Chief Guy Ikokwu, the President of PNF and member,
Southern Leaders/Middle Belt Forum, in this piece,
analyses the report of the APC Committee on True
Federalism.
THE APC Committee on True Federalism submitted its
report on the 25th of January 2018 to the National
Working Committee of the party.
Surprisingly over the past two years, members of the
ruling APC, despite the inclusion of true federalism in the
party’s manifesto for the 2015 elections, have denied the
restructuring of Nigeria. Some of the APC notables
confessed publicly that they needed to be educated on
the true meaning of restructuring.
There has been a
nationwide debate on the lateness of the admission by
the APC that Nigeria’s system of governance and
constitution needs to be rejigged and modernized
structurally in order to purposefully meet the obligations
of good governance.
The APC manifesto for the 2015 elections had pledged to
“devolve more revenue and powers to the states and local
governments so that decision making is closer to the
people” and emphasized the need for political
decentralization including local policing.
Against this
background, one is amazed at the furore and the lethargy
of the party leadership and especially President
Muhamadu Buhari who promised to “change the Nigerian
infrastructure”.
It was even more amazing that Buhari himself had
consigned the 2014 confab report which was handed over
to him to the archives!
However, this report by the APC committee indicated that
it was necessary for the party “to listen”,and “to deliver”
what it owes as a duty to the people of Nigeria.
There were about nine key issues and matters which the
committee in its public outreach looked into.
It also looked at various reports including the 1994/1995
Obasanjo constitutional conference; the 2005 Abacha
national political reform conference and the 2014
Jonathan Abuja national conference in order to see how
they compare and what ingredients in the reports might
materially benefit an urgently reformed polity of Nigeria.
The APC committee made several recommendations on
germane issues in the polity.
1. Creations of State:
The committee noted in its
recommendation that the creation of new states would
weaken rather than strengthen true federalism by denying
the federating unit enough resources to discharge
additional responsibilities that may be thrust on them.
But that in the case of the South East Zone which requires a
new state in equity with other geopolitical zones may be
attended to through existing constitutional avenues if
found necessary.
2. Merger of States:
The committee found that the
opposition to the merger of states is very strong in the 3
northern zones and it viewed the growing regional
economic cooperation amongst states as a way of
merging their economic potentials.
3. Derivation Principles:
The committee feels that the
federal government should expeditiously review the
current derivation formula upwardly in favour of solid
minerals and hydro-power.
That the REVENUE
MOBILIZATION and Fiscal Allocation Commission Act
2004 should be amended to vest the commission with the
power and responsibility to periodically review the
derivation formulas and make proposals to the President
who shall then table same to the National Assembly for
necessary legislation.
4. Fiscal Federalism and Revenue Allocation:
Some of the
zones preferred maintenance of the status quo, while
others preferred an upward review as a better
developmental option. The committee observed that the
constitution presently provides for the principle of
derivation of not less than 13% in Section 162(2) of the
Constitution but there is clearly room for its upward
review but did not state the extent. Some of the
proponents of upward review have in the last years
proposed a return to our 1960 independence position of
60% derivation of resource control to the resource owners
while the rest is shared among the federal government
and the other states.
It should be noted that the current
formula for sharing revenue is 56% to the Federal
Government, 24% to the State Governments, and 20% to
the Local Governments. Many contributors nationally
have felt that with the devolution of a lot of the present
powers of the Federal Government, its share should be
greatly reduced in line with its exclusive responsibilities
reduction.
5. Devolution of Powers:
The committee felt that more
than 30 items had been variously identified across the 6
zones for devolution from the Federal Government to the
State Governments.
The items variously mentioned for
devolution include the Police and Community Policing,
Education, Prisons, Health, Roads, Security, Agriculture,
Railway, Mineral Resources, Trades and Commerce and
Housing.
On an issue like Roads, which should be ceded
to the State, it was generally agreed that the Federal
Government should on this subject be limited to only a
few cross country interstate roads.
This issue of devolution of powers has been the most
contentious among the various proponents and
opponents. The committee quite rightly observed that the
“major issue with the Nigerian Federation is the
enormous exclusive legislative powers of the Federal
Government with resultant over – centralization of power
and authority”.
It is generally believed that a “further decentralization of
some of these powers by devolving more powers,
autonomy, and resources to the federating units will
foster efficiency and sub-national responsiveness and
local accountability”.
The committee, therefore, recommended that this would
entail the transfer of various items on the exclusive
legislative list, some to the concurrent list and others to
the residual list of the States.
The major problem which the APC committee then had as
shown in the report was the non-itemization sufficiently of
the items to be transferred from the exclusive list to the
other lists.
Indeed it only mentioned 2 items for the
exclusive list which are the narcotics and psychotropic
substances on the one hand and the registration of
businesses operating beyond the state.
Other few items listed as food, fingerprints, labour and
industrial relations, police, prisons, public holidays,
railways were placed on the concurrent list.
It should be
noted that in the 1999 Constitution, the exclusive list was
composed of about 68 items and one of the national
pressure groups the Southern and Middle Belt Leaders
Forum in its own contribution to the national debate listed
about 11 items only which should be reserved in the
exclusive list of the Federal Government and other items
to the residual list so as to increase the capacity of the
states or coordinating regions/zones to carry out the
fundamental developmental programs with adequate
financial resources in order to make Nigeria TRULY
FEDERAL.
It has been observed that in the last 50 years
the military had bastardized the Nigerian constitutional
requirements into an over centralized “command and
control” militaristic system of governance.
It has continuously told a lie to the world that the Nigerian
constitution is federal whereas it is truly unitary.
This is
the reason why Nigeria’s governance system has been
dysfunctional, unproductive, and economically comatose.
In the present constitutional set up where the federal and
state tiers have joint responsibilities in the concurrent list,
the present constitution affirms the superiority of the
central government where it attempts to assume any of
the responsibilities, in the concurrent list to the
disadvantage of the states or regional tiers of
government.
The Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum feels that
apart from the exclusive legislative list of the central
government the other items should be in the residual list
under the control of the states/regional or zonal tiers with
the primary responsibilities which they can at their own
discretion cede to the federal government to be
coordinated in the general interest of the Nigerian nation.
To this end, the above leaders affirm their “stand on the
point that since Federalism is a system of government
founded on democratic principles and institutions in
which the power to govern is shared between the national
and federating units, such federating units should have
control over their own affairs and be treated as equals in
status with their own constitutions which should be
consistent with federal constitution”.
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment