Social Justice and Resource Control in Nigeria

Social Justice and Resource Control in Nigeria: A Crisis of Legitimacy

Banu az-Zubair, M. K

Human societies are usually more or less self-sufficient associations regulated by a common conception of justice and aimed at advancing the good of its members. As co-operatives of mutual advantage, these associations are characterised by conflicts and identity of interests. Social co-operation makes possible a better life for all than any would have if everyone were to try to live by his own efforts, hence the constant negotiation of identity of interests. Nevertheless, men are not indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by their joint labours are distributed, for in order to further their own aims each prefers a larger to a lesser share. The set of principles for choosing between the social arrangements, which determine this division and for underwriting a consensus as to the proper distributive shares, is social justice. Perhaps, the most direct conception of social justice would be to maximise the over all good for the majority of the members of the society. Most advanced world economies are to a large extent fairly homogeneous racially, culturally, religiously or in all these categories, or there was a dominant race, religion or culture prior to later immigrations of others, who then assimilate into the larger culture. It is to ensure such homogeneity, even if superficially, that recent immigrants to the West are required to master the language of their chosen state before being granted citizenship. This historical accident, coupled with the relatively few antagonistic interests, has enabled the emergence in these societies of fairly acceptable rules of social contract. African countries, particularly Nigeria, with their multiplicity of ethnic and tribal identities, and their entrenched alliance and allegiance to the tribe or ethnic group, might not appear easily amenable to the give-and-take of social co-operatives, due mainly to the enormity of the interests to negotiate amongst the various ethnic groups. However, it is precisely in such situation that the ‘utilitarian ideal’ is most appropriate. Why should not, or rather do not, African societies act precisely on this principle? The answer is not far to seek. Unlike the developed countries, which evolved into nation states through many years of wars, with the territories drawn and re-drawn; the Nigerian project was forged and maintained through the monopoly of political violence by an alien power and the acquiescence of the local leadership, whose sole concern was economic expedience of the project; it sought what was good for itself, with total disregard to the wishes or aspiration of the constituent peoples. However, it did not escape the alien power that the nation they have forged, of distinct peoples of various religion and culture and historical consciousness may yet unravel, when they leave. This much could be discerned from the comment of the then Governor of Nigeria, Sir Hugh, who said:

“Assuming the impossible were feasible…that this collection of self-contained and mutually independent native states separated from one another by differences of history and tradition and ethnological, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers were indeed capable of being welded into a single homogeneous nation… a deadly blow would thereby be struck at the root of national self-government in Nigeria…”

