by Simon Kolawole
After what seems to be a long lull, the hydra-headed campaign for “true federalism” via a brand-new constitution is back in full swing. It’s been a while, really. The Patriots, a group of eminent Nigerians, says it is working on a draft constitution for the country. The group criticised the 1999 Constitution, saying it was “written by the military” without consultation with “the people” and that it “entrenches an overly centralised system of governance, stifles federalism, and fails to reflect Nigeria’s ethnic and regional diversity”. The Patriots attributed “systemic issues like insecurity, youth unemployment, poor public services, weak institutions, and resource control disputes” to constitutional deficiencies.
There are two matters of interest to me here. The first is the falsehood that has been perpetrated for decades that the military wrote the 1999 Constitution. This has been so repeated that it is now taken as the fact and not the fiction — or the brazen exaggeration — that it is. I was a full-grown adult in 1999. I will never buy the lie. To keep repeating the fiction that the military wrote the constitution and did not consult Nigerians is pure desperation to win an argument. Two, I remain of the opinion that although there is nothing wrong with seeking to improve the constitution — Americans have amended theirs 27 times since 1798 — there is still absolutely no substitute for good governance.
I have said again and again and again — and will continue to say this until I draw my last breath — that the military did not write the 1999 Constitution. While people can be telling me stories and fables about political developments in Nigeria before I was born, I was old enough to be a father when the 1999 Constitution was produced and I will continue to counter the false narratives around it. Anyone who is genuinely interested in history should take the pains of comparing the 1979 and 1999 constitutions. They are available on the internet. They can also google the history of the drafting processes before joining the bandwagon of those singing “military wrote the constitution”.
First, the context. When Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar became head of state in June 1998 after the death of Gen Sani Abacha, transition to democracy was topmost on national agenda but there was no constitution to guide the process. What system of government would we choose? Would it be presidential, parliamentary or a hybrid? That is a key question that only a constitution can answer. Abacha was yet to enact the 1995 Constitution which was written by the conference he set up in 1994/95. The conference, made up of a mix of appointed and elected Nigerians, was boycotted by the Yoruba mainstream politicians who were still fighting for June 12 and Bashorun MKO Abiola.
The first thing the military does after taking power is to suspend aspects of the constitution that may impede their dictatorship. They rule by decrees. Whenever they embark on a transition programme, they kickstart the process of producing a new constitution that will become fully operational when they hand over to a democratically elected government. The Murtala/Obasanjo regime left us with the 1979 Constitution. Gen Ibrahim Babangida used the 1989 Constitution to conduct his ill-fated transition programme. Abacha never allowed us to see the 1995 Constitution. He rolled out decrees to do his own transition and had done only council and legislative elections by the time he died.
That was the situation the Abdulsalami found himself in 1998. He had options. One was to set up another constitutional conference and spend a much longer time in office to produce a new constitution. You start the process usually by conducting elections to elect some members into a constitutional conference. The conference will usually sit for more than one year. Their report will be subjected to further public debate and fine-tuning. It could take two years to complete the process. Abdulsalami’s second option was to adopt the 1995 Constitution, derided as “Abacha Constitution” by June 12 activists. Nigeria had already been crippled for five years because of the June 12 crisis.
Guess what would have happened if Abdulsalami had adopted the “Abacha Constitution”? You guessed right. To avoid the awkward situation and the inevitable Afenifere/NADECO backlash, Abdulsalami set up a 25-member Constitution Debate Co-ordinating Committee (CDCC). It was chaired by the late Justice Niki Tobi, then a Court of Appeal judge. Read it again. I didn’t say Maj-General Niki Tobi. His deputy was the late Dr Suleiman Kumo, a law teacher at the Ahmadu Bello University. Not Brig-General Suleiman Kumo. The committee was inaugurated by Abdulsalami on November 11, 1998. It was mandated to co-ordinate national debate on the 1995 Draft Constitution.
I recall that the CDCC held hearings across the country. Tobi supervised the zonal debates in Benin, Enugu, Jos, Port Harcourt and Maiduguri, while Kumo co-ordinated Kaduna, Kano, Ibadan, Lagos and Sokoto. In Enugu, the late Prof Ben Nwabueze, a constitutional expert, sent a memo as secretary-general of Mkpoko Igbo. He proposed that Nigeria should be a federation of six regions instead of 36 states, suggesting the names and capitals as Eastern (Enugu); Western (Ibadan); Central (Jos); North-Eastern (Maiduguri); and North-Western (Kaduna). He said the capital of the Southern Region should be mutually agreed upon, obviously as he had somehow moved Port Harcourt to the Eastern Region.
Nwabueze, who later co-founded The Patriots, supported the creation of the National Judicial Council (NJC), which was not in the 1979 Constitution but provided for in the 1995 draft. It must be noted that the highly respected professor of law served as secretary-general of the Ohanaeze Ndigbo between 1978 and 2004. In Port Harcourt, individuals who spoke or submitted memos included Dr Clement Isong, former governor of the CBN, who led the Ibibio Elders Council; the Movement for the Survival of Eastern Nigeria and Niger Delta Indigenes (MOSENNDI); the Rivers State Council of Traditional Rulers; Prof Chitoro Achinenwu; Chief Harold Dappa-Biriye; and Dr Gesiye S. Angaye.
In Ibadan, the Modakeke community, represented by Mr Abiodun Sowande, a lawyer, wanted the Land Use Act retained. In Sokoto, Prof Ibrahim Mukoshy of the Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, opposed power rotation. He said he was speaking on behalf of the people of Sokoto state. In Lagos, the Group for True Federalism (GTF) demanded a return to regionalism and “true federalism”. Mallam Garba Shehu (yes, you know him) made submissions on freedom of the press, saying the constitution needed to be stronger on the issue. He was once president of the Nigerian Guild of Editors. Nigerians in the US met in Washington, DC to make their own input. These are facts!
