Constitutional law
August 03, 2017
THE CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM IN NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
It is no gain saying that Nigeria is one of
those countries that operates a federal system of government along side with
the western world. Given the territorially delineated cleavages abounding in
Nigeria and the historical legacy of division among ethnic groups, regions, and
sections, the federal imperative was so fundamental that even the military
government- characteristically Unitarian, hierarchical, and centralist-
attached importance to the continuation of a federal system of government. But
it must be said here that, while the system benefit most western countries, the
reverse is the case for Nigeria considering the high level of political
instability, ethnic crisis, and ethno/religious crisis among others The reason
is not far fetch; Nigeria is operating a federal system in an awkward manner
and this has make frictions and clashes possible which are currently posing a
threat to her political development. To this end, this paper seeks to analyze
Nigerian federalism from history, reasons why she opted for the system, the
effects of the system on her political development and a plausible way forward
to a true federal arrangement
INTRODUCTION
Nigeria is a country of extraordinary diversity and
as such, one of extraordinary complexities. These complexities are a reflection
of the avalanche of ethno-cultural and religious groups co-habiting the
territory and the intricacies of interaction among them. Indeed, Nigeria
adventure into pluralism of religious and ethnic diversities owes its origin to
colonial conquest which permitted the entire continent of Africa beginning from
the early 19th century. In the case of Nigeria, the
amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorate made Nigeria a multi-
ethnic and multi lingual country
Perhaps cognizance of the existence of latest
threats to the future political stability of the emergent nation-state, the
founding fathers were desirous of a system of government that would neutralize
the political threats and accommodate the divergent interest of the various
ethno-cultural groups. This desire eventually found expression in the federal
system of government as a diversity management technique. But it must be stated
here that, with the advent of the 1979 and 1999 constitution, there has been a
profound change in the practice of federalism in the country in the sense that,
the system has been practice in an awkward manner and this has called for into
question whether Nigeria is truly operating a true federal system. This
question has further accentuated by recent damming report of the national
intelligence council of the United State Government which forecasted that by
the year 2020, Nigeria might cease to exist as a nation-state.
Given this Background and against the fact that the
operation of the system per se started far back in 1914, what is the continue
relevance of the federal idea in Nigeria? This is against the background of
hiccups experience so far with the system and its attendant implications for
political stability. Further to the above question, what are the sources of the
present worry over adaptability of the system of Nigeria’s situation and what
are the future hopes for politically stable Nigeria through the practice of
federalism?
THE CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM AND ITS KEY
FEATURES
There is no universally accepted definition of the
word federalism; the concept of federalism has received broad
scholarly attention. To this end, each scholar defines it according to their
perception. Thus, the meaning of federalism is surrounded by what Dare called
‘‘state of uncertainty and vagueness’’. Peter Ordeshook and Olga Slivetsova are
of the opinion that ‘‘the meaning of federalism is yet to escape the state of
uncertainty’’. This explains why each scholar approaches the study based on
individual background and inclination.
Early writers on the concept of federalism such as
Jean Bodin, Olto, Cosmanus among others, viewed federalism as a voluntary form
of political union of independent authorities. The union either temporary or
permanent, was based on the need for special common purposes like defense,
trade, communications and other reasons that would benefit the parties
involved. Contemporary writers on the concept of federalism such as
Livingstone, Macmahon, and Riker among others viewed federalism as a mutual
interactions between and direct contact with, at least two levels of
government. These scholars take their root from the 1787 American constitution.
The definition of federalism by these scholars rest on the fundamental
principle that, federalism is a form of governmental and institutional
structure, deliberately designed by political ‘‘architects’’, to
cope with the twin but difficult task of maintaining unity while also
preserving diversity.
The most cogent, clearly expressed and the most
acceptable definition is that of K.C Wheare. All other formulation from other
scholars like Livingstone, Macmahon, and Riker are variations of his work. In
his book he talked about ‘‘federal principle’’ i.e. the
method of dividing powers so that general and regional governments are each,
within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent of one another. Thus,
Wheare’s proposition posits that the federal principle essentially entails a
legal division of powers and functions among levels of government with a
written constitution guaranteeing and reflecting the division. Wheare’s
formulation of federalism is been drawn correctly from the United States of
America which is regarded by him as the archetype of federal government. Since
other formulation of federalism from other scholars are variations of his work,
the basic tenets or elements of federalism according to K.C Wheare will be
use as a templates to determines Nigerian federalism and the extent to
which Nigeria has fulfilled the basic tenets of federalism. The basic tenets
according to him are:
a) There must be at
least two levels of governments and there must be constitutional division of
powers among the levels of governments.