Legitimacy of Authority

That Nigeria is not homogeneous and can never be is very obvious; nevertheless, the heterogeneity of a State racially, culturally or religiously ought not to be an impediment to its success as a united country, there are many examples of culturally and religiously heterogeneous successful states, such as Malaysia. In fact Malaysia offers a good example on how to manage diversity in a united state. Politically, the imperial colonial rulers instituted Federalism, as a form of government in Nigeria, in an attempt to solve the political and constitutional problems arising from the heterogeneous nature of its society, and economically, it was set up as a welfare state. Recently, people have been offering various definition of what constitutes federalism, including such misnomer as fiscal federalism. However, at the root of the current crisis of social justice in Nigeria is the problem of ‘state legitimacy’. The generality of the masses and their local leaders do not accept the legitimacy of the Nigerian State and, economic and/or political self-interest of the various ethnic groups fundamentally drive this agitation. The search for the ultimate basis for social consensus and societal integration has dominated many branches of sociological theory, particularly functionalism, since the publication of Talcott Parsons’ ‘The Structure of Social Action’. This is, of course, not an issue that is peculiar to sociology; it has provided a perennial focus in political philosophy in the long history of the critique of the Hobbesian theory of social contract. Northern Nigeria, at least the Caliphal states, has been Islamic, in the full sense of the term for several centuries and long before the coming of the imperial powers; a complete system peculiar to its history, tradition, and religion. Because in Islam, the antithesis between the individual and the State or the government is not recognised, and no need is therefore felt to reconcile and abolish this antithesis. Islam knows no distinction between State and ‘Church’, so to speak. In Islam there is no doctrine of temporal end, which belongs to the State and the eternal end, which belongs to, and is the prerogative of the ‘church’. No balance between the two, each equal to the other when acting in its own sphere; each equally dependent on the other when acting in the sphere of the other and no tension between the Community and the ‘church’ as custodian of the universal common elements in human existence. The basis of the State, for the Muslim, is ideological, not political, territorial, or ethnical, and the primary purpose of the State is to defend and protect the Faith, not the State. In the native states, such as in the South, the Obas, kings, and Obis have routinely been pressed to provide guidance and solutions to the issues of social consensus and integration which, in Parsonian terminology, ‘converge’ on the crucial role of common values, internalised beliefs and social approval. The philosophical dilemma of the individual versus society is thus resolved, on the one hand in the North, through faith based shared values, and on the other hand in the South, through institutions of cultural transmission and internalised norms. The disenchantment with Nigeria as a forced association precludes the possibility of any normative legitimation of the state. In the absence of moral and legal legitimacy, loyalty to the state comes to rely on coercive measures and on certain irrational commitments in the national citizenry, which are necessarily unpredictable and unstable. The creation of Nigeria as a modern federal state demands allegiance to an abstract authority, which means further fragmentation of the institutions of cultural transmission and values. These processes of fragmentation destroyed the old unity of private and public space within the ethnic milieu. The destruction of the political qua moral authority, which was based on the Sultan in the North and the Obas, kings and Obis in the South, was replaced by charismatic leaders such as the Sardauna in the North, Awolowo in the South-west and Azikiwe in the South-east. Charismatic authority rests on the extraordinary personal grace of the leader and traditional authority on hallowed customs. The incessant call for restructuring of the country by the masses is desperation, phenotypic of those who have lost security and certainty of the tribe and ethnic group, and must be viewed as an instinctive yearning for the re-birth of the ethnic enclaves. However, those who are leading these calls are doing so for entirely different reasons, as according to Dr Yusuf Bala Usman: “When the rest of the world is combating racism and moving nationalism…these selfish, backward, and narrow-minded individuals and groupings are embracing and promoting racism in Nigeria…reducing the national citizens of a Nigeria they have fragmented to ethnic serfdom, in sovereign ethnic republics, or ethnic confederating units of a Nigerian Confederation”.

A modern state, with its spheres of jurisdiction, bureaucratic administration, and hierarchies of officials, rest ultimately on grounds indifferent to either faith or traditional customs. Following the demise of one the charismatic leaders and a civil war, Nigeria was carved up into states, obliterating the previous regional arrangement, further fragmenting the quasi-homogeneity of the regions. The states then become the constituting units of federal Nigeria. The federal system is the principle of autonomy in heteronomy, of independence in interdependence. It is a system that symbolises a form of political integration based on a bond, which at once voluntary and restrictive, between several regional territorial entities, a bond which ensures that, in spite of the diversity of the cultural, political or religious, it will remain unified as a super state. The federal principles are, therefore, concerned with self-rule as well as shared rule, with the constituting states exercising jurisdiction in matters within their territory and competence, so long as these matters do not adversely affect the rights of other constituting member states. In a broad sense, federalism involves the vinculum of individuals, groups and polities in lasting but limited union, in such a way as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while maintaining the respective integrity of all parties. A federal system, therefore, is made up of a general government (not a central government) called the Federal government, and regional or state governments. Political, legal and other derivative powers are divided such that the general and state governments are each, within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent, and in such a way that each is sovereign in its own sphere.

A federal state, therefore, is not a sovereign state, in so far as supreme, omni competent political power is no longer established within it, but only shared powers. The power relation between the federating units (federated states and the federal state) is therefore that of different and co-ordinated orders of government, not a multiple tier with hierarchically subordinate power. The federal state, or federal government, is a general government, which is not a central government dominating a periphery of state governments, but is rather a government that does not belong to a specific territory and represents, both domestically and abroad, the abstract whole linked by a federal agreement made by the society of individuals within it. A federal government is merely a government charged with particular functions and defined by a specific relationship to individuals; it is, as such, equal in status to the regional or state governments to which it is linked constitutionally. The states or regional governments are in turn, local authorities and bearers, within the federal state, of the collective rights established in particular territories by the history, culture and peculiarities of the regions they represent. In short, while this may imply the annihilation of the ethnic and faith based political authority, it does not affect intra-state political and legal arrangement. The constituting states can create their own Constitution and laws that are at variance to the federal Constitution, insofar as the laws are not part of those delegated to the federal government and are outside the jurisdiction of the federal Constitution. This will eliminate the ‘legitimation deficit’ resulting from the imposition of secular laws or religious laws on those who do not want it. Thus, the federal government is not in charge of the federated units, and the hierarchy which exists between the states and the federal government is not a power hierarchy, but a value hierarchy; which is to say that at the functional level the federal state is not superior in power, but only in value, for, at the lower value level represented by the territorial level of the federated states, the federal state is itself inferior in power. Thus, the states recognise and submit to the federal government’s authority in the superior value functions, which have been entrusted to it, thereby bringing the country into international political order. Value functions, such as establishing an armed force, the national economy, immigration, postal service, and external affairs are functions delegated to the federal government in order for the country to participate and gain from world political order. It is a power delegated to it by the federating units, and executes this power solely as a representative of these units, not a superior government per se. However, at the lower level of the political functions peculiar to the territorialised communities which federated entities represent, the federal level recognises their authority and submits to this in its turn. This is what distinguishes a federal system from a decentralised unitary state, or a unitary state.

