Dialogue On a Sovereign National Conference

Leonard Karshima Shilgba, PhD

Sequel to my article, “Nigeria: Deaf Rulers Behind the Curtain” I received messages from some readers; some of them requested for my article, “A Manual for a Sovereign National Conference”, which I referred to in the article. An internet search of the title will fetch the article for the reader’s use. I have decided to provide a dialogue on this inevitable subject—a sovereign national conference for all of Nigeria’s nationalities; it is inevitable because without such a conference, I see no future for Nigeria. And this disturbs me without end, not least because of my children:

Preamble: Thought-provoking questions are needed to chart a clear way forward. My attempt is to provoke such questions, and it is an attempt to move from the theoretical to the practical in our quest to re-structure both geographically and fiscally our union. Accordingly, mine is simply "a manual" and definitely, not "the manual" for a sovereign national conference. Let me provide my ideas, just ideas, and hope they shall approximate answers to questions that may arise in your mind, my compatriots.

Very early in the year (2011), I was invited to give a talk at Akure on the 2011 elections. I understood then what other nationalities in Nigeria, especially the Lower Niger Federation (The Igbos and the south-south peoples) and the Yorubas were doing. Those groups already have their draft constitutions, and what one may call informal armies. We do not build a house from up downward; we build from the ground. It is my considered belief that a constitution that would guarantee genuine growth and unhindered progress for Nigeria is that which grows out of draft constitutions of the various nationalities, which are derogatorily called Tribes. Now to your questions:

Question (Q): Prof. Shilgba, I have gone through your proposals and believe your group is doing some great deal of thinking, but whether your thoughts are being adequately communicated to the public to really make the man on the street appreciate your message is a different thing. I don't imagine that the new Nigeria of your dreams is conceived to be an elitist society whose principles are only discernible to intellectuals and civil rights activists. For a layman like me, several questions beg for answers:
• If no constitutional draft committees would be set up by the central government, as you proposed in your thesis, “A manual for a Sovereign national Conference”, who would take the responsibility of drafting the constitutions in each Nationality?

Answer (A): Certainly, not the federal government; certainly, not the state governments. Each ethnic nationality has leaders of thought. Those will take the responsibility of convoking meetings where discussions leading to emergence of draft constitutions shall be held. In Tiv nation, for instance, we have "traditional" leadership—Tor kpande,Ortaregh, Tyoor, Ter, and Tor Tiv, in that sequence, upwards. We have opinion groups such as Mzough U Tiv, Tiv net, MUTA, MUTUK, Tiv associations in various towns and cities in Nigeria, etc. If with all these, we still require politicians in Abuja or Makurdi to lead the process, we are of all men most miserable, and do not deserve to be called a nation. That is why I suggest that the process should be left entirely to those nation groups in Nigeria. Then, we shall know which deserve to be called nations. And no ethnic nationality will have any excuses to cry, "marginalization" thereafter. Need I say that the Ohanenze Igbo, OPC, MEND, etc., are groups that have gained great relevance in Nigeria today? Where are the Tivs, Ibirom, Idomas, Igedes, Jukuns, etc? Aha, do we belong to Arewa? We had better think deeply.

Q: An excerpt from your thesis is “...a sovereign national conference shall hold at Abuja, of all nationalities in Nigeria, who shall select their delegates in a process completely decided by them, and attend the conference at their cost, with no funding from the central government.”
• Who will select these delegates?

A: Refer to above

Q: How shall the cost of attendance be sourced? Would you tax the people? Or will the selected delegates sponsor themselves to the conference?

A: We shall know which ethnic nationalities deserve to be called nations in Nigeria. If the peoples of those nation groups think they are mature enough to govern themselves then they must be able to fund such a venture, where there will be no easy money to embezzle or to attract people with no passion or ideas that drive societies. If they decide to tax themselves, so be it. Let us do the talk, and not simply talk it. If, for instance, a nation group of 2 million adults from 18 years and above imposes a tax of N 100 per adult, it would raise N 200 million. And there are members of each nation group in Nigeria that shall give far more than that.

Q: What guarantee would be in place to ensure that only true representatives of the people are selected as delegates, and what provisions would be there to address complaints from aggrieved parties, who may have cause to believe their rightful delegates were not selected or their people are disenfranchised in the selection process?

A: Since the whole venture shall be self-funding, and delegates must certainly make sacrifices, not the least being financial, there shall be minimal problems in this regard. Fights among Nigerian politicians happen because there is a big pie (or is it national cake?) to be shared. Delegates shall be those who have distinguished themselves in ideas that will be needed to fashion draft constitutions. Grievances, if any, shall be thereby easily settled. If you observed, I did not set any limits on number of delegates. The purse and passion shall determine the number of delegates for each nation group. Mark this; there shall be no government money to spend.

