The Basis of Our Unity

This blog post is made possible by TARP Africa’s partnership with the Citizens Classroom.

---

Why a Federal System of Government is Necessary in Nigeria

In our last article, we started dissecting the Federal Republic of Nigeria by defining federalism, stating the conditions necessitating a federation and then giving a breakdown of the primary structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In this article, we will attempt to go beyond the technicalities by explaining why Nigeria practices a federal system because it is pertinent to understanding the calls for restructuring and true federalism.

Distinct and Diverse

There is no doubt Nigerians are diverse people with different tongues, cultures, orientations and religions. We would be living in denial to sweep our differences under the carpet as being of little consequence. Even in pre-colonial times, governments operated in diverse ways among the people of Nigeria. For example, the northernmost parts of the country had an advanced administrative system, including a well-established taxation system. Governments of the southwest were centralized, but taxation was indirect as the people merely paid tributes. In the southeast, kingship was uncommon, much less direct taxation.

Furthermore, while the Emirs in the northernmost parts seemed to have absolute powers, the same could not be said of the Kings of the southwest, who were subject to checks and balances to curb any abuse of power, nor of the southeast, where there was no controlling authority over all the people.

Nonetheless, the territory known as Nigeria did not remain a land of independent emirates, kingdoms, empires and chiefdoms. From 1861, British influence began to modify the structure of the peoples and nations within the territory such that by 1900, when the British government assumed direct authority, Nigeria split into three units for administrative purposes:

1. The Protectorate of Northern Nigeria
2. The Protectorate of Southern Nigeria
3. The Colony and Protectorate of Lagos

By 1906, the above structure collapsed as follows:

1. The Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria
2. The Protectorate of Northern Nigeria.

And by 1914, both units were unified into one entity known as Nigeria.

However, the union did not necessarily mean unity, as several events post-amalgamation will show, for example, the issue of taxation. Direct tax by the British gained acceptance in the northernmost parts of the country because an established tax system existed but was rejected in the south, as shown in the Adubi War of 1918 or the Aba Women’s Riot of 1929. There were also several boundary disputes and tribal conflicts that indicated that Nigerians were far from being united. Besides, under Fredrick Lugard, as Governor-General, the Northern Province of Nigeria and Southern Province of Nigeria were administered separately, with their local leaders having no forum for dialogue.

Why Federalism?

If you are a history nerd like some of us are at CitizensClassroom, you will find delight in scanning through pages of Constitutional Conference Reports, and in those reports, from 1949 – 2001, you will see that our leaders and representatives have continually chosen federalism as a way to maintain harmony despite our known differences. Federalism, by nature, recognizes the diversity in pluralistic societies and seeks to unite different peoples within a framework that ensures unity in diversity while supporting the distinctiveness of the diverse people. Professor Abiola Ojo, a professor emeritus of law, said:

Federalism is no doubt an expensive, legalistic and abrasive system of government. No one would have it if there is a feasible alternative. What has been responsible for the enduring nature of federalism in Nigeria, even under military administrations, is that it was a system consciously adopted by Nigerians not as a matter of convenience but as a means of survival as a nation.

Ojo A., ‘Constitutional Law and Military Rule in Nigeria’, (Ibadan: Evans Brothers (Nigeria Publishers) Limited, 1987) pp. 184 – 185

Unity in Diversity

Although there is a general agreement that federalism is best suited for a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country like Nigeria, it is pertinent to note that Nigeria did not begin as a federation. The system of government in colonial times was unitary until 1954 when federalism officially began in Nigeria under the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954. The Lyttleton Constitution is federal because it guarantees the constitutional division of powers between the Regions and a Central Government. Also, legislative, executive and judicial arms existed on a regional and central level. When you hear some Nigerians say in op-eds or on the television: “Let us go back to the Regions,” understand that they speak with nostalgia for that time in Nigerian history when the three regions – Northern, Western and Eastern were given powers through the Constitution to grow and develop at their own pace, considering the politics, history, laws and customs of their people. For example, during the 1949 Constitutional Conference to review the Richard Constitution of 1946, the following recommendations were made by the Regions, among others:

REGION	RECOMMENDATION
Northern	1. Federal system. 2. Bi-cameral legislature at the regional level (House of Chiefs and House of Representatives).
Western	1. Federal system (but regions should be formed on an ethnic or linguistic basis, considering Yorubas in Kabba and Ilorin and Ibos in Warri and Benin). 2. Bi-cameral legislature at the regional level (House of Chiefs and House of Representatives). 3. Local police to be retained and improved.
Eastern	1. Federalism (where powers would be delegated to the regions by the central legislature). 2. The bi-cameral legislature is only at the central level.
Lagos	1. Federal system (each region given a measure of internal autonomy). 2. Unitary judiciary.

The table shows that although all the Regions and the Central Authority (Lagos) agreed to a federal system, they had different opinions on what it should look like. Each of the Regions and Lagos brought recommendations based on the needs and aspirations of their people. When Nigeria officially became a federation, the Northern and Western regions had a two-chamber legislature, the House of Chiefs and the House of Assembly. On the other hand, the Eastern region had a single-chamber legislature. As we mentioned earlier, kings with a measure of power and control existed in the northernmost and western parts of the country, but kingship was rare in the east. So it made sense that the Northern and Western Regions wanted a House of Chiefs and a House of Assembly, and the Eastern Region rejected the idea of a House of Chiefs. That is a clear example of unity in diversity.

Minority Fears

Although it seemed like the three Regions were minding their business and developing the way they wanted, the minority tribes within these regions were constantly agitating for autonomy. The fear of domination by one group or the other has been a real fear expressed by many Nigerians since amalgamation. If it is not the fear of Islamisation, it is the fear of an Igbo planet, and so on. In fact, minority agitations were the basis for the Willink Commission on Minorities, tasked in 1957 to hear their complaints and make recommendations on the way forward.

That is why many of those calling for restructuring along regional lines are misguided in their approach towards solving the problems of our federalism. The ‘magic’ of the regions was not merely the existence of a central government with three Regions growing at their own pace but in clearly listed areas of responsibility between the central government (at Lagos) and the Regions, including a well-defined method of sharing revenue.

Thirty-six States and a Federal Capital Territory

It has been seventy years since federalism officially began in Nigeria. We have moved from three Regions to thirty-six States and a Federal Capital Territory at Abuja. The question of federalism in Nigeria is not on its usefulness but on how to meet the aspirations of millions of Nigerians with properly practised federalism. Undergirding this question is the clamour for restructuring (devolution of powers), that is, constitutionally allowing the States to determine certain matters, like policing, for example, the way that would best fit the social, cultural and political desires of the people within that State, and also, greater financial autonomy for the States.

To satisfactorily answer the thorny questions of Nigerian Federalism, a cursory look will be taken into what went wrong between those dreamy years and now. To do that, we will, in another article, examine the extent to which military administrations stunted the development of federalism and the degree to which powers are shared unequally between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Government of States.

---