11 hours Ago By Guardian Nigeria
Foremost scholar of public administration, Prof. Ladipo Adamolekun, in this interview with MUYIWA ADEYEMI, spoke on how the six regional development commissions can lead to true regionalism, and resolve contradictions in the Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy. Each of the six regions in Nigeria has its own regional development commission.
In fact, the Federal Government has gone a step further to create the Ministry of Regional Development. How did you see this development in view of the evolution of power and true federalism you have been talking about? I’m not alone. I think that a significant number of opinion leaders have been talking about moving Nigeria towards effective devolution.
And my own position goes, if you like, very far by saying the alternative to devolution is the death of the Federation. It is devolve or die. However, there are steps now that suggest that maybe we want to move in that direction, but these steps should not be put together in a contradictory manner.
So, I start by saying that the development commissions, or a development commission for each geopolitical zone, is a step to recognise the geopolitical zones as de facto federated units. And if that is done, that could be, in fact, an important step towards devolution. The 36 states we have, less than six of them are vibrant.
And that’s why all resources and powers are concentrated at the centre, and we all go to Abuja to look for money. But if you have the six geopolitical zones now constituted into the federated units, whether they’re called regions or whatever, I suppose it appears people want to call them regions. So, let’s say six geopolitical zones become six regions.
The point I’m making is formally calling them the federated units and it will require a bill that must be passed by the National Assembly. My suggestion is that just as the national anthem was changed by a rapid bill, that same kind of rapidity should be applied to constituting the geopolitical zones into six federated units of a devolved Nigerian federation. I want to stress that by having three of them in the South and three in the North, the current anomaly of 19 states in the North and 17 in the South would have been corrected.
And the pressure from the Southeast seeking for another state would no longer be there. I’m told that there are also some other people, whether in Oyo State and other places, asking for states. In fact, some people have even suggested 54 states.
This is nonsensical because it will simply increase centralisation if you have, for instance, 54 states, as recommended by the 2014 political conference. I am sure that people who canvassed for such a large number of states then would today not defend it. So, for the six geopolitical zones – three in the North, three in the South – reflect the fairness of 12 states before 1967, six in the North and six in the South.
It was military arbitrariness that increased the number of states to 19. However, there are two elements, or two critical features in President Bola Tinubu’s manifesto that need to go almost simultaneously with these constituted geopolitical zones into the federated units. One is reallocation of functions and resources, reducing the functions of the central government and increasing the functions of the federated units, similar to 1954 and 1963 constitutions.
Similarly, reducing the concentration of resources at the central level, currently over 52 per cent, and the balance for the subnational government. My proposal is 65 per cent for the subnational government, that is, the six federated units, and 35 per cent for the central government. And the amount for the federated units should be shared equally among them.
The details of sharing should be left to each federated unit. If you have this kind of package, you have taken a giant step towards devolution. But if you do, the Ministry of Regional Development in Abuja will become meaningless, nonsensical contradiction.
How can you be developing the whole of Nigeria from Abuja? The six federated units, that would be at the level at which you do development in its comprehensive sense. But government’s intention of creating development commissions is to address peculiar challenges of each region and not for devolution of power or to make them federating units? And I said instead of all that kind of convoluted way of promoting development, let development be the responsibility of the federated units. In any case, that was the case.
So, geopolitical zones now should become federated units. Do you know that many states will reject this proposal of subsuming them under a regional government? But I know that all the states were happy when development commissions were created for their regions. Yes, because they see them as intervention agencies? I am telling you, you cannot develop states from Abuja.
It’s impossible. It never happened. The old three regions in Nigeria developed within and not from the centre.
The development we had in Western Nigeria was done from Ibadan. I think the critical issue is that all of them want development commissions. I am saying you cannot have any meaningful development at sub-national level through an intervention agency from Abuja, including your Ministry of Regional Development.
It’s not sensible. It can’t work. Why are we where we are? It is because over-concentration of resources and powers in Abuja has not helped this country.
But there is an argument that states can develop the way they want without being disturbed by Abuja. How can they develop when they have to go to Abuja begging for money? But the current arrangement does not stop states from developing their Internally Generated Revenue (IGR)? I think the point of developing Nigeria from Abuja has not worked and cannot work. And the development commissions cannot be supervised by the Ministry of Regional Development and promote development across Nigeria.
It will not work. That’s re-centralisation by another name. It cannot happen.
