• Home
• Columnist
• Videos
• Artist
  • Musicians
  • Actors
  • Comedians
• Notable Nigerians
• Legend Dies
• Articles
  • Nigeria Articles
• Photos
• Submit Article

Author: By Amanze Obi
Posted to the web: 6/8/2005 7:05:02 AM

A part of the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, states that we, the people of Nigeria, have solemnly resolved to 'provide for a constitution for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country on the principles of Freedom, Equality and Justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the Unity of our people.'I have always known that our constitution proclaims the resolve of Nigerians 'to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble Sovereign Nation,' apparently because our leaders, especially military ones, have always emphasised this provision in their frenzied bid to justify the continued existence of Nigeria as a united entity. But little did I recognise that the same portion of the constitution also places emphasis on the principles of equality and justice. If I was unaware of this provision, it may be due to the fact that it is hardly given a mention by those who have been presiding over the affairs of Nigeria at the highest levels. Indeed, I found it so refreshing that our much maligned constitution spared a thought for such fundamental issues as equality and justice. Yet, this is a country where these twin principles do not have a place.I have had cause to argue in the past that the principles of indivisibility and indissolubility as provided for in the constitution should not be celebrated any longer as inviolable. I did not understand why they should be so in a land where injustice and inequity have become cardinal principles of governance. I had argued that if certain people or segments of the country are made, compulsorily, to feel and know that they are unequal to others or cannot get what they legitimately deserve, then it would be stultifying for them to continue to operate under such repressive and oppressive setting. Such a people or segments of the country are simply in bondage. They are not free. Yet, the same constitution outlines Freedom as one of its cardinal principles or objectives.Issues bordering on equality, justice and freedom are indispensable to the survival and progress of Nigeria. That explains why they have always been given more than a cursory mention each time Nigerians gather to discuss their common destiny. The constitutional conferences that held in London before Nigeria's independence recognised that certain segments of the amalgamated Northern and Southern Protectorates needed to be reassured that they would not be assimilated by or dissolved into the bigger units or entities that existed then. The Willinks Commission which sought to give the minority tribes of Nigeria a sense of belonging and safety was borne out of this feeling of insecurity.Fears and agitations bordering on domination and extinction have remained prevalent in spite of the efforts made in the past to stem them. This state of affairs is not unconnected with the fact that efforts made so far in that regard have not been given effect to. It was therefore hardly surprising that the National Constitutional Conference of 1994 to 1995 under the regime of General Sani Abacha came up with a fundamental recommendation-–that of rotational presidency. It was that conference that created the present six geo-political zones. The conference recommended that the presidency of this country be rotated among the six zones. Somehow, the six zonal structure was accepted in principle. The present administration sometimes applies the zonal criterion when taking certain decisions. But it is yet to be enshrined in the constitution, which is to say that it is merely a convenient arrangement which can be dispensed with at any time. But the rotational presidency recommendation was thrown overboard. It never saw the light of day. The committee that was later set up to review the recommendations of the conference headed by Justice Niki Tobi was said to have done away with it.Ten years on, another conference headed by the same Niki Tobi is trying to fashion out a workable arrangement for the people of Nigeria. Again, not surprisingly, it is about to recommend that the presidency of this country be rotated among the six geo-political zones. Feelers from the conference indicate that the recommendation is a popular one, especially among delegates from the south. However, there are indications that the north, or a segment of it, is not quite comfortable with the recommendation.Before the National Political Reform Conference takes a decision on whether to recommend rotational presidency or not, we need to reflect a little on why this demand has remained persistent. The reasons, as we earlier pointed out, are not far to seek. They hinge principally on equality and justice. Nigeria has remained politically unstable because a good number of its people are not made to feel that they are equal with others. Certain segments of the country feel so unjustly treated that their anger boils over and seeks expression in rebellion, violence or willful violation of the laws of the land. The feeling of alienation or marginalisation is not helped by the nature of the Nigerian federation. We have an arrangement where an all-powerful centre controls the major resource of the country. The other federating units derive their economic lifewire from this central government. For reasons that are largely incidental, the north has had the rare privilege of producing presidents or heads of state who sit atop the country's oil wealth and dole out handouts to others. The north, no doubt, has become used to this arrangement. It believes that since the entire north which constitutes three out of the six geo-political zones has always worked together, it, more than any other segment of the country, has a better chance of getting to the number one political position in this country. The north has got so used to running Nigeria that it does not feel safe or secure if power has to shift to another part of the country. This orientation explains the occasional jitters which it faces over the Obasanjo presidency.Again, if rotational presidency is being given a serious thought to, it is because the north has betrayed that it is not quite prepared to wait while parts of the country which have not had the privilege of occupying the highest political office in the land take their turn. As we move to the twilight zone of the Obasanjo presidency, expectations from the remaining part of the south is that they should be given the chance, like the south west was given, to occupy the office of the president. The argument is that what is good for the south west is also good for any other political group from the south. But the north which has always been in charge would not like to wait any longer. It is anxious to have the presidency return to it. But if the political pendulum should swing to the north in 2007, the feeling of alienation or non-belongingness in the people of the south east, and, to some extent, the south south will become more congealed. They are more likely to see the structure of the federation as tailored to put them down perpetually. This state of affairs, certainly, cannot be allowed to continue in a country where the principles of equality and justice are emphasised by the supreme document that governs the affairs of the people. Since such cardinal principles must remain integral to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the time has come for one and all to recognise that they are not there for the sake of it. Men and women of goodwill should therefore insist on the reign of equality and justice.For there to be justice, and for one political grouping to feel that it is equal with the other or that it has as much stake in the Nigerian federation as the other, the presidency of this country cannot be made to perpetually elude some segments of the country. In a land where people believe in fairness and the philosophy of live and let live, there is no reason for anybody to be afraid of rotational presidency. To seek to monopolise the office is the hallmark of greed and mockery for one's fellow citizen. Those who have benefited unduly from the skewed arrangement may want it to continue. But they should also note that those who have been consigned to the backwaters by the same arrangement can, at a point, reject the situation that has willfully excluded them from the political largesse which belongs to us all. The danger in perpetuating injustice and inequality is that it could and would breed instability and distrust. And if these twin evils are not arrested soon enough, they may metamorphose into a monster that the sardonic oppressor may not be able to contain. To avoid this, we should enshrine rotational presidency into the constitution.