|
Assessing federalism, partisan politics and development
(2)
Continued from yesterday
On the local government case, the plaintiff states
cut across party lines. Here I am referring to the case instituted by Lagos and
other states against the Federal Government for withholding of allocations
meant for the local government councils. Again, the fact that this conflict
cuts across party lines does not indicate that no partisan mischief could
arise, especially if the Supreme Court should rule that the Federal Government
has the right to withhold funds to new local governments which are not
recognised by the National Assembly. I shall return to this point later. The
point right now is that no partisan politics can be read into this particular
conflict at this stage.
While still on funding, it should be remembered that
the Supreme Court has also ruled in the Resource case that the Federal
Government cannot give money directly to the local government for the purpose
of primary education. It is still debatable whether the Supreme Court will apply
this ruling to other sub-heads as it based its original ruling on
constitutional language that is specific to education.
I might as well treat this issue here. The
constitution itself seems to have created three legal layers of status for
local government councils. Even though article 7(1) of the Constitution states
"The system of local government by democratically elected local councils
is under this constitution guaranteed...", the position of all the
governors, irrespective of party affiliation, has been that the local
governments are nothing more than the appendages of the state governments. This
position, in as far as funding of education is concerned, was confirmed by the
Supreme Court in the Resource case. In furtherance of this stand, Article l(a)
of the Fourth Schedule, states: "The main functions of a local government
council are as follows: consideration and the making of recommendations to a
State Commission ..." In other words, by this article, the constitution
allocated an advisory status to the local governments. Article I subsections
(b-k) on the other hand empowers local government councils to "collect
rates, radio and television licences, establish and maintain cemeteries, burial
grounds etc; license bicycles, trucks, canoes etc, etc" There is no doubt
in my mind that Article I subsections (b-k) creates a government with powers
even if the subjects on which those powers could be exercised appear on the
surface to be ephemeral. But I submit that the totality of the subjects covered
by these powers, namely: rates, cemeteries, bicycles, hand pushed trucks,
canoes, wheel barrows and carts; slaughter houses, slabs, markets, motor parks;
public conveniences, construction and maintenance of roads, streets, street
lightings, parks, gardens, open spaces; naming of roads and streets;
registration of all births, deaths and marriages; out-door advertising and
hoarding; movement and keeping of pets; shops and kiosks, restaurants,
bakeries, licensing, regulation and control of liquor, cover probably 70 per
cent of the daily life of over 90 per cent of the population. The third status
which is the one relied upon by the Supreme Court in the already mentioned
Resource case is to be found in Article 2 of First Schedule which states that
"the functions of a local government shall include participation of such
council in the government of a state as respects the following..." Some
may argue that there is not much difference between the first and the third
status. But I am sure that sometime in the future, we are going to witness a
lot of legal fireworks in distinguishing between advisory status and
participatory status of local governments.
It says a lot for our political system that for over
a year, appointed local government councils replaced elected local governments
in clear violation of article 7 (1) of the Constitution and no legal challenges
were mounted. This probably was because each of our states runs a one-party
system where any councillor or local government chairman who wants to remain
politically relevant will not dare cross his governor. Whenever Nigeria gets to
the stage of multi-partism on the local and state levels, this particular area
is another minefield for conflicts which would be fuelled by partisan
interests.
Articles 13 and 14 of the Concurrent Legislative List
deal with electricity and the establishment of electric power stations. Anyone
familiar with the Enron case in Lagos State will recall the problems
encountered in getting NEPA to allow for integration of Lagos generated electricity
with the national grid. How much of it was fuelled by legal obstacles and how
much was fuelled by partisan considerations given the fact that the
Lagos State and the Federal Governments were under
two different parties?
Quite recently, a similar conflict blew up between
Ogun, Oyo, Oshun, Ondo and Ekiti states on the one hand and the Nigerian
Railways Corporation on the other hand, over a proposed plan by the former to
arrange an intra-Odua railway system among themselves. Yet both the former and
the latter are under the control of the same party. Or is this case of the
victory of group interests over partisan interests?
Still on this issue, only a few days ago, we again
witnessed the victory of group interests over partisan politics when all the
elected South-West members of the House of Representatives, even though they
represented different parties, walked out in protest over the virement of
N200million from the Lagos State Bar Beach vote to projects in some northern
states
What exactly do I mean when I talk about group
interests? I use the term "group interest" in the same way one talks
about "national interest"; that is irrespective of which party forms
the government of an area, there are certain interests which have been identified
as vital to the survival of that area that the whole area will practically rise
up in defence of those interests without much ado. A very apt illustration is
the division in the country over the issue of the Sovereign National
Conference. There was a conference in Abuja in 2002 where this issue came up.
Delegates to the conference were drawn on zonal basis. The delegates from the
four zones of the South-East, South-West, South-South and the Middle Belt voted
for the Sovereign National Conference, while the delegates from the North-East
and North-West voted against. This represents the basic national fault lines on
this issue irrespective of political party affiliation.