b) Each levels of
government must be co-ordinate and independent.
c) Each levels of
government must be financially independent. He argued that this will afford
each levels of government the opportunity of performing their functions without
depending or appealing to the others for financial assistance.
d) There must be
Supreme Court of the independent judiciary. He argued that in terms of power
sharing, there is likely to be conflict hence, there must be independent
judiciary to resolve the case.
e) In terms of the
amendment of the constitution, no levels of government should have undue power
over the amendment process.
He maintained that, once a country is able to
satisfy these conditions, such country is said to practice federalism.
EVOLUTION OF NIGERIAN FEDERALISM
Historically, the structure of Nigeria federalism
can be traced far back to 1914 when the Northern and Southern protectorates
were amalgamated though with unitary form of administration. Since then,
governmental power that existed in Nigeria started to be shared between the
central government headed by the Governor-General and the governments of
Northern and Southern protectorates headed by the lieutenant Governors.
Therefore, with the existence and recognition of the two autonomous parts of
Northern and Southern provinces, the administrative system of Nigeria wore a
somehow outlook of a federation.
The further division of the country into three
regions by the then Governor of Nigeria Sir Authur Richards under the Richard
constitution of 1946 gave more support to the emergence of Nigeria as a federal
state. The Macpherson constitution of 1951 gave further concrete support in the
sense that, the constitution appointed lieutenant Governors to head these three
regions and granted legislative power to the legislative and executive councils
that were established. The Lyttleton constitution of 1954 removed the final
shade of a unitary system of government from Nigeria by establishing a true
federal state in the sense that it shared powers between the central and the
regional governments. To avoid constitutional conflicts that might arise
between the central and regional governments, a supreme court was established
to handle such conflict
After independence, Nigeria constitution has
continued to retain the federal system imposed by the departed colonialist but
with some minor modification. Based on the forgoing, the analyses of the
evolution of Nigeria federalism can be based on three fundamental reasons.
a) The British
deliberately imposed the federal system on Nigeria in order to maintain a
neo-colonial control of the country after independence. Since federalism is
more or less an evidence of some form of disunity, political weakness and
uneven economic development, the British deliberately wanted to keep the
federating units as apart as possible so as to meddle in the internal affairs
of Nigeria to their own economic and political advantage after they would have
granted her independence.
b) The second aspect
emphasizes the fact that historical and geographical factors determined the
political evolution of Nigeria. Nigeria being a large and culturally variegated
country could not have been governed from one centre. This interpretation is
much more objective than the former. But it must be pointed that while the
historical and geographical factors determined the constitutional evolution of
Nigeria, these factors did not determine the shape and form of the federation
that the British helped to create in Nigeria.
c) It was not a
question of a country that was originally unitary, being broken into federating
units, but of formerly totally independent kingdoms, Empires, nations and
Autonomous communities being brought together, and ending up in a federal
union.
In line with this historical evolution of Nigerian
federalism, it should be noted that, the choice of federalism as the preferred
system of government for Nigeria was not accidental. Given the heterogeneity of
Nigerian polity, the founding fathers of Nigeria adopted the federal system as
the most viable option of protecting the core interest of the federating units.
This was demonstrated in the federal constitution, especially in the 1963
federal republican constitution, that clearly defined the jurisdictions of the
federating units. For example, each of the federating units had its own
constitution, one of the key properties of federalism. It should be noted that,
before the attainment of independence by Nigeria in 1960, the federating units
– Eastern Nigeria, Northern Nigeria and Western Nigeria – were, in all intents and
purposes independent entities. That the three federating units attained their
independent in 1957 (Eastern and Western Nigeria) and 1959 (Northern Nigeria)
further buttressed their respective sovereignty. If they had wanted, there was
nothing preventing any of them to go their separate ways as independent states
in the international community in 1957 and 1959 respectively. Thus, when some
contemporary analysts of Nigerian politics blame the British amalgamation of
1914 as the source of Nigeria problems, they should be reminded of the lost
opportunity exhibited by Nigerian leaders to disengage from the forced
amalgamation when they had the choice in 1957. Like Nigeria, the federation of
Rhodesia and Nyasaland was also a creation of British rule. It is significant
to note that, unlike Nigeria, the constituent units of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
elected to go their separate ways by becoming the independent state of Zambia,
Zimbabwe, and Malawi respectively.
