Somebody reminded me of this quote very recently:
Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.
Winston Churchill
Before we get carried away with the “Restructuring” bandwagon, we need a history lesson on Nigeria.
This is a very long post, but the summary of it is that a federal system with 36 states will offer better protection to minority groups in Nigeria than large regions. Furthermore, evidence from our history suggests that our experiment with three large regions promoted chaos, led to two military coups and a bloody civil war. Whoever is calling for restructuring should tell us the content of this restructuring. Restructuring Nigeria is orthogonal to solving our problems. All the problems that are present in modern day Nigeria with 36 states were present in each region. Shouldn’t we be putting our efforts into solving our problems, rather than creating new ones?
The drums of restructuring started beating during the time of President Goodluck Jonathan. A national conference was held on the issue in 2014. You can read a lengthy description of the confab here. The outcome of the conference appeared rather underwhelming. From the report above, the conference did not advocate political restructuring. Instead, it was focused on how to share the national cake across all the geopolitical zones. This is the big problem of the political leaders of Nigeria: their focus is always not on what benefit the people or real issues that matter to the ordinary Nigerian. Instead, they want arrangements that allow them to consolidate their power. This is not a new problem, the genesis of these issues predates Nigerian independence.
How did we get here? We can have a quick sweep through the constitutional history of Nigeria. It is a well known fact that Nigeria became a single entity in 1914. In my school days one of the current affair questions was on the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria. If you go back a few hundred years before 1914, most of South Western Nigeria shared the same language and had their own kingdom, to the South East and Eastern part of Nigeria were a number of city states like Calabar, Bonny and Brass. In Northern Nigeria were other city states like Kano and Gobir, but over time the Fulanis, coming from outside modern day Northern Nigeria as herdsmen, took a hegemonic control over the whole area.
In short, what is now known as Nigeria was very diverse in the beginning. Over time, the British subdued and dominated various corners of Nigeria using different “tools”. In South Western Nigeria, the approach was to depose kings like Kosoko who refused to play ball and impose the likes of Akintoye who were more compliant. Overtime they exercised total control over the whole of South Western Nigeria and imposed direct rule. In Northern Nigeria, a similar tactic was deployed on the Emirs, but Britain chose to implement indirect rule there and ruled through the Emirs.
When Lugard amalgamated Northern and Southern Nigeria, a new political entity was created. In the South, missionaries were allowed to spread the Gospel unfettered, whereas in the North, their activities were significantly curtailed. In the north, the British governed indirectly through the Emirs whereas in the South, it was direct governance. The colonial masters were focused on creating an environment that facilitated maximum exploitation of the resources of this new massive entity.
Sir Arthur Richards, the Governor of Nigeria in the 1940s, reconstituted Nigeria administratively into three regions: North, East and West. Lagos remained a separate territory. The arrangement was supposed to last for 9 years, but John McPherson, who succeeded Richards launched another process of consultation on the constitution that should replace Arthur Richards’.
The consultation started at village and district level and progressed to the provincial level. It then moved on to the regional level and eventually to a forum where the three regions met to discuss.
The three regions reached similar conclusions in certain areas. All consented to a federal system of government based on the three regional groups. All three regions wanted each region to have an elected legislative with executive teeth on several spheres of life. The main difference was that the East and West regions wanted a Regional Executive Council and a ministerial system while the North wanted a Chief Commissioner. The final difference was that the North wanted the Governor (and the British) to wield more power.
Despite this consensus across Nigeria, some were concerned about the implications of splitting Nigeria into three large political regions. Already many felt that the administrative restructuring achieved by the Richards’ Constitution was already balkanising Nigeria and creating enmities between Ibo and Yorubas as well as between North and South. A group of Nigerians in London1, known as the Nigeria Society, sent a memo to the constitutional conference, with the following main points:
- Gradual power transfer to Nigeria until it attain self governance
- A unitary nation that allows various groups to coexists without prejudice
- building loyalty in the political entity called Nigeria, loyalty that will transcend ethnicity.
The society also proposed that rather than divide Nigeria into three large political regions, the nation should be one political unit but have nine administrative units:
- Lagos
- South West
- East Central
- East
- South East
- North East
- North Central
- North West
The concerns of the Nigerian Society then was that creating large regions could make these regions so powerful that they threaten the nation.
Of course the views of these young Nigerians were not taken on board and the 1951 constitution created the East, North and West regions.
The concerns of the Nigeria Society proved to be valid and genuine. Straightaway, the Eastern Region had its own political crisis. Furthermore, the strongest political party (often dominated by people speaking the same language) cornered and consolidated their bases in each of the Regions:
- Action Group – controlled the West
- NCNC – Controlled the East
- NPC – Controlled the North
Things came to a head in 1953 when Chief Anthony Enahoro of the Action Group moved a motion in the Federal House of Representatives calling for Nigerian independence by 1956, knowing very well that the North would not be able to support such a motion. Eventually, the representatives of the East and West walked out. The Northern Representatives, who had been subjected to attack in the Southern media had to be protected from a Lagos crowd by the police. On returning to the North, the Northern Representatives returned the favour and whipped up sentiments against their Southern counterparts. The outcome was the Kano Riots of 1953 which claimed at least 36 lives1.
To find a way ahead, the colonial government kicked off another process which resulted in more political power returning to the regions. Each region eventually had its own civil service and judiciary. As each region recalled its civil servants from the Federal civil service to come to the region to serve, they created discontent as these returnees were placed ahead of civil servants who had served faithfully but were unfortunate to come from another region.
The history of Nigeria from that point until the abrupt end of the first republic by the coup of Jan 15, 1966 was one of regional political parties trying to consolidate their position in power by hook or by crook. When the British were in control, the three main parties won elections in every region. As soon as Nigeria became independent, the story changed and each party won virtually all the seats in its area. Large regions became a tool used to weaken and undermine the federal government. Each of the regional government governed for the interest of the dominant group it relied on to perpetuate itself in power.
History tells us how it all ended: two military coups followed by a civil war and Nigeria eventually returned to a single political unit with 36 states in geopolitical zones that were not very far from what was proposed by the Nigeria Society in 1951.
I am not opposed to Nigeria trying other formulas that allow power to be devolved to the people. After all, a matured democracy like the United Kingdom has tried various formulas in recent years, devolving power to Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and some big cities. However, our history tells us that large regions did not work to our advantage first time around and whoever wants to recommend that approach needs to convince us of its benefits.
References
(1)The Development Of Modern Nigeria by Okoi Arikpo. 1967
oyebode.com 