The recent tirade between Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar over restructuring of the country may underscore the disposition of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to the issue.

 

If there is any matter that has elicited exchange of verbal barbs between President Muhammadu Buhari’s government and many notable Nigerians in the build-up to the 2019 elections, it is the vexed issue of restructuring. And in line with the belief expressed by its proponents it is one issue the will have a bearing on the victory of any political party in months ahead.

 

It was not baffling, therefore, that the structure of this country and const of governance led to a diatribe between Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in recent weeks.

 

Whereas the nation practised true federalism before and shortly after independence, the issue of geographical restructuring was one of the over 600 recommendations of the 2014 National Conference, and a major component of the manifesto of the APC, as was touted by the party during its campaigns before the 2015 elections.

 

Besides, more than anything else, leaders of various ethnic nationalities led by Afenifere Leader, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, President General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Dr. John Nwodo and Ijaw Leader, Chief Edwin Clark, had on many occasion called for restructuring of the country, in tandem with the dreams of the nation’s forefathers that powers must be devolved to the regions, to promote active competition which hitherto engendered growth.

 

Atiku, who, has been an advocate of restructuing since the 1995 Abacha Constitutional Conference picked up the gauntlet two years ago, drawing more attention to the need to this same restructuring. For instance, at the late Gen.Usman Katsina Memorial Conference, held at the Umaru Musa Yar’Adua Memorial Hall, Murtala Square, Kaduna on July 30, 2016, with the theme:“The Challenges of National Integration and Survival of Democracy in Nigeria,” Atiku said the nation’s existence was dependent on its readiness to restructure.

 

He acknowledged that national integration and the survival of Nigeria’s democracy are related and are important and that they both face challenges in Nigeria today. He concluded that “I suggest we resolve today to support calls for the restructuring of the Nigerian federation in order to strengthen its unity and stabilize its democracy. I believe that restructuring will eventually happen whether we like or support it or not.

 

“The question is whether it will happen around a conference table, in a direction influenced by us and whether we will be an equal partner in the process. Or will it happen in a more unpredictable arena and in a manner over which we have little influence? It should be at a table and we need to be at that table. A nation is an organism; it grows, it evolves, it changes, it adapts. And like other organisms if it does not adapt, it dies.”

 

Spreading the imperatives of restructuring, Atiku has always alluded to the fact that in the pre-independence era, and sometimes thereafter, the regions developed at their paces, but the rising dominance of oil revenues led them to abandon cash crop production and neglect food agriculture.

 

“Before oil, agriculture was our main industry and we taxed it (and the products of other economic activities) to develop the north – to provide education, healthcare and infrastructure. But because of oil we now plead helplessness. The north has the largest known deposits of solid minerals in Nigeria including some of the rarest and most expensive. So why should we be afraid of the concept of resource control, that is the control of rents by the areas of derivation?”

 

Since his defection to the PDP, however, and consequent indication of interest to rule the nation next year, the former VP has upped the ante, promoting the restructuring factor to the dismay of the ruling party.

 

But upon Vice President Yemi Osinbajo’s statement in the United States that the “problem with our country is not a matter of restructuring…and we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into the argument that our problems stem from some geographic restructuring,” the issue again came to the fore.

 

While Atiku said he was surprised that the Vice President took such a position and, in particular, failed to appreciate the connection between Nigeria’s defective structure and its underperformance, the latter claimed he was misquoted and that sparked come controversies.

 

Osinbajo’s position that Atiku should at least have got the full text of his comments before his public rebuttal was of concern, more so when he expressed his concurrence on the issue, but that Nigerians must not allow themselves to be drawn into the argument that its problems stem from some geographic re-structuring-leaving the elephant (corruption) in the room.

 

To him, geographical restructuring is not a solution to the national problems, rather it either amount to taking Nigeria back to regional governments or increasing the number of states that make up the Nigerian federation.

“The 2014 National Conference actually recommended the creation of 18 more states. And I argued that, with several states struggling or unable to pay salaries, any further tinkering with our geographical structure would not benefit us.