On education, Article 27gives the Federal Government
the power to make laws in respect of university education, technological
education, or any professional education. Article 29 also empowers the state to
make laws for the state with respect to the establishment of an institution for purposes of university, technological or professional
education. Yet, it must not be forgotten that it is two federal bodies, namely
NUC and JAMB who control the establishment of universities and the admission
into same. This is another potential minefield for conflicts if people with
ulterior motives are allowed near the educational system, as they once were. It
is a theoretical possibility for NIJC under a Federal Government controlled by
one party to refuse to approve the application for the establishment of a
university by a state controlled by another party. And it is a theoretical
possibility for NUC to refuse to accredit some of the courses / just to make
life difficult for the state authorities. After all, it is in this same
country, in the First Republic, where roads were dug up, or electricity cut
off, in areas that voted for the opposition party.
The above do not by any means represent the totality
of areas of potential conflict. I have just drawn on examples that will focus
our minds. Of course, you may wonder whether there is anything that cannot be
manipulated into crisis. And you will be right. If you cast your mind back, not
too far back, to the bloody brouhaha between LASTMA or FERMA, then my case
would be clearer. When Chief (Anthony) Anenih of the PDP was the Hon. Minister
for Works, there was no problem between the Federal Government and Lagos State.
But when Chief Ogunlewe, a Lagosian, became the Minister of Works, all hell
broke loose.
The next issue that I will consider will be the
institutions for conflict resolution. You may be surprised by my first choice.
In a political system whether federal or not, there is a role for political
parties in resolving major differences. The usual political differences can be
accommodated within the permissible gimmicks of political rivalry. But when
issues are critical and fundamental, an informal forum of political parties can
come in very useful. Of course, this would only happen if there are only two or
three strong political parties. In Nigeria, the Supreme Court judgment on the
registration of political parties
has turned what should normally be a serious affair into a rascally and
hilarious affair. I thought it is one of the cardinal principles of law that a
court does not give judgment which will bring the judiciary into ridicule. The
interpretation given the constitution on this issue has brought the judiciary
and the constitution into ridicule. Whenever sanity returns into the Nigerian
party system, we should consider an informal party forum as a veritable
instrument of conflict resolution.
It should not be forgotten by the political class,
irrespective of party affiliation, that they have a common interest in
survival. The political class has a common rival and that is the military
establishment. The military is the sole beneficiary when the civilian political
system breaks down. Artificial majorities and minorities in the National and State Assemblies cannot
duplicate the role of an informal
forum of political parties where consensus can be built around contentious
political issues.
The National and State Assemblies have the potential
to resolve conflicts, and to introduce an element of tolerance and civility
into political rivalry. So far, it is the National Assembly that has shown any
inclination along this line by appointing members of the opposition parties to
chairmanship of its committees. This is not a constitutional requirement, but a
posture that the Assembly has adopted.
1 am not implying that the National Assembly has
shown tolerance, wisdom and civility on all matters. The way and manner it has
handled the demand for debate on the desirability or otherwise of a sovereign
national conference has left a lot to be desired. The majority has handled the
matter with an arrogance that is unworthy of a democracy. Nothing would have been
lost if it had allowed a full debate on the merits of the issue, if even it was
going to use its majority to vote down the issue. But on the issue of
opposition members being chairmen of committees, it has shown a welcome
innovation that should be emulated by the State Assemblies.
We should also bear in mind the positive role of the
National Assembly in dousing tension over the Resource control controversy. It
should not be forgotten that the Supreme Court ruled against the littoral
states on that controversy, following which a political solution was sought, in
the form of national legislation. The National Assembly passed the Act, an
action that did not endear the Assembly to some states, which have now filed
another action before the Supreme Court to have the law annulled.
I must also point out the role played by the House of
Representative, one of the National Assembly chambers, in rebuffing the moves
by the Federal Government on the issue of allowing Joshua Dariye to return to
Plateau State as governor.
In all these cases, party members in the National
Assembly were not carrying out any party instructions as the PDP party itself
was divided on the issues. PDP members in the National Assembly seemed to have
developed a national focus while PDP members at the state level seem to have
developed a state focus.
The National Assembly has a critical and defining
role when it comes to creation of new local governments and new states. The
main reason why civilian governments have never been able to create new states
is because the political class have never quite figured out what political
trade-offs should be activated. The only exception was the 1963 creation of the
Mid-West Region which was done by the then Balewa Federal Government to punish
the Action Group-dominated Western Region. It is rather instructive that having
done that it did not proceed to create more regions even though there were
agitations for more states in the North and the East. It is also enlightening
to read in a recent biography of General Yakubu Gowon, that it was only after
he had explained to the Northern political elite that revenue and federal
amenities would now be divided on the number of states in a particular area,
hence the greater the number of states in a region the higher the returns to
that region, that the Northern political elite agreed to state creation in the
North.
With the National Assembly playing the deciding role
in the creation of new local governments and states, party control of the
National Assembly becomes critical. If the National Assembly treats requests
for more states and local governments with the maturity and positive
nationalism as it treated the issue of resource control, then it would not add
to the political venom in the system. But, if it treats them with the same
partisan mentality and disdain with which it treated the demand for a debate on
the convening of a Sovereign National Conference, then political crisis of
great magnitude would be the result.
|
