Chief Olu Falae on Nigeria's Restructuring Mission

You know I am a leader in the South West and at the National convention, I was elected as the leader of the Yoruba delegation. So, I am central to the Yoruba position. The Yoruba position is my position and it is the same position I canvassed in my book, ‘The way forward for Nigeria’ which I launched since 2005 in Lagos. What we mean by restructuring is going back to the Independence Constitution which our leaders negotiated with the British between 1957 and 1959. It was on that basis that the three regions agreed to go to Independence as one united country. So, it was a negotiated constitution. This is because, if the three regions were not able to agree, there would not have been one united independent Nigeria. But because the three regions at that time negotiated and agreed to package a constitution, that is why they agreed to go to Independence together. When the military came in 1966 and threw away the constitution, they threw away the negotiated agreement among the three regions, which was the foundation of a united Nigeria.

So, the military did not only throw away the constitution but a political consensus negotiated and agreed by our leaders of the three regions in those days. When we say restructuring now, we are saying let us go back substantially to that constitution which gave considerable autonomy to the regions. For example, each region at that time collected its revenue and contributed the agreed proportion to the centre. But when the military came, they turned it round and took everything to the centre. That could not have been accepted by Ahmadu Bello, Nnamdi Azikiwe or Obafemi Awolowo.

This constitution we are using was made by late Gen Sani Abacha and the military; and Abacha came from only one part of Nigeria, so he wrote a constitution that favoured his own part of Nigeria. That is why I am saying, let us restructure and go back to what all of us agreed before. That is the meaning of restructuring. The regions used to be federating units, but in today’s Nigeria, they would now be called federal regions because states have been created in the regions. So in the West, you now have federation of Yoruba states which would belong to the Nigerian union at the centre. So, it is not like the region of old with all the powers. No. It is now going to be a coordinator of the states in the zone. That is what we mean by restructuring. And the regions would have a considerable autonomy as they used to have. For example, for the younger people, they may not know that every region then had its own constitution.

There were four constitutions at independence –the Federal constitution, Western constitution, Eastern constitution and Northern constitution. That was how independent they were and every region had an ambassador in London. The ambassadors for the regions were called Agent General so that you do not confuse them with that of Nigeria then called High Commissioner. So, Nigeria had four ambassadors in London. The ambassador for Nigeria then called a High Commissioner was M.T Mbu. The ambassador for Eastern Nigeria then was Mr Jonah Chinyere Achara, Western Nigeria was Mr Omolodun and for Northern Nigeria, it was Alhaji Abdulmalik. There were four of them. That was the kind of arrangement we agreed to, but the military threw it away and gave us this over-centralised unitary constitution. So, we said this is not acceptable any more; we must go back to the negotiated constitution which gave considerable autonomy to the regions, so that they can compete in a healthy manner. For example, Chief Obafemi Awolowo wanted to introduce free education in the West and other regions said they could not afford it, but he went ahead to introduce it in the Western region. He said he wanted to pay a minimum of five shillings a day, while others were paying two and three shillings. He went ahead and passed the law, making five shillings the minimum wage in Western Nigeria.

There was no problem with that. In Western Nigeria, the constitution provided for a House of Assembly and the House of Chiefs. In Eastern Nigeria, there was no House of Chiefs because they did not think they needed one. There was no problem with that and that is the kind of Nigeria we negotiated in London, but that is different from what we have today. So, we are saying let us go back to that arrangement which all of us agreed at independence and not what Abacha imposed on us, which is very partial, unfair and one-sided. That is the meaning of restructuring; it is to restructure unfairness and give semi-autonomy to the federating units.

Chief Olu False is a leading Yoruba leader and was Head of the Southwest Delegation to the Jonathan National Constitutional Conference.

NB: PLEASE HELP TO SHARE THIS PIECE WIDELY. THIS PIECE IS THE ONLY REDEMPTIVE WAY OUT FOR NIGERIA. EVERY OTHER THING WILL NEVER WORK

LAWYER’S REJOINDER TO ABUBAKAR MALEMI, SAN- HON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

Ehiwe O. Samuel is a Lagos based lawyer with one of Nigeria’s foremost commercial law firms and the President of the Advocacy for Justice in Africa. In this paper, he addressed the issues of the subservience of individual rights to National interest/security.

So much has been said about which has a higher weight between ‘National Interest’ and the ‘rule of law’ [individual rights]. This is in fact not a new subject, it has been a topical issue from the days of yore. In his comment on what a government must do to fight corruption in a corrupt system, Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia said, ‘in fighting corruption in a corrupt system, one may not have to follow due process; all that should be done is to follow ‘‘necessary process’’ ’. what necessary process means remains to be determined, but one thing is sure- it does not mean following the due process of the law.

