Since the exercise is neither a plebiscite nor a referendum, the confab’s recommendations will be subjected to the superior scrutiny.
Asaba — If the justification for organising the National Political Re-form conference is the facilitation and deepening of our democracy, then the consensus of opinion amongst Niger-Delta Stakeholders and indeed all men and women of goodwill is that the confab might not live up to the billing of fast- tracking the anticipated growth and development of democracy in Nigeria.
Rather it might inadvertently end up in a fiasco and possibly become our Berlin conference of dismemberment, if the attitude of the anti-resource control elements, which smacks of telling the Niger-Delta people that they have no place in the Nigerian political space should be used as a barometer. But as President Olusegun Obasanjo and Governor James Ibori often say: This House must not fall. So solace can be taken in the fact that since the exercise is neither a plebiscite nor a referendum with an air of finality, the confab’s recommendations will be subjected to the superior scrutiny of Mr. President and the National Assembly, who reserve the right to review some anticipated obnoxious recommendations, particularly, those which in all intents and purposes are wrapped with emotional colouration, as opposed to the importance of the issues at stake.
Expectedly, each political zone in the country came to the confab with its own agenda. On the one hand, the North is more or less interested in the retention of the present political structures to wit, statism and the presidential system of government, ostensibly because the region is civil service oriented with a poor economic base and therefore depends on the centre. On the other hand, the South-South famous for its oil and gas, prefers regionalism and a return to the practice of fiscal federalism which was in operation before the military seized power in 1966 and suspended the subsisting 1963 constitution which supported resource control. While routing for true federalism, the South -West is not averse to the return of regionalism owing to its ability to sustain itself largely due to its relatively robust economy just as the South-East, bustling with commerce and industry, has been looking forward to a day that one of its own would preside over affairs in Aso Rock which is more easily achievable through rotation amongst the six geo-political zones rather than between the North and South.
In a nutshell, the key issues which the delegates brought to the CONFAB are whether statism should be retained, regionalism should be adopted with the practice of fiscal federalism or resource control as enshrined in the 1963 constitution as an adjunct. Ultimately, how to find accommodation for each zone with their peculiar interests in the best possible way is the fundamental issue which the plenary session has to resolve. Incidentally, apart from the North which is vehemently opposed to the return to regionalism, all other zones seem to be united on this issue.
So, the question now is: will history repeat itself like the unfortunate incidence of 1956, when the North with the excuse of not being ready for self rule, declined to join the rest of the country in supporting Chief Anthony Enahoro’s motion in the parliament for independence and consequently, delayed Nigeria’s independence till 1960? This question derives from the fact that while the North is contending for the maintenance of the status quo, in spite of the fact that the existing structure has been discovered to be expensive and, therefore, a clog in Nigeria’s progress, other zones are seeking changes in the structure of the polity in the light of the debilitating burden of servicing 37 levels of government with all the civil service paraphernalia. At a time like this the bargaining prowess of each of the zonal representatives should come into play for their mutual benefits and the progress of the nation. But where there should have been empathy for consensus building so that there will be trade offs between the delegates, some have allowed emotions rather than reason to rule them in their submissions by being insensitive in their pronouncements.
With the intemperate pronouncements such as the threat in some quarters to further reduce the 13% oil derivation fund and the caustic suggestion that the Niger-Delta indigenes, who are threatened by environmental degradation, should be relocated, the anti-resource control elements in the CONFAB may be giving more impetus to the Asari Dokubos and other fighters in the creeks; who had promised to lay down their arms should Nigeria’s oil exploration policy become more Niger – Delta friendly. In the event that the offensive comments galvanize the resolve of the fighters, in spite of the efforts of the Niger-Delta leadership to resolve the conflict without resulting to violence, then history will hold such delegates in contempt for aggravating the threats to peace in the Niger-Delta and, indeed, Nigeria.
Unarguably, the provocative statements clearly indicate that the injustice against the Niger-Delta people, which the likes of Isaac Adaka Boro and Ken Saro-wiwa resisted and ended up paying the ultimate price, has not abated.