Despite the introduction of federalism since the
British left, Nigeria political system has been characterized by series of
instability and backwardness. It is on this basis that I shall consider some of
the problems that bedevil Nigeria federal system
CRITICAL ANAYLSES OF COMTEMPORARY
NIGERIA FEDERAL SYSTEM
Let us consider the contribution of the most
consummate student of federalism Nigeria has ever known-Chief Obafemi Awolowo
(see ‘Thoughts on Nigerian constitution’, pp. 48-49). ‘‘From our study of the
constitutional evolution of all the countries of the world, two things stand
out clearly and prominently. First in any country where there are divergences
of language and of nationality- particularly of language- a unitary
constitution is always a source of bitterness and hostility on the part of
linguistic or national minority groups. On the other hand, as soon as a federal
constitution is introduced in which each linguistic or national group is
recognized and accorded regional autonomy, any bitterness and hostility against
the constitutional arrangement must disappear. Secondly, a federal constitution
is usually a more or less dead letter in any country which lacks any of the
factors conducive to federalism.’’ From the facts and analysis quoted from
Chief Obafemi Awolowo book, the two following principles can be deduced:
- If a country is bilingual or multi-lingual like Nigeria, the
constitution must be federal, and the constituent state must be organized
on linguistic basis;
- Any experiment with a unitary constitution in a bilingual or
multi-lingual or multi-national country must fail, in the long run.
Let us now place it to Nigeria situation and see
whether Nigeria has been living up to the federal arrangement designed by K.C
Wheare and Obafemi Awolowo. It is surprising that Nigeria only operates federal
system on paper. The federal structures have never existed in Nigeria society.
The reasons are not far fetch; First, the federal government, ever since the
intervention of the military in government has always assumed superiority over
the state government, Because military federalism had been more common than
civilian federalism, this model made the federal government the ‘‘master in
relation to the dependent’’ state governments. At independence largely
autonomous regions possessed the residual powers in the federation and
functioned almost independently. The regions had independent revenue bases;
separate constitutions, foreign missions, and the primary and secondary
education were under the residual list while the university education was under
the concurrent list. All these changed under military rule. Attempts by the
state governments to reassert their autonomy during the second republic were
aborted by the return of military rule. Some state governments that were
controlled by parties other than the NPN took the NPN-controlled federal
government to court many occasions over matter of jurisdiction competence. This
trend also reoccurs during the third republic when the Lagos state governor in
person of Bola Ahmed Tinubu took the federal government to court over the issue
of local government creation in Lagos state. This act, where the federal
government sees itself as superior to the state governments dose not make
federalism work perfectly. Federalism is therefore, an arrangement whereby
powers within a multi-national country are shared between a central authority
and a number of regionalized governments in such a way that each unit,
including this central authority, exits as a government separately and
independently from the others. As Wheare put it ‘‘the fundamental and
distinguishes characteristics of a federal system is that neither the
central nor the regional governments are subordinate to each other, but rather
the two are coordinate and independent’’. Each government exist, not as an
appendage of another government but as an autonomous entity in the sense
of being able to exercise its own will on the conduct of its affairs free from
direction by any government. Thus, the federal government on one hand and the
state governments on the other hand are autonomous in their respective spheres.
However, this autonomous entity has never being found in Nigeria federalism and
this has continue to hamper the political stability in the country.
Secondly, is the issue of financial autonomy
proposed by K.C Wheare. It should be noted here that this financial autonomy
has never been achieved in Nigerian federalism. The high level of intervention
of the federal government through national financial policies, grants- in-aids
among others, increases the power of the federal government and makes the
federating units subordinate to the federal government. The reason is not far
fetch- the increased revenue from oil boom has made the federal government to
be more financially powerful over the state governments than before. As a result
of this financial power, the federal government now embarks on some projects
which were meant to be in the state residual list. The universal basic
education board project is an example of this. Similarly, this increased
revenue from oil boom enables the federal government to give financial support
to the state governments. In this sense, any state governments that proves
‘‘stubborn’’ or a state not control by the party at the centre is not likely to
get financial support from the federal government. Vivid examples are Lagos and
Yobe states among others. Hardly these states have received any form of
financial support or assistance from the federal government because in several
cases, these states have always been at the loggerhead with the federal government
and also, these states are not control by the party at the centre. In some
cases, some state governments, in an attempt to get financial favour, have
decided to have a good rapport with the federal government even at their on
expense. In practice, this act dose not makes federalism work perfectly as
proposed by K.C Wheare. In a federation, each government enjoys financial
autonomy. This will afford each levels of government the opportunity of
performing their functions without appealing or begging for financial survival
as we have seen in Nigeria since the return to civil democratic rule.