Resource Control

The peculiar problem of Nigerian politics is the disappearance of conscientious leadership and absence of a politically matured and economically secured middle class, who would serve as counterweight to the mediocrity and sycophants who pass for politicians. Federalism is the definition of a political system of government, it is not, as wrongly claimed by some people in the South, an economic concept. Economically, Nigeria is a capitalist-welfare state, as opposed to a purely capitalist or purely welfarist state. As characteristic of this economic arrangement, certain aspects of the economy is the exclusive preserve of the federal government, this includes the control of natural resources, such as land and mineral deposits. The land in any state of the federation is by law and, as enshrined in the Land Use Act and, entrenched in the Nigerian Constitution, belongs to the Nigerian people and is only held in trust by the state governments. By definition, a natural resource is a resource for which no ones labour is involved for its existence, it is a resource that nature has endowed the location in which it is found. Farm produce is not a natural resource, insofar as the produce requires seeding, human labour and know-how to generate it. The former did not require the agency of a mortal to put it in the ground as it was already there, while the latter, requires the agency of a mortal to put in the ground, to cultivate and harvest it. Any natural resource, therefore, found within the geographical boundary of Nigeria belongs to the Nigerian people as a whole, since sovereignty over these lands and their mineral resources belongs to the Nigerian people, while the farm produce belongs to the farmer. Professor A. Yadudu has cited several examples in the world, with this type of arrangement. In a purely capitalist state, such as the United States, however, individuals or businesses may prospect for mineral deposits on the lands they owned anywhere in the country and sell whatever they obtained from their labour, as the land belongs to the owner not the government. The state and federal governments may levy taxes on the businesses, but they do not own the mineral deposits or control those resources. This is the distinction that those clamouring for the so-called ‘resource control’ failed to appreciate. It is totally illogical to compare what is wrought by the hand to that which nature has provided. This, then, mean that the derivation which those so-called ‘oil producing states’ have been receiving is illegal and extortionist. Nevertheless, nothing stops the federal government from selling off the NNPC, and granting exploration licences to any citizen who has oil company to prospect for oil anywhere. There would then be no derivation accruing to anyone, including the government, or the so-called ‘oil producing states’.

Amongst the proponents of ‘resource control’, one mentioned the fact that the constituting states in the United States do not have the same level of resource, that some are ricer than the others because of the resource they control. The fact of the matter is that, California, which has no oil, is the richest state, while Texas that has oil is not. The reason is that, the state government does not control the resource coming from the oil sale, its only benefit is the tax it gets from the oil companies. California has the largest concentration of businesses and working population from which it gets large revenue, hence its level of resource compared to the others. It should be stated here, also, that not only does each state have different tax rate it charges its citizens, they differ on what is taxable. If any state in Nigeria wants to get larger revenue compared to the others, it must do what it takes to attract businesses into its region from which it can levy taxes, but it cannot do so by stealing what belongs to everyone.