If state governments cannot develop their territorial area, how do you think a development commission with a coordinating ministry of regional development will do it? It’s nonsensical to me. In any case, in the Nigerian experience we have, the development in Western Nigeria of 1954 to 1966, that was comparable to other developing countries in the world, was not done from the centre. Development of states cannot come from Abuja.
Who heads that region, are you saying there will be one governor or premier for each region? There were co-premiers in the first republic, wasn’t it? What happens to states as we have them now? They are not going to be dismantled. Within each geopolitical region or federated unit, they will then constitute different levels, including local government, which we will get to. Are you saying that the President at the centre will be relating to only six premiers or governors? You can keep governors at the federated units, and have a lieutenant governor for each of the constituent sub-units, or sub-national governors.
Don’t you think some of you thinking in this direction are fixated on the old arrangement of the 1960s, suggesting old solutions to solve the current political crisis? I don’t see it that way. I think that each of the federal sub-units can reorganise themselves in different ways. We were better as a country with what you described as an old arrangement.
Can’t our political scientists and administrators think of something better? Like what? Like improving on the current arrangement and making the federating units more viable and independent? How many states are you talking about? When the military centralises things, they put all the resources at the center. Since 1999, has there been a review of the revenue allocation? So, the resources remain at the center. And these politicians who, most of them, simply operate within what exists, not thinking outside the box.
Want to be sharing what’s already at the center. What is your opinion about the controversy the tax reform bill is generating in the National Assembly? Well, what I read was that there was significant consultation before the bill was prepared. I don’t think I’ve read anybody saying that there was no consultation.
If more consultation is needed, the National Assembly should go ahead to do so. And I have not read anybody saying he is happy with the tax system in Nigeria as it is now. We all expect the National Assembly to debate it and whatever amendment is necessary can be made.
That is my position. But there seems to be a division between politicians from the North and South on the matter. Do you see them reaching consensus? When you probe further, it’s not as clear-cut.
And I think that thorough debate and review in the National Assembly is the next stage. It should be possible to bring out what is in the national interest and what is fair. I believe that the tax system needs reform.
I don’t think that there is a uniform North-West- South disagreement on it, from what I’ve read. I think, it should be properly debated in the National Assembly and proper amendments made and a reformed tax system should emerge. Are you not concerned that the federal government has not started implementation of the Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy? There’s no point making it? Which judgment? Did you read the position of the dissenting Justice? But the majority of the Justices agreed on the council autonomy and stopping of caretakers governing the local councils? Yes, the majority was absolutely correct and consistent with the Constitution, where they said, if your local government is not democratically elected, you violate the Constitution.
But the Supreme Court itself violated the Constitution by ignoring the Joint Account and Allocation Committee (JAAC) that is provided for in the Constitution. Let me draw your attention to the new Anambra State Local Government Law where the state House of Assembly passed the bill to create a joint account for the local councils because it has powers to do so. The governor of the state, Prof.
Charles Soludo said the new law is in line with the provision of the Constitution. You know many people are saying that until the National Assembly altered that aspect in the Constitution, the Supreme Court judgment on financial autonomy to local councils will remain a contradiction. The contradiction will remain and what the federal government is trying to do is a waste of time.
Some states are justifiably sensible to ignore the Supreme Court judgments? What Anambra has done is consistent with the Constitution. The dissenting Justice was right to say that the federal government ought not to meddle with the business of how states share the allocations with their local governments, adding that the local governments are not independent of states. Indeed, local governments are not independent of states.
The other statement, which he made that is spot on is that the local government areas are constituent parts of the states and are subordinate to the states. Everywhere in the world where we have federalism, they are subordinate to the states. Tell me any other federal government in the world where you have local governments inserted in their Constitution.
So, the Supreme Court judgment is unconstitutional. For the purpose of emphasis, the compulsion for democratic local government is in the Constitution. They were upholding the Constitution by affirming that.
But in the area of JAAC, they are wrong. From what we know, can a local government function outside state government? I tell you, that’s what the judgment is trying to say now. Local governments are sub-jurisdictions of state governments.
A Supreme Court, or a misguided Supreme Court decision cannot change that. At least there’s one of them who said the judgment was misguided. And he’s right.
That’s why I was amazed that they were wasting the time of senior ministers to be enforcing something that is unenforceable. Can that committee stop Soludo from doing what he has done? Don’t you think the federal government may still challenge what is happening in Anambra on this matter? Yes they can go to court, if they want to ridicule themselves. Don’t you know that the governors have been summoning their local council chairmen and toe the line of the Constitution?.