Another issue to look at is the bolstering of local
governments as a third tier of government. This process began with the 1976
local government reforms, which introduced a uniform local government system;
gave local governments’ jurisdictional competence in matters such as markets,
automobile parks, and collection of local taxes; and made it statutory for both
the federal and state governments to give specified percentages of their
revenue to local governments. Although these reforms were embodied in the 1979
constitution and also strengthened in the new 1999 constitution, State
governments in the third and forth republic refused to allow local governments
any measure of autonomy, partly due to these two reasons:
- They (the state governments)
want to claim their superiority over the local governments just as the
federal government is claiming their superiority over them. For this
reason, effort has been made by state governments to reduce the control of
the local governments
- They (the state governments) are still struggling to reclaim their
autonomy from the federal government
Because the federal government accepted the
recommendation of the Political Bureau that local governments should be made an
effective tier of government, effort has been made to reduce their control by
state governments. All local government funds are now paid directly to the
local government by the federal government rather than through the state
governments. The functions and jurisdiction of local governments have been
streamlined, and state governments were asked to stay out of local affairs.
This measure increased the importance of local governments and infused in their
civilian-elected functionaries a certain stubbornness leading to open conflicts
with state governments over matter of jurisdiction. In several cases, these
conflicts became the subject of litigation. State governments resisted the loss
of jurisdiction, and many underscore the subordinate status of local
governments at every opportunity.
Looking at another issue is resource control.
Nigeria has witnessed and is likely to witness more inter-ethnic group crisis
if states are not granted the right to rule and control their resources, and
this will continue to put Nigeria in a political state of aporia. One throne
stone example is the Niger Delta regions. We should recall that this
discriminatory resource policy or usurpation of states resource control by the
central government was initiated by Lt. Col Gowon as an expedient measure to
pursue the 1967-1970 civil war. Since then, states especially the Niger Delta
states have been transformed into beggars pleading for their rightful share of
their resources and this has resulted to several crises between the people of
the regions and the federal government. Let it be known that no amount of
amnesty can solve this except the federal government completely hands off from
the control of the Niger Delta resources. Similarly, it should be stressed
that, the demand for resource control by the Niger Delta states dose not negate
the right of other states to exercise control over their respective natural
resources, like groundnuts, iron, solid minerals, etc. This is a key
prerequisite of federalism, and the denial of this tenet is injurious to
federalism. A federating unit, and not the central government, should exercise
jurisdiction over the resources in its territory. Thus, the statement by the
former governor Ibrahim Shekarau of Kano state requesting the states of the
Niger Delta to ‘‘account for their management of the 13 per cent derivations
fund they are recently receiving before demanding a rise of 50 per cent’’ is an
assault on the tenet of federalism (see The Guardian, Wednesday, June 01,
2005). The point here is that, the current struggles by some states in Nigeria
especially the Niger Delta states over their resources will continue to give
more rise to different types of sects, groups and militants that will continue
to disrupt the political system of Nigeria if the federal government fail to
hands off from the control of state resources.
The last issue to consider is fiscal federalism.
Fiscal federalism is a concept that implies a financial arrangement and
relations among the tiers of government which allow significance fiscal
function to be exercised at lower level of government. Basically, we can liken
it to revenue allocation. To properly understand the issue of revenue
allocation in Nigeria, it may be necessary to broadly analyze the revenue
system in Nigeria.
In Nigeria there is what is known as vertical and
horizontal principle.
Vertical principle: The vertical principle is a form of
revenue system where by the federal government retains some of the federally
collected revenues as its independent revenue to be paid into the federation
account for distribution among the tiers of government in accordance with
agreeable formula.
Horizontal principle: The horizontal principle is a form
of revenue system which has to do with the distribution of revenue among state
and local governments. In this form of revenue system, consideration is given
to issues like land mass, population, large number of local government etc.