National interest is indeed an all-encompassing word. It relates to the interest of the entire citizens and corporate existence of the State as against the right and interest of an individual citizen. Taking Nigeria as a case study, it would mean right and interest in the ratio of 180,000,000: 1. In fact, national interest has defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary to mean; ‘the interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of sub-ordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups’

The implication of this is that whereas the rights of an individual is sacrosanct, inalienable and shielded by the bulwark of the rule of law, that shield can be torn off if sparing it will be detrimental to the overall interest of the State. What is more? The court was called upon to pronounce on this issue in the case of Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) LPELR-958(SC). In that case, the supreme court per Mohammad JSC, stated thus;

‘A person’s liberty, as in this case, can also be curtailed in order to prevent him from committing further offences. It is my belief as well that if every person accused of a felony can hide under the canopy of section 35 of the constitution to escape lawful detention, then an escape route to freedom is readily and richly made to persons suspected to have committed serious crimes and that will not augur well for the peace, progress, prosperity and tranquillity of the society’

The provisions of Section 35 of the constitution which guarantees the rights of the individual is undoubtedly not without limits. However, it suffices to say that it is incumbent on the courts, and the courts alone to determine the limitations. Thus, it follows that while the right of an individual can be made subservient to the national interest and security. The courts have been vested with the power to interpret the existing laws and any attempt by any other arm of government to usurp that power will be a flagrant breach of the foundations that hold the State together as a democratic entity.

It is rife and unpleasantly recurring for citizens to hear of instances where courts of law make orders for the release of detained suspects and government functionaries in the executive arm of government will refuse to adhere to the court’s orders on the pretext that the individual ordered to be released by the courts are threat to national security and that it will be in the national interest for such individuals to continue in detention.

This notion is a flagrant abuse of power and a total disregard for the rule of law. It is the court that determines whether or not an individual should continue in detention as decided in the Asari-Dokubo’s case (supra). Where the court orders the release of a suspect, upon meeting his bail conditions, he is to be released and if the executive arm is not satisfied, the only window open for it is to appeal against the court’s decision, seeBlue-Chip Acquisition And Investment Co. Ltd. V. Zenith Bank Plc & Ors. (2008) LPELR-8529(CA)

In conclusion, it is very correct to posit that individual rights, the rule of law and indeed certain procedures can be suspended and made subservient to the national interest, but it is still for the courts to determine instances where such would be allowed. Any contrary position would be an invitation to avoidable chaos, anarchy and a regrettable decline to Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Written by

Sam EhiweLawyer at Perchstone & Graeys and President, Advocacy For Justice in Africa.

Rationale behind (liveless) Buhari and Theresa May in Nigeria.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) yesterday decried what it called “President Muhammadu Buhari’s inability to productively engage British Prime Minister Theresa May.”

A development, the party claimed, directly bungled Nigeria’s opportunity to draw maximum economic dividends from her visit.

In a statement by its national publicity secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan, PDP expressed deep concerns “that President Buhari could not even assemble a competent economic team to engage the British leader and has also not considered it expedient to muster a team for a strategic engagement with German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who is billed to commence a state visit to our nation.”

The statement reads in part: “It is indeed unfortunate and completely unpatriotic that instead of thinking of ways to draw economic dividends from the important state visits, President Buhari is rather more interested in using them to secure international endorsements for his selfish re-election bid.

“We all saw a British Prime Minister who was favourably disposed to a healthy and productive engagement on critical areas of our economy and how President Buhari and his officials, out of sheer incompetence, failed to seize the opportunity for the benefit of our nation.

“Instead, the Buhari presidency was more interested in photo-ops and diplomatic niceties perhaps to score cheap political points, indicative of how our presidency has diminished in the last three years.”

It added: “The robust and very fruitful engagement the British leader later had with Kenyan president, Uhuru Kenyatta, shows how low the standard of national leadership has fallen in our country under the Buhari presidency.

“The president should immediately end this lethargy and seek help in setting up a team comprising very competent and knowledgeable hands to interface with the German chancellor and her team so that Nigeria will benefit from her visit.

“Finally, we caution President Buhari not to seek to use the visit of the German leader for another lame attempt at international endorsement, which has continued to elude him, while attracting embarrassing backlashes to the nation.”

Copied +2348136370421

Nigeria's vice president on Osinbajo on Restructuring mission.

