Dakar/Brussels, 25 October 2006:
Nigeria faces grave risks unless the government addresses the causes underlying the crisis in the country’s failing federalist system.
Nigeria’s Faltering Federal Experiment,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, examines a deeply flawed political system, which contributes to rising violence that threatens to destabilise one of Africa’s leading countries. The conflict in the Niger Delta, inter-communal violence in Plateau State and the rise of ethnic militias, sectarian vigilantes and separatist groups are all indictments of the federalist experiment and the failure of political leadership at every level.
“Poor governance, lack of leadership and pervasive corruption – these are the root causes of the failing system today, and these are the issues the government must tackle to avoid destabilisation”, says Nnamdi Obasi, Crisis Group’s Senior Analyst in Nigeria.
In the 46 years since Nigeria gained independence from Britain, successive governments have attempted, with varying degrees of sincerity and commitment, to fashion federal institutions that can accommodate the country’s ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity and nurture a sense of national unity. However, the leaders of these governments, at all levels, have failed to live up to their obligations to offer good governance based on equitable political arrangements, transparent administrative practices and accountable public conduct.
Failing to encourage genuine power sharing, they have sparked dangerous rivalries between the centre and the 36 states over revenue from the country’s oil and other natural resources; promoted no-holds-barred struggles between interest groups to capture the state and its attendant wealth; and facilitated the emergence of violent ethnic militias, while they play on and exacerbate inter-communal tensions to cover up their corruption. The government has been too quick to brand many of the symptoms, especially the rise of militancy, as simple criminality to be dealt with by more police and more troops. It needs to engage with the underlying issues of resource control, equal rights, power sharing and accountability.
The federal government should grant a significant level of resource control to local communities and replace the anachronistic concept of indigeneity with a residence test when applying the federal character principle. Perhaps most fundamentally, it should create a democratic constitutional reform process that would allow Nigerians, so often since independence under military governments, to engage for the first time in a free and wide-ranging debate over restructuring the country’s power-sharing arrangements.
“Nigeria is a political and economic giant in Africa, but its future can either be a shining example for the continent or a cautionary tale of what happens when great potential is sabotaged by greed and mismanagement”, says Crisis Group’s West Africa Project Director, Carolyn Norris.
Nigeria’s Faltering Federal Experiment
25 October 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The resource problem is at its most acute in the oil rich but desperately poor Niger Delta, where since January 2006, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) and other armed groups have waged an increasingly violent campaign against the federal government and foreign oil companies. It demands local resource control of the Delta’s oil wealth and rejects the “Marshall Plan” President Olusegun Obasanjo has proposed for the region. It recently shifted from high-profile kidnappings of foreign oil workers to more deadly activities, including car bombings. MEND says it wants to cripple the oil industry, whose output it has already reduced this year by 25 per cent.
The constitution enshrines a “federal character” principle, a type of quota which seeks to balance the apportionment of political positions, jobs and other government benefits evenly among
The deep sense of alienation felt by diverse groups throughout the country has fuelled the rise in ethnic identity politics, ethnic militias and, in twelve northern states, disputes over the application of Islamic law (Sharia). The militias demand ethnic rather than national loyalty. Some, such as the Movement for Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), seek secession from
The federal government has characterised many of these developments as no more than a law and order problem and has responded accordingly with force. It has dismissed the demands of Niger Delta militants, for example, as simple thuggery and assumed that federal security forces can always quell the violence there and in Plateau State, while decreeing sweeping bans on the ethnic militias and putting a number of their leaders on trial for treason.
The federal government has an obligation, of course, to deal with violence by the full rigour of the law but it also needs to look deeper into the circumstances that give rise to so much trouble. It should grant a significant level of resource control to local communities and replace the anachronistic concept of indigeneity with a residence test when applying the federal character principle. Perhaps most fundamentally, it should create a democratic constitutional reform process that would allow Nigerians, so often since independence under military governments, to engage for the first time in a free and wide-ranging debate over restructuring the country’s power-sharing arrangements.
To the Nigerian Government:
To encourage equitable distribution of national wealth
1. Work toward a new division of the country’s natural resource wealth by:
(a) increasing as an interim measure the oil revenue allocated to producing states (the derivation principle) to 25 per cent;
(b) passing uniform resource control legislation that:
(i) vests 50 per cent ownership of natural resources in the states and 50 per cent in the federal government, and then divides a percentage of the federal share among the states and local government areas (LGAs) through the Federation Account; and
(ii) requires that states devolve two thirds of the revenue accrued from state ownership directly to local incorporated development trusts, splitting the remainder between the state government and LGAs; and
(c) abolishing the derivation principle entirely once this new framework is in place.
2. Encourage non-oil producing states to develop new revenue generating capacity in agriculture, tourism, and solid minerals.