One of the major problems facing Nigeria federalism
is the issue of revenue allocation i.e. how the resources generated in the
country should be shared among the three tiers of government. In an attempt to
solve this problem, various principle of revenue allocation has been adopted
and they are:
Principle of derivation: This principle is based on the
fact that the revenue in the country should be allocated on the basis of each
state’s contribution to total revenue i.e. major resources derived from a
particular area should be allocated to the area. This principle was attacked
because it makes rich states richer since the more developed states will
contribute more to the federation account, starving need states of
developmental funds.
Principle of national interest: This principle is based on the
need to develop states, improve progress, and sense of belonging to the
federation. This is important considering the fact that many states in Nigeria
are not economically viable which make them to depend solely on the monthly
federal government allocation to meet their developmental needs. This principle
was also attacked by politicians from oil producing states, labeling the
northern states as ‘‘parasites’’
Principle of independent revenue: This principle is based on the
federal government discretion in allocating revenue to state and local
governments. Before independence, the regional government revenue allocation
was more than that of the federal government, but recent experience has shown
the reverse in the sense that the federal government allocates more revenue to
itself than the 36 states put together. This principle was attacked by experts
that by international standard, Nigeria discretionary transfer of revenue by
the federal government to states and local government is small.
Thus, having examined the various means or ways
Nigeria has attempted to solve the issue of revenue allocation, it must be categorically
stated here that the problem of revenue allocation is still a reoccurring
decimal in Nigeria political system which have been causing a major set back to
the country federal system. This is evidence considering the September
rejection of revenue allocation by the state governments (see the nation news
paper, October 18, 2011). The inefficiency and rejection of the fiscal policy
adopted by successive regime in Nigeria has justified the fact that until a
decisive and technical blue print that will be all embracing is worked out,
which can encourage fiscal efficiency, fiscal equalization and fiscal autonomy;
Nigeria will still remain in a fiscal state of confusion. Similarly, the
political discord in the past and present is also a fundamental pointer to the
fact that Nigeria must be quickly returned to a sincere and true federal
arrangement, where every level of government will be free to do it own thing,
in its own way and at its own pace. Until this is achieved, the issue of fiscal
federalism will remain a timed bomb that will someday explodes and tear apart
the already shaky foundation of Nigerian federalism
RENEWED FEDERALISM
A system of government, federalism allows for the
division of sovereignty between the central government and the federating
units. The management of this dual sovereignty makes federalism a complex
political option. Thus the two levels of government-the federal and state are
independent and coordinates. It is vital that the division of power between the
federal government and the federating units reflects the core interests of the
respective federating units, without compromising the abilities of the federal
government to effectively represent the federation.
Since the federal government exists because of the
consensus of the federating units, the federating units decide how much power
and authority they each would cede to the federal government. While for
example, the federal government is responsible for national defence, foreign
policy, international trade, currency, monetary and fiscal policies,
citizenship, etc., the federating units exercise jurisdiction in education,
natural resources, agriculture, culture etc.
It is essential that a balance be maintained
between centralising and decentralising tendencies in order to ensure harmony
in the federation. While a highly centralised central government is injurious
to the federal polity as it could lead to a quasi federal (or unitary) system
as it is found in present Nigeria federal system, a highly decentralized
federalism, on the other hand, could destabilise the federal polity as it is
capable of eroding the power of the central government and making the
federating units too powerful. The current Nigeria federal system is highly
centralised, hence its unitary characterisation as evidenced in the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
When the founding fathers of Nigeria opted for a
federal system of government in 1954, as opposed to a unitary system, it was a
conscious decision designed to protect the diversities and identities of the
federating units. They agreed to established central governments that unite
them, while simultaneously agreeing to retain their independence in order to
safeguard their respective diversities. This can be further buttress by the word
of Awolowo’s famous statement ‘‘Nigeria is not a nation; it is a mere
geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there
are ‘English’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘French’. There are various national or ethical
groups in the country; it is a mistake to designate them tribes. Each of them
is a nation by itself with many tribes and clans. The fact that they have
common overlord does not destroy this fundamental difference’’. In 1953, during
the debate on the famous motion for independence by chief Anthony Enahoro, Sir
Ahmadu Bello, premier of the Northern region and leader of the ruling NPC
(Northern people Congress), made one of the most eloquent cases for true
federalism when he said; ‘’sixty years ago there was no country called Nigeria.
