|
Appraisal Of The 2006 Provisional Census Figures By S. A. Tanko Yakasai Forwarded By salihu isah
Since the release of the provisional census figures by the National Population Commission, there has been mixed reactions from a number of Nigerians regarding the acceptability or otherwise of the figures released. This is to be expected. But statistics are not dismissed by a wave of hands. To dismiss any statistics, cogent reasons must be adduced, supported by correct and authentic alternative data in place of the disputed one. Some people simply picked the figure for Kano state to cast aspersion on the integrity of the whole exercise without comparing the 2006 census figure with those of 1991. For ease of reference, I would like to give the following figures for the two states in 1991 census that put Kano ahead of Lagos. Kano had 5,810,470 representing 6.52 and Lagos had 5,725, 116 representing 6.43% of the total population of the country respectively. Besides, Kano did not suffer the loss of population which visited Lagos as a result of privatization policy of the Federal Government which led to the massive retrenchment of employees by organizations like the defunct National Electric Power Authority (NEPA), Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and other major employers of labour which affected the population of Lagos adversely. Another factor that militated against Lagos in the census was congestion, which led to many people working in Lagos to reside in the neighboring states, particularly Ogun. It was for the congestion that Ogun State has registered the same growth rate with Kano.
Historical Background Information
Before discussing the 2006 provisional figures of the Nigerian population census, it may be helpful to present the brief account of the history of population census in Nigeria for the benefit of those who may need to know. The first census that took place in Nigeria was carried out in 1911, some three years before the creation of Nigeria as a single political entity we know today. In that exercise, the population of Nigeria was put at 16,054,000. The figure for what was known as Northern Protectorate, which is the present day Northern Nigeria, was put at 8,120,000 representing 50.6%. S. A. Aluko later disputed this percentage and put a figure of a little over 51% for the Northern Protectorate, as compared with the combined population of the Southern and Northern Protectorates put together, thus according to him the Southern Protectorate had approximately something a little over 48%. However, it should be noted that the 1911 exercise was not an actual headcount, but an estimate of the total number of people living in the two separate territories known as Northern and Southern protectorates as they were known at that time. Actual headcount during that population census took place only in a few places in the colonies.
The next population census that took place was conducted in 1921 some seven years after the amalgamation of the two protectorates into Nigeria in 1914. The figures obtained during that headcount put the Nigerian population at 18,720,000 out of which the North had 10,560,000 people representing 56.4% of the total population of Nigeria . At the time of amalgamation, Northern Protectorate occupied an area amounting to 79.6 percent of the entire country while Southern Protectorate covered the remaining 20.4% of the country’s land mass.
In 1931, another national headcount was conducted in Nigeria some ten years after 1921. The outcome of that exercise put the Nigerian population at 20,056,000. Out of that total, the North had 11,440,000 inhabitants representing 57% of the total Nigerian population. Many people lay more reliability on the 1931 population census in Nigeria because the figures were arrived at through the application of the actual tax records in the whole country rather than mere estimation as was the case in 1911.
The Beginning of Census Controversy
Because of the Second World War, no headcount was conducted in Nigeria in 1941 until 1951-53. This census was known as 1953 Census. The population of Nigeria as a result of that headcount was given as 30,402,000. Out of that total, the North had 16,835,000 people representing 55.4% of the total Nigerian population while the percentage for the South was put at 45.6%. This was the first time when the result of the population census was at a later date subjected to unfounded controversy with a number of southern politicians accusing the British colonial administration of tilting the figures to favour the North to give the region some electoral advantages. But that argument cannot hold water as the North was given only 50% representation to the House of Representatives in the 1951 general election conducted under McPherson Constitution, very much against the protestation by the Northern leaders who felt that the North was not given its due share as compared with its own share of the nation’s population, which has all along been above 55% in all the previously conducted population census other than the one for 1911 which was a mere estimation. Representation into the national legislature on population basis was only introduced in 1954 under the Littleton Constitution, which came into being many months after the 1953 census was already completed. It is worthy of note that the headcount for 1953 census was conducted in the North from May to July, 1952, a year before the 1953 constitutional crises which led to the holding of London Constitutional Conference which gave rise to the emergence of the Littleton Constitution of 1954.
As a matter of fact, the 1953 constitutional crises came during the budget session in the House of Representatives in April that year when the population census being conducted in the South was almost completed. It was too late in the day for anyone to manipulate the outcome of the exercise in anybody’s favour at that stage. It is therefore out of place for anybody to insinuate that the British which has all along treated the North unfairly throughout the period of representative government under their administration by denying the region its rightful representation both at the national legislature and central cabinet would influence the outcome of the 1953 population census to confer any electoral advantage in favour of the North.
Littleton Constitution was the product of the London Constitutional Conference held from August 1953 to the beginning of 1954. The London Conference itself was a product of the 1953 constitutional crises in Nigeria and it was that Conference which recommended the introduction of a single member constituency upon which federal constituencies were delimitated on population basis. It was my party, the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) that spearheaded the campaign for the introduction of a single member constituency in Nigeria . That campaign was started after the 1951 general election in Nigeria when the victory won by the party in many provinces in the North were wiped out through the application of the notorious 10% injection granted to the Native Authorities in the electoral college system operated in that year’s election. The election was conducted through multiple member constituencies.