3. Conduct a review of laws that have deprived communities of their lands and birthrights, leading to reform of the 1978 Land Use Act and repeal of the 1946 Minerals Act and the 1969 Petroleum Decree.
To ensure fair implementation of the federal character principle
4. Remove all references to indigeneity from the constitution.
5. Establish constitutionally or by federal law that an individual is a resident of a state if born there or living there for at least five years.
6. Replace indigeneity with residency as the criterion for appointment of at least one minister from each state by revising Section 147 (3) of the constitution, and revise Section 318 to define “from a…State” in the federal character provision of Section 14 (3) as referring to a person who is a resident in the state.
7. Introduce a gender component to the federal character principle, alongside ethnic, state and sectional tests, by amending Section 14 (3) of the constitution.
8. Give the Federal Character Commission more of the responsibility and authority of an equal opportunity commission by deleting all references to the concept of indigeneity from its charter and amending that charter so that:
(a) individuals or organisations and agencies acting on behalf of individuals can file complaints to the Commission regarding misapplication of the federal character principle; and
(b) the Commission can investigate charges of misapplication of the principle and either mediate disputes or bring discrimination suits in federal court.
To ensure broad-based participation in restructuring of constitutional power-sharing arrangements
9. Inaugurate a democratic constitutional reform process in which an elected assembly debates and drafts a constitution that is put to a popular referendum.
10. Place issues relevant to the protection of marginalised groups such as women, children, and the disabled on the constitution’s concurrent legislative list so that the federal government can set uniform minimum standards while still allowing states to legislate in these areas provided they do not deviate from basic federal law.
|Click here to view the full report as a PDF file in A4 format.|
The solutions outlined here are a good start. Djister where you dey? Have you read this?
The recommendations are good, but until blood starts to flow, they will never be implemented. The people that are benefiting from the current state in Nigeria are far too rich to allow such a change to occur.
Maybe, most of the folks that own and appropriate the apparatus of the state are cowards. And they have used the fear, intimidation and suppression to hold the progressive few down. Until we can have people coalesce beyond regional and ethnic groupings we would continue to encourage and witness the non performance of the country.
I am in the process of going through the report and right of the bat , the land use decree of 1978, and its exporpriation of ownership rights of Nigerian communities fascinates me. One reason is the colonial mentality behind the exercise. It has turned indigenous communities to tenants in their own lands. It is understandable if we talk about Canada where government had expropriated lands from the natives.But then in a country where our forefathers lived, farmed, populated , breathe and sired on those lands, to now have the some federal government take over the lands is daylight robbery.And the folks or the elites that drafted the decree should be sent to jail.
The issue is at the heart of the resource control debate.I have always being worried since the third wave of environmentalism that seeks to address issues like sustainability. How d you adequately compensate the owners of a resource that is non replenishable - I mean oil.And the present mode of compensation - I mean how the government values the lands it takes from the folks is scandalous.Like the report raised , issues such as economic value of the land where not factored in.
So, what happens to land that should be held in stock for the next generation - I mean it raises the issue of intergenerational equity, and this to me seems obviously a very serious issue.I am beginning to think it is time I became a fully engaged activist, since the folks we think can liberate us are not interested.
Going through the report , you see so much injustice that has been meted out to the people of the Nigerdelta.And if we continue to skirt around the real issues we may never resolve anything.
Just some thought.
I and indeed other well meaning Nigerians will oppose residency to our last blood. Indiginiety remains. People should trace their states and places of origin and use that for purposes of election, identity and other matters. I cannot stand an Igboman claiming that he has resided in Sokoto for 200 years and then wants to claim Sokoto as his place of origin. No way, let him go to Igboland and trace his roots and claim it as his place of origin. On revenue and other matters I hold my comments until I read the whole report.
Haba akuluouno - many "indigenes" have ancestors that migrated to their present locations
centuries ago. I understand what you are saying in light of the realities of ethnic prejudice in present day Nigeria, but migration and resettling have always been an integral part of African society. How do you propose people trace their places of origin if they don't know - DNA analysis :-)?
I think you have a point above.It is certainly going to be hard to deal with.
But, how fair is this assertion when we consider the nation's wealth comes from a particular source - the Niger Delta.The federation shares the resources from the region.Other regions depend on this single source for everything that is financed in the country - education and health.
The issue is part of a larger issue we should deal with as a nation.Things that should be discussed if we plan to stay together.
That is the exact picture! If Nigeria does not take care itÂ´s flag would be brought down by its soldiers. Nigeria will move only when it allows the Niger Delta to move as long as injustice continues that country will remain in coma perhaps the coma may eventually lead to death.lets watch and see.
I think that Bakassi hand over was symbolic in the sense that it has exposed Nigeria as a big powerless nation ruled by lots upon lots of cowards.