What is now Nigeria consisted of a number of large and small communities all of
which were different in their outlook and beliefs. The advent of the British
and of western education has not materially altered the situation and these
many and varied communities have not knit themselves into a composite
unit……….’’ Thus not only were Awolowo and sir Ahmadu Bello’s statement
absolutely correct, it is even more accurate about today’s Nigeria than the
Nigeria of 40s. Inter-ethnic intolerance which has become chronic, confirms
that we are a country of nations, as is evident from the clashes we have
experienced since the return of civil democratic rule in 1999.
However, as I have argued above, the basic tenets
of federalism that defined the federal structure of Nigeria between 1954 and
January 1966 has been jettisoned in favour of a unitary structure robed in
federal colour. The challenge therefore, is for Nigerians to return to the
principles of federalism. The status quo, as enshrined in the constitution of
Nigeria, 1999, is not sustainable. Let us identify some of the flaws in the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. It should be stressed
that these flaws were injected into the government structure by the military,
where such practices/rules are considered modus operandi. They derived from the
series of decrees enacted by the various military dictatorships that had ruled
Nigeria
1) A federal
government has no locus standi in determining the number of local government
councils in any of the federal units. This is an area of exclusive state
jurisdiction.
2) Federal revenue
allocation to the states should not be based on the number of local government
councils and or size of the state, but on the population of the given state.
Based on its revenue generation capabilities, and the imperative of good
governance and ethnic peculiarities, each state should be free to determine its
respective number of local government councils
3) All reference to
local government councils and state capitals should be expunged from the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
4) It is incongruous
to consider any state governor and/or his officials as representatives of the
president
5) Though local
government creation is under the jurisdiction of a state government, no state
government should have the authority to suspend/terminate any elected or
appointed official of a local government council. Just as the state government
is not an administrative organ of the federal government, similarly, no local
government council should be considered an administrative organ of a state
government
Factors that brings about the formation
of a federal State
Here
is a list of reasons for preferring federal orders over a unitary state:
- Federal arrangements may protect against
central authorities by securing immunity and non-domination for minority
groups or nations. Constitutional allocation of powers to a member unit
protects individuals from the center, while interlocking arrangements
provide influence on central decisions via member unit bodies (Madison,
Hume, Goodin 1996). Member units may thus check central authorities and
prevent undue action contrary to the will of minorities: “A great
democracy must either sacrifice self-government to unity or preserve it by
federalism. The coexistence of several nations under the same State is a
test, as well as the best security of its freedom … The combination of
different nations in one State is as necessary a condition of civilized
life as the combination of men in society” (Acton 1907, 277).
- More specifically, federal arrangements can
accommodate minority nations who aspire to self determination and the
preservation of their culture, language or religion. Such autonomy and
immunity arrangements are clearly preferable to the political conflicts
that might result from such groups' attempts at secession. Central
authorities may respond with human rights abuses, civil wars or ethnic
cleansing to prevent such secessionist movements.
- Federal orders may increase the opportunities
for citizen participation in public decision-making; through deliberation
and offices in both member unit and central bodies that ensures character
formation through political participation among more citizens (Mill 1861,
ch. 15).
- Federations may facilitate efficient
preference maximization more generally, as formalized in the literature on
economic and fiscal federalism—though many such arguments support
decentralization rather than federalism proper. Research on ‘fiscal
federalism’ addresses the optimal allocation of authority, typically
recommending central redistribution but local provision of public goods.
Federal arrangements may allow more optimal matching of the authority to
create public goods to specific affected subsets of the populations. If
individuals' preferences vary systematically by territory according to
external or internal parameters such as geography or shared tastes and
values, federal—or decentralized—arrangements that allow local variation
may be well suited for several reasons. Local decisions prevent overload
of centralised decision-making, and local decision-makers may also have a
better grasp of affected preferences and alternatives, making for better
service than would be provided by a central government that tends to ignore
local preference variations (Smith 1776, 680). Granting powers to
population subsets that share preferences regarding public services may
also increase efficiency by allowing these subsets to create such
‘internalities’ and ‘club goods’ at costs borne only by them (Musgrave
1959, 179–80, Olson 1969, Oates’ 1972 ‘Decentralization Theorem’).