Post Independence Census
The next census was conducted between 1962 and 1963. It is known as the 1963 Census. The result of that headcount was put at 55,670,000 persons out of whom a figure of 28,809,000 people representing 53.4% was credited to the North, while the South retained 46.6% of the nation’s population. It was the first headcount conducted by Nigerian after the country had gained independence in 1960. The 1963 census though adopted was greeted by controversy. An attempt was made during the military era under the administration of General Yakubu Gowon to conduct another headcount in 1973, but the attempt was aborted due to another controversy and the then government avoided the conduct to prevent further crises as it had just experienced civil war. Since then there was no population census in Nigeria until 1991. The total number of people in Nigeria recorded in that exercise was 88,992,220. Out of that total, the North has 47,343,861 representing 53.2% while the South had 41,648,359 representing 46.8% almost the same as the percentage for both 1963 and 2006 censuses figures respectively.
It is interesting to note that the share for the North of the Nigeria ’s population for the year 1931 and 1953 population censuses were consistently between the range of 56.4% and 55.4% respectively. While that of the year 1963 through to 2006 were consistently ranged from 53.4% to 53.5% respectively. Some people argued that the disparity between the shares of the North during the colonial era to the time when Nigerians were conducting the exercise was largely due to the fact that the British were probably more experienced in handling population headcount.
Comparative Analysis of 1991 and 2006 Censuses
After the publication of the provisional figures for the year 2006 population census by the National Population Commission, Thisday newspaper was kind enough not only to publish both the 1991 figures and 2006 provisional results of the census together. But, the paper also published the annual growth rate that formed the basis from which the population of Nigeria rose to a little over 140 million. I wish to reproduce the comparative figures as published by the newspaper below for ease of reference:
After careful analysis, one cannot but arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the annual growth rate recorded in the 2006 population census is evenly spread for the whole country. The annual growth rate ranges from 9.3 to 2.7. Apart from FCT that recorded growth rate of 9.3, only one state, Yobe, recorded 3.5 growth rate. 6 states recorded 3.4growth rate; Three states Bauchi, Borno and Niger out of the six are in the North and the other three Akwa Ibom, Oyo and Rivers are in the South. Two states Kano from the North and Ogun from the South recorded 3.3 growth rate. Six states, 4 from the South namely Lagos , Imo, Delta and Osun and two, Gombe and Zamfara from the North recorded 3.2 growth rate. Two states, one, Ekiti from the South and one, Kebbi from the North recorded 3.1 growth rate.
Similarly, nine states recorded 3.0 growth rate; two of the number, Enugu and Ondo from the South and seven, Benue, Kaduna, Katsina, Kogi, Kwara, Nassarawa and Sokoto from the North. Five states recorded growth rate of 2.9; Three; Adamawa, Jigawa and Taraba from the North while the remaining three; Bayelsa, Cross River and Ebonyi are from the South. Two states that recorded growth rate of 2.8 Anambra and Ebonyi are from the South. Interestingly, three states; Abia, Edo from the South and Plateau from the North recorded the lowest growth rate of 2.7; one of them, Plateau is the home state of the chairman of the National Population Commission (NPC), Chief Sumaila Danko Makama. If it were possible to manipulate the exercise he would not have allowed his state to be amongst the states that registered the lowest growth rate.
Conclusion
Going through the above analysis, it is not reasonable to accuse the National Population Commission of any bias against either the North or the South given the balanced nature of the annual growth rate recorded in the census, which are basically the same for both the North and South. Besides, the ratio in percentage term between the population figure for the North and the figure for the South reflects almost their respective share in the national identity card registration carried out in the year 2003. In that exercise, out of the total number of 52,107,781 Nigerian adults registered, the North had a figure of 28,383,135 people, representing 54.47% of the total while the South was credited with a total of 23,724,646 representing 45.53%. This figure is also consistent with all the results of the population censuses carried out in Nigeria since 1963. Almost the same position was recorded in the voter registration conducted for the 2003 general elections.
With the present result of the provisional figures, which contained statistics for the states and the overall national total, no one can reasonably fault the 2006 census result. We should all await the statistics of the enumeration areas and local governments to determine the ultimate acceptability or otherwise of the provisional figures as released by the population commission. While I am unable to get the current growth rate for our neighboring countries, their growth rate for 1991 was almost the same as that of Nigeria of 2.9 with the Republic of Niger having the growth rate of (3.6), Benin Republic (2.9) and 2.6 for Chad.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the National Population Commission and its technical partners for a good job. I would also like to congratulate President Olusegun Obasanjo for giving the country an acceptable census to both the majority of Nigerians and members of the international community. I would also like to urge Nigerians who wish to comment on the provisional figures released to be guided in their comments by objectivity and patriotism. Those who have cause to disagree with the provisional figures released, should avail themselves of that opportunity and present their case to the Census Tribunal which the government is duty bound to set up to handle such complaints. S. A. Tanko Yakasai 20th January, 2006
|