A conference and its many controversies

 

Just like most of the decisions and policies of President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, the proposed national conference has become subject of national discourse.

While many Nigerians have welcomed the development with open arms, some have questioned the timing and the motive behind the conference proposed by a President, who is believed to be preparing for a second term in 2015.

Given the Federal Government’s previous impervious stance on the perennial call for a national conference, whether sovereign or not, it came as a surprise to many, when President Jonathan, during his 53rd independence anniversary address, announced the constitution of an advisory committee for a national dialogue.

The presidential nod, coming the shortly after the Senate President, David Mark, endorsed a non-sovereign national conference, sparked suspicion within the ranks of the opposition, especially with the 2015 presidential election just about 15 months away.

Former Governor of Lagos State, Bola Tinubu, who is a leader of the All Progressives Congress, has spared no thought in questioning the motive behind Jonathan’s sudden romance with the idea of a national conference.

Tinubu has also questioned the sincerity and capability of the president to convene the conference and implement its resolutions.

He has also predicted that the conference “will not fly,” saying the advisory committee will soon find out they are on “a journey with no destination.”

But beyond the suspicion of political maneuver from Jonathan’s camp, there is also the question of how different the proposed national conference will be considering the history of such conferences in Nigeria.

The first time there was a form of conference between ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria was in 1950 when delegates from the North and the South met in Ibadan.

The 1950 Ibadan General Conference gave birth to federalism, with the regional leaders agreeing to the establishment of a federal system that allowed each of the three regions – North, West, and East – develop at their pace.

In 1953, a constitutional conference was convened in London and it led a federal constitution – Lyttleton Constitution – which gave the regions significant autonomy.

The year 1957 saw another constitutional conference, also in London, which prepared the country for independence.

There was also the Constituent Assembly of 1978 which gave birth to the 1979 Constitution and the presidential system of government.

Many analysts believe the constitutional or national conferences under Gen. Sani Abacha, from June 1994 to June 1995 and the one under President Goodluck Jonathan in 2005, made no clear impact in moving the country forward.  This was because most of their resolutions were not implemented.

The frustration that followed the outcome of those conferences intensified the call for a sovereign national conference that would determine if all ethnic groups should remain united in one Nigeria and if so, on what terms?

For most of the ethnic nationalities, there is no better time to make that decision, considering the current state of the nation – the North battered by Boko Haram insurgency, while kidnapping and oil bunkering plagued the South.

Some have also argued that the fact the 1914 amalgamation of the northern and southern Nigeria by the British colonialists will be 100 years next year, makes this time appropriate for a conference, which would have the powers to undo the amalgamation, if necessary.

But according to the President, that is not to be. Though he had promised that there will be no no-go areas, he insisted that the conference will by no means lead to the disintegration of the country.

Jonathan last Tuesday said the outcome of the national conference would not be final, noting that it would be sent to the National Assembly, for vetting and inclusion in the ongoing Constitution amendment.

Analysing the proposed national conference, the founder of the Centre for Value in Leadership, Prof. Pat Utomi, told  that a national dialogue was desirable, but noted that there were reasons to doubt the sincerity of the Jonathan administration.

He said, “We should not mix up the point some people are making with the value of a national conference itself. I don’t think the people who are saying it’s a distraction do not want a dialogue. They are only saying the motive and timing may not be for the right purpose.

“Let me give you an example. I was in Warri during the senatorial by-election. I don’t think a government that is interested in dialogue will do what the Federal Government did in Warri that Saturday. The military garrisoned Warri. I was held at a check point for two and half hours. I was calling every general I knew in Nigeria. When you behave like that and you say you want dialogue, people are bound to be suspicious of your motives.

“What frightens me the most about Nigeria is that ordinary Nigerians do not understand the motives of power players. When I go on Facebook, I see how naïve Nigerians are in their conversation. They don’t know the character of the political class in Nigeria.”

Utomi, however said there was also danger in pushing too hard against a suspected ulterior motive of Jonathan’s administration and in the process, push away something important – an opportunity for Nigerians to discuss Nigeria.

He said for the conference to yield any result, it should be structured in such a way that the National Assembly will accept its duty to enact the outcome of the conference into law.

“Otherwise, we could try a revolution; dissolve all institutions of the state, and let the people have a meeting that is sovereign. Or, we can subject ourselves to the will of a sovereign power. For example, we can tell the British that 100 years has expired, that they should come and preside over the establishment of a new order. Nationalists will frown at this but it is not an impracticable thing. However, I’m not calling for it. It’s just an option,” he said.

He added that Nigerians could invite the United Nations to work out a new order for Nigeria on the basis of the expiration of basis of existence of the country.

Similarly, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development, Dr. Otive Igbuzor, said given the character of the National Assembly, it is worrisome that it would have the opportunity to vet the outcome of the conference.

He said, “I’m worried that things might go wrong if the outcome of the conference goes back to the National Assembly, given the kind of National Assembly we’ve had in the past 14 years. If the response of the National Assembly to the things Nigerians voted for during the constitution review is anything to go by, then the worries are legitimate.

“In 1963, there was a political conference by all political actors around July, which decided that Nigeria should go republic. In September, the National Assembly gave it effect to law. Ideally, you would expected that if Nigerians have a conference and they agree on how the country should move forward, the National Assembly should give it effect to law by doing what the people had said. But our reality is that wishes and aspirations of the people are at times different from what the political elite want.”

Igbuzor, also complained about the timing, saying the kind of fundamental, structural, and electoral changes that the country needed were not likely to be concluded before 2015.

He added that since that there had been an election in 2011, a 100 per cent sovereign national conference was not possible but that a law could be enacted that would make the National Assembly duty-bound to translate the decisions of the conference into legal provisions.

However, in spite of the suspicion and imperfections, ethnic nationalities have started outlining their demands in preparation for the presidential advisory committee led by Sen. Femi Okurounmu, which has laid out a plan to visit all geopolitical zones to collate suggestions.