In all, the CDCC received over 400 memoranda. Submitting its final report to the Provisional Ruling Council (PRC), Nigeria’s highest ruling body, in December 1998, Tobi said: “In the light of the memoranda and the oral presentations on the 1995 Draft Constitution, it is clear that Nigerians basically opt for the 1979 Constitution with relevant amendments. The common denominator in the mouths of Nigerians is the 1979 Constitution with relevant amendments. They have copiously given their reasons for their choice… So, we have recommended to the Provisional Ruling Council the adoption of the 1979 Constitution, with relevant amendments from the 1995 Draft Constitution.”
Thereafter, the text of the draft 1999 Constitution was published in a dozen national newspapers for Nigerians to read. In my estimation, the 1999 Constitution consists of more than 95 percent of the 1979 Constitution. The variations were minimal, mostly to reflect the prevailing realities — such as the number of states, local governments, change in name of some executive bodies, and addition of those that did not exist as at 1979. Most importantly, the 13 percent derivation payable to oil-producing states was adapted from the “Abacha Constitution” written by the 1994/95 constitutional conference. All things considered, the 1999 Constitution is a duplication of the 1979 Constitution.
And so what? Was the 1979 Constitution itself not also written by the military? This is also another falsehood and propaganda being desperately sold to the public just to win an argument. The 1979 Constitution was produced by an elected Constituent Assembly which sat in 1977/78 to debate, clause by clause, the document drafted by distinguished Nigerians, led by Chief FRA Williams. In Nigeria’s history, no draft has been more robustly debated than the 1979 Constitution. The military was later accused of smuggling the Land Use Act and the NYSC into it, but I wouldn’t know if that is what caused “insecurity, youth unemployment, poor public services, and weak institutions”.
If I may, the same 1979 Constitution was what the late Alhaji Lateef Jakande “used” to turn the fortune of Lagos state around in just a little over four years. If you have never heard or read about the indelible strides of Jakande, you are free to believe the story that it is constitution that develops a society. In truth, the 1979 Constitution did not provide for “true” federalism and “fiscal” federalism (as defined by the agitators of today). There was no 13 percent oil derivation. There was no resource control. There was no regionalism. But Lagos state had the most important driver of development: a competent and patriotic governor whose sole motivation and desire was the progress of the citizens.
My second point on the renewed debate is that there is nothing wrong with seeking a better constitution. As I have already noted, the US has amended its constitution 27 times. No constitution is perfect. Even Americans are still trying to deal with the grey lines after President Donald Trump rolled out a series of executive orders to deal with contemporary issues. The Nigerian constitution has been amended four times since 1999 and there are ongoing moves at further changes. There is, therefore, nothing unheard of in amending a constitution. But even then, no constitution is drafted by citizens. All constitutions are drafted by a few individuals and thereafter debated clause by clause.
But this begs the question: does a perfect “true federalism constitution” automatically deliver good governance? China and Singapore conquered poverty without adopting federalism. They run a centralised system. The Federation of Malaysia is safe without state police. The Federation of Mexico does not have resource control but is still not our mate in development indices. I know the constitution is a critical document that spells out the rules of engagement and can engender the progress of a society, but the UK and Israel developed strong institutions and strong economies without a written constitution. That means we are still missing the real import of good leadership.
AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…
BUHARI’S SHOES
The shocking death of former President Muhammadu Buhari (I still can’t come to terms with it) has opened up an intense struggle to inherit his followers ahead of the 2027 elections. He had an utterly devout fan base (agreed, mainly in the Muslim part of the north), regularly commanding 12 million votes without having to share rice and naira. Not many Nigerian politicians, living or dead, enjoyed this love. But Buhari did not groom any successor. Perhaps, the love of the talakawas was customised for him and could neither be transferred nor inherited. Nonetheless, I expect politicians to use his name hoping that it will do magic among his fanbase. My guess is that it won’t work. Observing…
PETER NON GRATA
Governor Monday Okpebholo of Edo state caused quite a stir recently when he asked Mr Peter Obi not to come to the state without first informing him — “for security reasons”. Obi had visited the state and donated N15 million to a project, after which there was a reported violence that claimed three lives. Okpebholo said: “This message is for the man who claims he has no shishi. Obi must not come to Edo without security clearance.” Despite widespread criticism, he stuck to his guns, repeating his proclamation that Obi must get authorisation. Even if he means well for Obi (assuming he truly wants to protect him), I find his choice of words obnoxious and provocative. Reckless.
OUT OF ORDER
Is it me or do many court judgments these days increasingly — and maybe deliberately — sound ambiguous? The Supreme Court pronouncements on the leadership crises in the PDP and LP left me wondering what exactly the justices meant by “internal party affair”. The parties could not resolve their disputes internally and asked for judicial interpretation of their constitutions. The justices instead threw things back at them. How does that deliver justice? The same thing has repeated itself in the Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan case. Instead of issuing an outright, consequential order, Justice Binta Nyako said she “believes” the senate “should” recall her from suspension. Believe?
NO COMMENT
Nigeria used to rebase its GDP regularly until 1990. We resumed in 2014, accounting for new entries such as Nollywood and telecoms. The rebased GDP shot Nigeria’s economy to Africa’s No 1 and the newly formed APC described it as a “public relations gimmick” by the PDP-led government. Eleven years on, the GDP has been rebased under the APC-led government. The ADC — made up mostly of former APC members — has described it as “economic cosmetics”. History always repeats itself. I, therefore, predict that if ADC wins in 2027 and the economy is rebased in 2035, its former members, who may have formed ABC by 2034, will describe it as “economic crinkum-crankum”. Hahahaha…