- Federal arrangements can also shelter
territorially based groups with preferences that diverge from the majority
population, such as ethnic or cultural minorities, so that they are not
subject to majority decisions severely or systematically contrary to their
preferences. Non-unitary arrangements may thus minimize coercion and be
responsive to as many citizens as possible (Mill 1861 ch. 15, Elazar 1968;
Lijphart 1999). Such considerations of economic efficiency and majority
decisions may favor federal solutions, with “only indivisibilities,
economies of scale, externalities, and strategic requirements … acceptable
as efficiency arguments in favor of allocating powers to higher levels of
government” (Padou-Schioppa 1995, 155).
- Federal arrangements may not only protect
existing clusters of individuals with shared values or preferences, but
may also promote mobility and hence territorial clustering of individuals
with similar preferences. Member unit autonomy to experiment may foster
competition for individuals who are free to move where their preferences
are best met. Such mobility towards member units with like-minded
individuals may add to the benefits of local autonomy over the provision
of public services—absent economies of scale and externalities (Tiebout
1956, Buchanan 2001)—though the result may be that those with costly needs
and who are less mobile are left worse off.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We have clearly seen that the future of this
country lies in only one direction- true federalism, together with fiscal
federalism and resource control by the owners of the resources. In making
specific recommendations for structural changes which will create an atmosphere
of enduring peace, harmony and progress, there should be a clear division of
power between the federal government and the state government. The federal
government should exercises exclusive power in certain basic matters of
general relevance and importance, leaning the bulk of the subject matter to the
state, with a few in the concurrent list. A federal government should exercise
powers exclusively only in the following areas: National Defence, Foreign
Relations, Currency, Exchange Control, Telecommunications, Immigration, Customs
and Excise, Copyright, Patents and Design, Citizenship and Naturalisation,
Shipping in external waters. And other matters currently in the legislative
list (federal) should be in the concurrent list (federal and state). The states
and the federal government should exercise their powers in these matters in a
manner that does not interfere with the jurisdiction of other authorities. In
the following areas, the state must have exclusive authority except that the
federal government could lay down standards and guidelines and perhaps make
grants towards some of these subject matters. Agriculture and Fisheries,
Education, Health, Labour, Housing, Local Government, Forestry, Town and
Country Planning, Lands, State Judiciary, Vetinary Services. Similarly, the
local government must be given autonomy in their own jurisdiction and state
governments should hands off from the control of local affairs.
As already noted, the state have to be given the
economic power to carry out their increased political, social and economic
responsibilities. A system of revenue allocation to meet this may be summarised
as follows
- Minerals-Oil and Solid: 50% of the proceeds should be paid to the
state from which it is produced. Such states territory includes 200 miles
continental shelf
- Customs and Excise: 50% should go to the state to which the goods
are going or in the case of excise duty, the state in which the goods are
produced.
- Value Added Tax: Only states should collect value added tax. The
federal government should have no such power. State should retain their
VAT for their own use. The VAT is a tax on the customer of goods and
services within the territory of the state. The federal government may
only collect VAT in the federal capital territory. Thus all taxes made
from purchases of petroleum product from a state should be remitted to the
state. At the moment, VAT is collected and administered by the federal
government which keep a percentage to itself and then distribute the
balance in an arbitrary manner, under which states from which little or
nothing has been collected, get the bulk of the funds.
Lastly, a conference of Nigeria Nationalities
should be call. Nigeria, according to the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, is
a mere geographical expression. As we saw earlier, the nations and peoples of
Nigeria existed separately and independently for century until they were
forcefully brought into the artificial state called Nigeria. The territory
called Nigeria is as much a victim of European colonial callousness as the rest
of Africa. Many of the inter boundaries of Nigeria are as artificial as
inter-state boundaries of Africa. Was it not Lord Salisbury who stated thus at
the Berlin conference 1885: ‘‘We have been engaged in drawing lines on map
where no white man’s foot ever trod; we have been given away mountains and
rivers and lakes to each other, only hindered by the small impediment that we
have never know where the rivers and lakes and mountain were.’’ Another
Briton, an official who participated in the drawing of the Southern section of
the Nigeria Cameroon border, is also recorded to have recalled, years after
that: ‘‘In those days we just took a blue pencil and ruler, and we put it down
at old Calabar, and drew the blue line to Yola…… I recollect thinking when I
was sitting having an audience with the Emir (of Yola) surrounded by his
tribes, that it was a very good thing that he did not know that I, with a blue
pencil, had drawn a line through his territory.’’ The carry over of this
artificiality of boundary into Nigeria, is evident when Kwara and Kogi states
are treated as Northern, instead of Yoruba (Western) states, or when Asaba and
Agbor (Oshimili, Anioma and Ika) are included in a Delta state. It is therefore
clear that a conference of Nationalities will involve, not only a restructuring
of functions between the bloated centre and the states, but there also has to
be, a re-grouping of the states along national/ethnic lines. To continue with
the examples I have given above, Kwara and Kogi will merge with the Yoruba states
and Asaba and Agbor (Oshimili, Anioma and Ika) should merge with their sister
Igbo states east of the Niger.
