become a coat of many colours with many espousing diverse and often self-serving versions of what they term restructuring. First, Asiwaju’s advocacy has always been for a true federalism. What he seeks is a re-balancing of the roles between the federal and state governments to give more powers to the states to perform their responsibilities as obtained in the 1963 Constitution. The APC leader is convinced that the ongoing debate is healthy for the country and should help produce a better system for Nigeria.

Second, when Tinubu noted that not all change could be deemed to be good, it was neither meant to disparage the APC which he helped found, nor a denunciation of the party’s change mantra as insinuated by some on social media. That was sheer mischief. He spoke in a context which clearly highlighted that what he sought for the country was a better Nigeria and that whether something was old or new was immaterial to him. For the avoidance of doubt, this is what he said:  “What I seek is a better Nigeria. I care not whether something is old or new but whether it shall make us better. Not all change is good. Not every new thing shall be kind to us. Yes, Nigeria must change, but some of the changes we need cannot be bought at the store of the new. Many things we need are shelved in the warehouse of the old. Just as we must learn new things on one hand, we must remember vital old wisdom on the other”.

Taking the comment of anyone, particularly leaders, that points a way forward out of context would not help the ongoing democratic discourse. Their views should be properly captured. Asiwaju’s paper has been published in full by some of our national newspapers. The speech is on the internet and can also be glimpsed on his Twitter handle.

Rahman is media adviser to Tinubu.

Source: www.thecable.ng