Q: What buffer would be put in place to exclude the current crop of political representatives bearing in mind that it is their very influence and policies that we are running away from? And would such exclusion not constitute a violation of their fundamental human rights, being bonafide members of their constituencies?

A: Nobody with ideas that a nation group needs should be excluded. Where there is no free money to appropriate, base passions will be stifled. Easy access to cheap money, without accountability, is a veritable purveyor of corrupting tendencies that are usually latent in the holiest of men. In each of us lies "lust". Only a few commit to sacrificial volunteerism.

Q: What shall constitute a Nationality? Is the grouping going to be by tribe or geographical proximity? For example, when you say Middle-Belt, what does that really mean? What really connects the Tiv man in Gbajimba to the Gwari man in Paiko, but not the Utanga man in Obudu?

A: I think I have answered this question in above. "Tribe" is a derogatory term for ethnic nationalities. They know themselves and their affinities are unmistaken.

Q: Based on the answer to above, how many of such nationalities have you identified nationwide?

A: The answer is clear, and I don't need to identify them; they know themselves, at least by the languages commonly spoken among them, with dialects, which are the most important aspect of culture. Besides, by their commonly shared interests they aggregate. Accordingly, the Niger Delta peoples and the Igbos have federated under the "Lower Niger" umbrella, although the Ijaws, Itsekiris, etc., may have their differences, such are not strong enough as their perceived differences with the complements outside their contiguous domains.

Q: Suppose there is an equal or even more number of people in a nationality that do not support the SNC (by virtue of their belief in the existing structure), as those in support, what happens? Would those in support still go ahead and participate in the SNC and on behalf of the whole nationality? If not, what becomes of that nationality in the envisaged federal structure?

A: The concept of a sovereign national conference is defeated if there is already a firm position that every nationality must accept. Nobody shall be excluded. Like I said in my article, the final decision at the sovereign national conference, where there shall be rigorous debates based on the draft constitutions of the various nationalities, shall yet be subjected to a national referendum to be organized and supervised by the United Nations, in the same fashion the people of Southern Sudan voted recently on their separate nationhood. The United Nation recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination; this emboldens us in our quest. We the peoples of Nigeria must decide if and on what terms we shall live together under the same flag.

Q: Overall it would appear that the administrative framework and feasibility of this proposal is still very hazy and your team apparently has a very long way to go.

A: Yes, "our" team may have a long way to go if majority of Nigerians fail to see what we see. But through exchanges like this, articles like mine, and TV appearances such as my colleague Tony Nnadi has featured in on Silver Bird TV, the necessary quantum of opinion shall form a bulwark for the idea. "Write the vision and make it plain, that he may run that reads it." If you, the enlightened Nigerian, can help formulate this dialogue for the general public, and spread the word, it would help.
Finally, we should all own this idea—to have a better union for our children, where federating units compete, labor, and pay taxes to the central government; where true fiscal federalism prevails, and the social contract enshrined in the second chapter of the 1999 constitution holds rather than the current situation where it is at the same time nullified and vitiated by section 6 (6) (c) of the same constitution. It is not my team; it should be our team; our team of people passionate to overthrow an unjust order; our team, daring to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves; our team, crying out in the desert, Prepare the way of the Lord! Let me ventilate our anger against the fraud called the 1999 constitution.

Although chapter 2 of the 1999 constitution, called Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State policy, eloquently sets out the social contract, which should regulate the conduct of public officials, section 6 (6) states as follows:
The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section—
c) shall not, except as otherwise provided by this constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy set out in Chapter II of this constitution;
d) shall not, as from the date when this section comes into force, extend to any action or proceedings relating to any existing law made on or after 15th January, 1966 for determining any issue or question as to the competence of any authority or person to make any such law.

What a fraud! Could Nigerians, who know this fact, accept that their public officials owe them nothing? If section 14 in Chapter II says that sovereignty belongs to the people, and that the business of governance is the security and welfare of state, and yet section 6 (6) (c) knocks off the power of inquiry into this, should the people hold their peace? Section 6 (6) (d) effectively shields those who have hijacked our nationhood since 1966. For me, the struggle to reverse this shall remain mine until change is effected. We welcome like-minded people aboard.

Leonard Karshima Shilgba is an Associate Professor of Mathematics with the American University of Nigeria and President of the Nigeria Rally Movement (www.nigeriarally.org ). Leonard Shilgba is also the Coordinator of the Middle Belt Federation under the Middle Belt Coalition agenda.