Discussions on the issue of restructuring Nigeria are again at the front burner of national discussions. Interestingly, while there is no accepted definition of what the matter encompasses, various perspectives on the matter suggest dissatisfaction with Nigeria’s present structure of federalism and advocate for changes in Nigeria’s constitutional and political structure of federalism.
Nigeria presently practices federalism, which can be defined as a system of government where sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central government authority and constituent political units. Other requirements of federalism include a political system where there is power sharing under a written constitution and at least 2 units. Section 3(1) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution provides for a Federation consisting of 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
In Nigeria, debate on the subject appears to be of the view that Nigeria’s practice of federalism falls short of what obtains in other countries like the U.S.A, Australia and Canada whose units are more independent and self-sustaining. In the United States for instance, although States surrender many of their powers to the Federal government, matters of “local concern” such as child protection services, public schools, social maintenance fall within its prerogative.
Related to this are arguments that Nigeria’s central authority, (the Federal Government) should devolve more power to states to increase their comparative advantage as self-sustaining units. There are also arguments for the federal system to restructure in a manner inclusive of women and minority rights and increase political and citizen participation of all ethnic nationalities.
Interestingly, some of these observations were included in the 8th Assembly’s proposal of the Constitutional amendment process which saw its Ad-hoc Committees on the Review of the 1999 Constitution reflect some of these agitations in the harmonised Constitution alteration Bills presented for consideration and voting on the 26th and 27th of July 2017 at the Senate and House of Representatives respectively. For instance, the Constitution alteration Bill on “Devolution of Powers”, proposed amendments to Second Schedule Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to remove pensions, stamp duties, and railways from the exclusive legislative list (which lists matters exclusive to the jurisdiction of the Federal government) to the concurrent list (that lists matters that the Federal and State government can legislate on). The Devolution of Powers Bill also proposed the insertion of items such as agriculture, arbitration, environment and youths under the concurrent legislative list; to increase the matters that States can legislate on. There was also a separate Bill seeking to clarify the process of creating new states and boundary adjustment. However, the Bills failed in both chambers of the National Assembly as they did not meet the two thirds majority vote for passage required under section 9(2) of the Constitution and will not as such, be considered further.
However, the National Assembly took a different position on the Constitution alteration Bill advocating for the strengthening of local government administration in Nigeria and recognising the local government as a tier of government in Nigeria. The Bill which was passed by both Houses is likely to enhance citizen participation at the grassroots if it is eventually approved by resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of all the 36 State Houses of Assembly. Both Houses also voted affirmatively on the Bills enabling independent candidature and reduction of years for qualification of elective offices respectively. While the Bill on “independent candidature” infuses a different dynamic in Nigeria’s political processes as persons will be able to run as “independents” rather than being sponsored by a political party, the Bill seeking to reduce the age to qualify for political office enables younger persons to qualify as a Member of the National Assembly/House of Assembly or run for office of President or Governor.
Nevertheless, the aftermath of the initiative of the 8th Assembly indicates that current agitations for restructuring have not been sufficiently addressed. For instance, the fate of women and minority’s rights in the alteration exercise as both Houses rejected the Bill canvassing for married women’s right to select a preference of either her indigeneship by birth or marriage for appointment into elective office. Also, the Senate’s rejection of the Bill designating 35 percent affirmative action for women as Ministers or Commissioners in States renders the Bill useless even though the House of Representatives approved the Bill. Furthermore, although the Senate’s approval of the Bill advocating for the appointment of a Minister from the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) would have been a welcome development for those from the FCT, the House of Representatives rejection of the Bill ensures that extant provisions remain.
There have also been observations that the Constitution alteration Bills were not all encompassing in terms of the political restructuring that the country needs. For instance, the Bills fail to guarantee or explicitly make provisions encouraging or guaranteeing the inclusivity of all ethnic groups despite recent tensions in the polity. The amendments also failed to address issues of resource control, the federal character principle and the rising cost of governance- that had led to initial calls for restructuring that culminated in a National Conference in 2014.
Overall, while the initiative of the 8th Assembly is commendable, its inability to satisfy all agitations for restructuring including prominent issues as equality and parity of states may indicate that that the current structure is no longer effective and should be reconfigured in a manner that meets the aspirations of its citizens.