“We should rather ask ourselves why the states are underperforming, revenue and development wise. I gave the example of the Western Region (comprising even more than what is now known as the South West Zone), where, without oil money, and using capitation tax and revenues from agriculture and mining, the government funded free education for over 800,000 pupils in 1955, built several roads, farm settlements, industrial estates, the first TV station in Africa, and the tallest building in Nigeria, while still giving up 50 per cent of its earnings from mining and minerals for allocation to the Federal Government and other regions.”

According to him, what the nation requires now is not geographical restructuring but good governance, honest management of public resources, deeper fiscal federalism, and a clear vision for development.

 

“In arguing for good governance, I made the point that our greatest problem was corruption. I pointed out that grand corruption, namely the unbelievable looting of the treasury by simply making huge cash withdrawals in local and foreign currency, was the first travesty that President Buhari stopped.

 

“I showed the OPEC figures from oil revenues since 1990. In four years from 2010 to 2014 the PDP government earned the highest oil revenues in Nigeria’s history, USD381.9billion. By contrast the Buhari Administration has earned USD121 billion from May 2015 to June 2018, less than 1/3 of what Jonathan Administration earned at the same period in that administration’s life. Despite earning so much less, we are still able to invest more in infrastructure than any government in Nigeria’s history. The difference is good governance, and fiscal prudence.

 

“In the final analysis, restructuring in whatever shape or form, will not mean much if our political leaders see public resources as an extension of their bank accounts. This, I believe, is the real issue.”

 

Osinbajo minced no words when he said: “Atiku’s concept of restructuring is understandably vague, because he seeks to cover every aspect of human existence in that definition.” The Vice President said restructuring also means a “cultural revolution,” and that Nigeria needed a structure that gives everyone an opportunity to work, a private sector driven economy, (which are) critical pillars of our Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP), including our Ease of Doing Business Programme.

 

But Osinbajo argued that if, however, this   is his concept of restructuring, “it is clear that he has mixed up all the issues of good governance and diversification of the economy with the argument on restructuring. Good governance involves, inter alia, transparency and prudence in public finance. It involves social justice, investing in the poor, and jobs for young people.”

 

“Surprisingly, Atiku leaves out the elephant in the room – corruption. And how grand corruption, fueled by a renter economic structure that benefits those who can use political positions or access to either loot the treasury or get favorable concessions to enrich themselves. This was a main part of my presentations the Minnesota Town Hall meeting,” he said.

 

Clarifying his position, Atiku referred to his 2017 lecture in Enugu, where he expounded his concept of restructuring to include “devolution of powers and resources to the states, matching grants from the federal government to the states to help them grow their internally generated revenue position, the privatisation of unviable Federal Government-owned assets, a truly free market economy driven by the laws of demand and supply, replacing state of origin with state of residence, and passing the PIGD so that our oil and gas sector will run as a business with minimal governmental interference.

There is no denying the fact that wanton fraud has brought Nigeria’s economy to its knees, especially if Federal Government’s recent disclosure of the recovery of over N769 billion looted fund and evaded tax since 2015 is anything to go by. Though the loot recovery efforts has been said to have been skewed against opposition parties, the nation has been saved billions.

 

Whereas Osinbajo had said the thrust of the lecture was not restructuring, evidence seem to abound that the APC has been prevaricating and failed to display readiness to restructure the country in the past years. They alluded to rejuvenation of the Nasir El-Rufai Committee on the issue, less than five months before the elections as one of the reason.

 

Chief Ayo Adebanjo said this government is not sincere about restructuring. “They are not sincere about it because if they are, you know restructuring the country into true federalism is in their manifesto. If they are sincere, why are they setting up a committee to put forward their position on restructuring? That shows you that they are not sincere. What did they think of restructuring when they put it in their manifesto if they are honest?

 

“And right now, even if some of them want it, but because of the body language of President Buhari who does not want it, they will not talk. They are now begging the issue by setting up a committee headed by Governor Nasir El-Rufai who will do this and take a decision which will be sent to the party for implementation. Who are you deceiving? The party controls the government; the government is there to implement the position and decisions of the party. They are not talking to babies. Do they want to teach their grandfather how to suck eggs?”