VP Osinbajo WAS probably on the side of restructuring, but I doubt if he still is. All he is trying to do now is, political correctness - making himself intelligible to those he now works for, whose opposition to restructuring is as clear as the morning sky. That explains the obvious confusion the VP has found himself in, on this all important subject. He likes to speak glowingly of the accomplishments of the old Western Region under Awolowo, but fails to acknowledge that such was substantially consequent upon the high level of autonomy the Regions had under the 1960/1963 constitutions. The whole of the old Northern Region still speaks with nostalgia about the quality of delivery of the Sardauna Ahmadu Bello government; and mutatis mutandis, Zik's in the Eastern Region. One reason they were that successful can be located in the conducive environment emblematized by the governance structure of the era. 

VP Osinbajo speaks of corruption as if this malaise is not consequent upon a pretentious 'federal system' that has alienated substantial segments of the population, and made what elsewhere, I called a 'terra nullius' of this republic. He would rather that we go on with this cat and mouse efforts at fighting corruption, rather than a structural attack on the very basis and foundation of corruption. 

Most recently, rather than face the issues squarely, Osinbajo invented what he calls 'geographic restructuring.' This would have been quite laughable if not because our country is facing an existential crisis. By the way, are there not pockets of populations in this country that desire to be aligned with what they legitimately regard as their kith and kin? The Okun of Kogi, Ekiti of Kwara, Anioma of Delta, etc, have always expressed this desire. What right do we have to disparage their choice, as the VP seeks to do with his attempt at putting down what he likes to call 'geographical restructuring'? 

One would have expected the VP to build on the accomplishments he likes to speak about, as AG of Lagos, in the direction of fiscal federalism, rather giving the impression that restructuring is steeped in confusion. A careful reading of the 2014 Confab Report would give anyone a clear idea of the appropriate direction in, and the screws and bolts of restructuring. This would qualify any day as a veritable blueprint, or working paper, if you will, on restructuring. The Governor Ahmed el-Rufai APC Committee was courageous and smart enough to merely clone the Report. Since then, nothing has been heard about the encouraging work of the Committee. Rather than speak to, and get his principals to activate this, VP Osinbajo goes around pontificating and sermonizing on how microcredit to half a million Nigerians, and feeding one million (or what's the number?) school children per day should be celebrated as accomplishments of a federal government! (See the latest, VP of a country of 200 million people coming to our State here in Osun to dispense N10,000 to citizens - in the year of our Lord 2018!). It is quite worrisome, for, even if Nigeria survives in this rickety state, these efforts in tokenism in the context of a warped governance structure, which we may choose to pretend is not debilitating, would make this country remain in this permanent state of nonperformance. 

Nothing is more embarrassing comparing what we do here with how other people in other climes are running their own public space. These are people who, one to one, are not better than Nigerians. Now, you have a bright professor who should be showing direction vis a vis the appropriate path to real governance, making the rounds to befuddle otherwise clear paths to national rebirth. So, I most humbly disagree that 'Osinbajo is on our side,' - that of course is if 'our side' means the restructuring constituency.

 

Source professor femi mimiko, mni
e-mail: femi.mimiko@gmail.com

A SUMMARY OF THE NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY UNDER GENERAL SANI ABACHA ADMINISTRATION

   The Abacha administration itself was not only a child of circumstance, but was also the main beneficiary of Nigeria’s protracted political logjam following the annulment of the popularly acclaimed free and fair presidential elections that had produced Chief Abiola as the winner. This crisis, coupled with Abacha’s anti-democratic posture from the start opened the floodgate of problems for Nigeria’s image abroad and undermined its respect in the international community, Washington had to canceled the visas of important military personnel, restricted arms sales, halted all U.S. economic and military aid, and cut off Nigeria’s access to trade credits and guarantees (Fadope, 1997). 

   Also Abacha initiated foreign act tagged "Abachaism" , he taught it wise to save Nigerian money abroad for Nigerian at home, Even though this foreign act brought an untold hardship to Nigerian citizen who were forced to live under abject poverty and hunger during his regime.

   Interestingly, the regime incurred unprecedented opprobrium when it executed nine persons, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, a champion of the Ogoni people, who inhabit a portion of the Niger Delta, where oil production has resulted in severe environmental degradation.
Prior to the executions, the President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, had sought to influence General Abacha and his associates by means of quiet diplomacy. However, the killing have generate different critics from different scholars, but my own intake to justify to some extent that the  killing are in line with protection Nigeria national interest are of the following:
1. The killings were part of the attempt to silence the opposition and assert control over the country
2. The nationalism activity of the Ogoni's and Ken Saro-Wiwa may lead to another outbreak of civil war, if their activities are not put to check
3. Abacha’s acts toward his domestic affairs clearly portrait him as un-compromised leadership, who uphold the sovereignty of the country from external influence.