Certainly, the consistency and persistency of the struggle clearly indicate that even if the same ugly fate befalls the reigning flag bearer in the Niger-Delta struggle, many more may rise, perhaps with more devastating consequences for the polity. In the light of the social and economic implications of continued conflicts in the Niger-Delta creeks with grave international consequences, must the nation be allowed to drift into a situation reminiscent of the UK/Northern Ireland crisis in Europe; the mindless killings in the Israeli/Palestine conflict and Iraq/USA face-off in the middle east as well as the Liberia, Sierra-Leone and Dafur tragedies in Africa before applying reason in charting a civilized path to redemption, which the CONFAB platform readily provides?
In the light of the shortcomings of the 1999 constitution; Nigerians had craved for its scraping to at least wipe off the last vestiges of the military. But with the National Assembly’s seemingly lethargic approach to the review of the illicit 1999 constitution as recommended by experienced constitutional lawyers like Prof. Itsay Sagay, Prof. Ben Nwabueze and legal luminaries such as the Late Rotimi Williams, Nigerians and civil society organizations were later to persuade President Obasanjo to convene the ongoing CONFAB, to which he was initially opposed. Interestingly, it has been argued in some quarters that it is not for nothing that the convening authority gave the delegates the 1960 and 1963 constitutions as part of their working documents. Fortuitously, these two constitutions validate the resource control struggle since they provided for equitable resource sharing formula as section 140(6) of the 1963 constitution stipulates that the states own the mineral resources in their continental shelf and section 134(1) of the 1960 constitution states that “there shall be paid by the Federation to each region, a sum equal to 50% of the proceeds of any royalty received by the Federation in respect of any mineral extracted in that region” Unfortunately, this position of the law when the major ethnic groups held sway as producers of the natural resources that sustained the economy has now been swept under the carpet when it came to the turn of the Niger-Delta to benefit from the constitutional provisions.
It is surely cavalier, contradictory and hypocritical for the powers-that-be to condemn military intervention in politics and rail against the 1999 constitution it foisted on us, only to feel obliged to retain its provisions which are detrimental and oppressive to the. Niger-Delta people in respect to revenue sharing.
To drive home the inherent dangers in the emotional as opposed to reasonable recommendations of some delegates to the CONFAB that the people of Niger-Delta be relocated, (separating them from their habitat and culture) a historical perspective of identical situations in similar circumstances in various climes across the globe is imperative. It was emotion as opposed to reason that led the British Crown to create a home land for the Jews, hitherto scattered across the world in Palestinian land in 1948 after World War II. Arising from that injustice, peace has now become anathema in the land that is supposed to be flowing with milk and honey. In the same vein, it is emotion, not sound reason, that convinced Britain that banishing ex-convicts and other dregs of its society to new found land (present day United States) at the expense of the native Red Indians, was the right thing to do. Till date, there are still pockets of resistance by the original land owners who have now managed to retain rights over-oil rich areas which they have designed as spiritual land free from exploitation. By the same token, it is emotion rather than reason that led Britain and America to dump freed slaves from their societies into sierra-Leone and Liberia to the consternation of the original inhabitants of the area. No thanks to that emotional decision, the relationship between the returnees and the original dwellers has remained acrimonious with the attendant civil wars which are having destabilizing effect on the West African sub-region.
Similarly, it is emotion instead of reason that propelled America and its coalition partners into Iraq to forcedly introduce an alien culture of democracy and capitalism to a people steeped in feudalism. Today that move has become a monumental embarrassment to the invaders and threat to global security and socio-economic order to the extent that America is now seeking assistance from France, Germany and Russia, who were against the war, in stabilizing the region, albeit the world. Undoubtedly, the fierceness of the resistance put up by the oppressed against their traducers in the instances chronicled above and the catastrophic consequence on both parties, are a clear manifestation of the truism that you cannot easily deny a people their rights or separate them from their culture and expect to go to sleep with two eyes closed.
So, as the confab returns to the plenary session, the authors of the inflammatory comments should be cautioned and made to tender unreserved apologies to Niger-Delta people in particular, and the nation in general, and nauseating comments should be expunged from the records. Anything short of this reinforces the belief that the Niger-Delta people are regarded in some quarters as sub-humans who deserve to be decimated, perhaps in the manner American usurpers attempted to wipe out their native Red Indian hosts to pave way for the unbridled exploitation of their vast oil resources.
Onyibe, the Delta State Commissioner for Information, wrote from Asaba.