 

The elder statesman recalls: “President Muhammadu Buhari has been promising restructuring since 2007. If you will recollect, Afenifere supported Buhari in 2007 on the promise that he was going to restructure the country. May be he has forgotten. That was when he, Abubakar Atiku and Umaru Yar’Adua contested in the presidential election. We regarded him as the cleanest person then and we supported him because he promised to restructure the country. Throughout the election he never mentioned it. He now contested with Tunde Bakare, when Yinka Odumakin was his Publicity Secretary. Restructuring was also on the card. Now he came with Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and made the same promise but the moment he got the presidency, he has changed. I am too old now to be lured into an election under the premise that you will do a restructuring. If you believe in it, do it now.”

 

But Jide Owoeye, a Professor of International Relations at the Lead City University, Ibadan, said despite the seeming dialectical differences at this point, Osinbajo believes in restructuring.

 

“As advocates of restructuring I believe Prof Yemi Osinbajo is on our side. He talks about fiscal restructuring. For instance he says Value Added Tax should be a work and eat formula and so should belong to states where they are incurred rather than the federal. Is that not restructuring?

 

 

 

“He further advocated for removal of Federal Government’s overbearing involvement in inland waterways, land matters etc which Lagos fought for via the law courts.

 

“He wants state police as policing according to him is a community issue if it must be effective and using his own words you cannot police the entire expanse of this country effectively from Abuja. What he seem to be against is tinkering with the existing geopolitics of what constitutes the federating units. I would agree with him because what he advocates is seems to be the path to true federalism should not be confused with bogging ourselves down with cumbersome geopolitical re- arrangements which some are using to agitate for creation of more states etc or regional units that would further increase expenditures on governance.

 

“As Attorney-General of Lagos State, he fought for restructuring without using the term which of course has acquired different interpretations among the advocates and antagonists of true federalism. Above all he is a Yoruba man with the sentiments we want to uphold in this side of the country. Let’s encourage rather than disparage him.

 

“Of course a new federal constitution or a return to the one of 1963 would profoundly serve our desires for decentralisation. But what happens in the mid- term is what renders Osinbajo s position thinkable considering the fact that constitutional structure is one thing while it’s operation is another.”

 

Owoeye said UK and South Africa are good examples of unitary systems where provinces have acquired considerable autonomy just because operators of the system make it so.

 

 

“Perhaps we should prevail on our state governors together with their Attorneys-General to take a cue from Lagos because more often than not, their style of governance inadvertently moves us further away from federalism judging by their actions and inactions.”

 

But it is one thing for Osinbajo to believe in it and another for his party and indeed President Buhari to share such views and be ready to execute it.

 

At a forum not too long ago, the ethnic nationalities in the country had spoken about restructuring, itemising its benefits to the economy and governance. Dr. Nwodo, who spoke on their behalf talked passionately about diversification of the economy, stating: “America has developed shell oil technology, which makes their continual dependence on our oil practically impossible. Other countries are going to do so. What ate the alternatives? Agriculture. Take a country like the Netherlands. It is the 14th largest economy in the world. Netherlands exports just vegetables and dairy of $100billion annually. In the history of this country, our oil export has never attained such amount.

 

“When we had regional police, this state of insecurity did not exist. Every state enjoyed security. What we want is restructuring. If we have it, we will manage our domestic affairs. Productivity will increase, mutual respect will increase and friendliness will be encouraged. We want a restructured Nigeria. The alternative will be worse than the situation we have today.

 

“If it is possible for us to have a situation where people carry AK 47 to run about freely in Nigeria and murder people every day, yesterday it was 21, the other day it was 19. This is happening as if nobody cares…Any serious security agent in any country would have predicted it and organised preventive measure.

 

“If the essence of choosing 17 heads of security arms in this country is to ensure that they all come from the same region as the President to guarantee loyalty to him, what have they done to guarantee our security? If they must all come from the northern Nigeria, please bring those who can do the job,” the elders said.

 

However, while regional governments might hasten growth and probably reduce cost of governance, its timing at this moment has been suspect. Besides, the process is cumbersome, capable of creating controversies and chaos among various states and regions. Most importantly, it requires approval of the National Assembly, interestingly, the lawmakers, aware of the implications on their offices, would hardly vote in its favour.