Social Justice

As previously mentioned, social co-operation makes possible a better life for all than any would have if everyone were to try to live by his own efforts, and, also, that men are not indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by their joint labours are distributed, for in order to further their own aims each prefers a larger to a lesser share. However, it is clear that neither oil production nor agricultural products result from our joint labour. The oil is jointly owned, while the farm produce belongs to the farmer. The ‘labour’ that is jointly ours is the tax the government may levy on the oil companies and the farmers; the government must share its revenue equitably amongst the various states in accordance with social justice. One of the arguments that is being advanced for the demand for resource control, and that has become its proponents rallying call, is the environmental degradation of the Niger Delta area, as a result of the oil exploration. Naturally one empathises with the damage done to the environment, however, not just in the Niger Delta but anywhere for that matter; environmental degradation should be a matter of concern to all, as the effect on the ecosystem has serious ramifications beyond the area of degradation. Similarly, one is terribly concerned at the expanding desertificaton of the arable lands in the far north and the Mine pits of the plateau region. This is a matter of National concern, and it is the responsibility of the federal government to put capital resources in the environmental ministry to enable them tackle the problems comprehensively. Furthermore, the federal government ought to make agreement with the oil companies to take direct responsibility for the environmental damage caused by their activities. The oil companies should rehabilitate the areas so far damaged where possible and compensate those in areas beyond rehabilitation. All compensation should go directly to the victims, to be processed either through a special government agency or the environmental ministry.

Nevertheless, the social imbalance in Nigeria is not limited to environmental neglect alone, it affects various spheres of national development. Some of the most glaring is the inadequate attention the federal government gives to agricultural development, education and employment. While the oil companies destroy the fishing and farming areas of the Niger Delta, desertification is eroding and destroying significant size of arable lands in the far North of the country. One of the major crises confronting education and development in Nigeria is the glaring disparity in enrolment between the North and South of the country at both primary and secondary schools. The disparity becomes obvious when secondary school pupils are applying to sit for the JAMB exams that will enable them gain admission to the tertiary institutions in the country. According to the Registrar/Chief Executive of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Professor Bello Ahmed Salim, the disparity between the number of candidates applying to sit for the JAMB has never changed in favour of the South since the Board came into existence. Presenting an analysis of application by states, Professor Salim announced that in 2004, 838051 candidates returned completed application forms for the 2004 UME, with 91,982 applicants from Imo State alone. Amongst those states with highest applicants are, Delta State had 70,496 applicants, Anambra, 52,468; Edo, 52,280; Ogun, 47,180; and Akwa Ibom, 46,232 applicants. Six states had the lowest applicants, and invariably they were all from the North; Kebbi, 2,601; Bauchi, 2,557; Sokoto, 2,193; Zamfara, 1,810; Jigawa, 1,525; and Yobe, 1,438. This abysmal showing of northern candidates is not peculiar to the 2004 UME, according to Prof. Salim; there has not been any remarkable improvement in the northern enrolment over the years. He said, “400194 candidates wrote the examination in 1999, the combined states of Borno, Katsina, Taraba, Sokoto, Kebbi and Yobe had only 5,619 candidates, representing only 1.32 percent of the total candidates”. He further revealed that, all the 19 Northern states combined had only 65,000 candidates, just slightly greater than candidates presented by Imo state alone in the same year.

Various reports have recently appeared that seem to suggest a deliberate attempt to marginalise a particular segment of the society in employment into critical government parastatals and security agencies; at the same time a particular segment enjoys a monopoly over economic resources; it controls the legitimate means of political power, and controls the means of violence. The history of any given society is complex, and it is marked by an unstable struggle between the various groups to dominate and consolidate the various dimensions of power relations, it is incumbent on the government, for the sake of social justice, to ensure that no one group, or segment, has full control over these means of power. Those calling for rotational presidency amongst the various so-called geo-political zones miss the point; power does not rest on the presidency in a properly functioning democracy, it rests with the legislators, who are the representatives of the people from all the regions. It is undemocratic and counter-productive to require that every region must produce a president; otherwise, we might as well leave the election for president to the zone to produce it. The presidency must be left to the choice of the people; however, the cabinet posts must be equitably shared amongst the various regions. The crucial problem in Nigerian politics is the political maturity of the national leadership, that is, the ability of the national leadership to judge what is in the lasting political and economic interest of the nation. Social justice is to equitably allocate resources to what is in the overall interest of the generality of the citizens of this great country. The current debate at the National Political Reform Conference on the amount of derivation that would be given to the Niger Delta is illegal and counter-productive to the overall well being of the rest of the country. The Niger Delta not only does not have the right to demand a special derivation from the general fund; its demand for 50% -100% derivation is short-sighted and utterly greedy. We have only one country, and we must collectively strive for justice for all; we must oppose those who seek to destroy the nation, either physically, or through selfishness or greed to control the means of power to the disadvantage of the rest of us.