CONCLUSION
This paper has focused on Nigerian federalism, its
origin, problems and possible ways to a true federal system. In my study, I have
reviewed the concept of federalism, and its basic tenets proposed by K.C
Wheare. I have also gone ahead to place the basic tenets of K.C Wheare
federalism to Nigeria situation vis a vis the definition and features of
federalism and I argued that, the federal system proved to be workable in
Nigeria between 1954 and January 1966 but the advent of the military makes the
federal government to sees itself as superior to the state governments. This is
due to the fact that military federalism has been more common in Nigerian
polity. Apart from this problem, other problems discussed include: the
superiority of the state governments over the local governments. This is due to
the fact that, since the federal government sees itself as superior to the
state governments, the state government in turn prove their superiority over
the local governments and this act does not make federalism workable in the
country as it negate one of the features of federalism proposed by K.C Wheare
which posit that Each levels of government must be co-ordinate and independent.
Resource control by the owners of the resources is
also one of the problems I considered that has derailed Nigerian federalism.
Here, I agued that ethnic crisis is likely to continue unless the federal government
allows the owners of resources to control their resources in their own way. The
present federal arrangement where the Federal government control and dominate
the large share of states resources has been a clog on a wheel on Nigerian
federalism and this has to stop if Nigeria really want to experience true
federal system. The last issue I considered is fiscal federalism in Nigeria.
Successive government has failed to find solution to how revenue in the country
should be allocated. This is evidence considering the on going revenue
allocation that was rejected by the state and federal governments. I finally
argued that, for Nigeria to live the apron of a unitary system robed in federal
colour, 50% of the proceeds should be paid to the state from which it is
produced. Also, 50% should go to the state to which the goods are going or in
the case of excise duty, the state in which the goods are produced. These are
among other recommendations discussed.
On a final note, Nigeria federal structure since
inception has witnessed several fiscal and structural reformation as new
realities emerge and this is not without major deficits but like in all
political organization, there is no prefect policy. The Nigerian federal
structure may not have succeeded in solving all its political ills, it is
nonetheless, what has kept us unite together. However, even non federal systems
are faced with similar problems bothering on threat to its very existence.
Therefore, our inability to have stability in the political system in spite of
years of practicing federalism should not be taken as bankruptcy of the system.
In line with this, I come to conclusion that the best form of government for
Nigeria is the federal system with its basic tenets properly and carefully administered.
Thus, I submit that a true federal system in Nigeria is possible if the basic
tenets that defined federalism are enshrined in the constitution.
REFERENCES
Aba, B.E (2006), Understanding Nigerian Government
and politics 2nd ed: Lagos,
Gofaflesh Publications.
Adileje, C. (2003), Issues in Nigerian Federalism
in Akinjide Osuntokun et al (ed.) Issues
in Nigerian Government and Politics: Ibadan, Rex Charles Publications.
Awolowo, O. (1968), Path to Nigerian Federalism:
Ibadan Oxford Univresity Press.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999), The
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria:
Abuja Federal Government Printer.
Fedrich, C. (1996), Federalism and Opposition in
Government Vol 1 adopted from
Dare, L.O (1979), Perspective on Federalism
in Akinyen, A.B. et al (ed.),
Readings on Federalism: Lagos, Nigeria
Institute of International Affairs (NIA).
Ganbari, I.A, (2008), The challenges of Nation
Building: The Case of Nigeria. A presentation at the first year anniversary lecture
of Mustapha Akanbi Foundation.
Itse, S. (2001), Nigeria: Federalism, the
constitution and resource control. A presentation at the sensitaisation
programme organized by the Ibori Vanguard at the Lagoon Restaurant, Lagos.
Toyin D. (2007), Nigeria’s socio-political issues.
U.S. Library of Congress (2001), Nigeria-
federalism.
The nation news paper, (October 18, 2011), the
front page: State Governments rejects the revenue allocation
