The 1999 constitution as amended is very clear about the concept of Federal Character. It says that the composition of the government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or any of its agencies” (Section 14 (3) of the 1999 Constitution).
“Pursuant to this, the appointment of Ministers, shall reflect the Federal Character of Nigeria…the President shall appoint at least one Minister from each state who shall be an indigene of such state.”
(section 147 (3) 1999 Constitution). “Appointment to the offices of the Secretary to the Government, Head of Service, Ambassadors, Permanent Secretaries shall have regard to the federal character,” (section 171 (5) 1999 Constitution).
Hence, in search of a viable federalism, the federal character principle was inserted to ensure equitable sharing of posts and even distribution of natural and economic resources. It is a legal weapon put in place to regulate appointments, promotions, security of tenure and severance in every government department. Invariably, a definitive power sharing rules.
The germane question is to what extent has the federal character principle promoted the sharing of power and resources amongst the states?
Several researches by scholars have shown that while ethnic and religious diversity as such is not necessarily related to an increase in the risk of violent conflict, severe inequalities between culturally defined groups have been shown to significantly increase the risk of violent group mobilisation in diverse societies. Such inequalities have also plagued Nigeria both before and after independence.
Nigeria counts hundreds of ethnic groups, although the three major groups together, i.e. the Hausa-Fulani, the Yoruba, and the Igbo, are estimated to encompass about 60% of the population.
Nigeria is also diverse in terms of religion, with Christianity and Islam each being practiced by about half of the population. While Islam is widely practiced in the North, a considerable number of Christians are living there as well, in particular in the North-Central region. Similarly, while Christianity is prevalent in the South, there is also a considerable number of Muslims in the South, in particular in the Southwest.
At independence, Nigeria became a federal state with three autonomous regions: the North, East, and West. The federal government was dominated by the Northern region, which was by far the largest one.
ADVERTISEMENT
This structure of ‘unequal federation’ pitted the regions and dominant ethnic groups in each region against one another.
Arguably, the most important cleavage exists between the North and the South of the country, and is rooted in these regions’ different ethnic, religious, political, and economic make-up.
While the South feared the North’s demographic majority, the North worried about losing out to the relatively higher educated Southern elites, particularly in the public service.
Tensions also exist between the Eastern and Western regions. Furthermore, this tripolar structure also generated disaffection among ethnic minority groups.
Even though the 1958 Willink commission of inquiry into minority fears of domination noted the concerns of these groups, they were largely ignored in the move toward independence.
However, over the years measures have been taken to allay the fears of minorities and to also avoid the domination of the country by one ethnic or religious group.
The 1977 Constitution Drafting Committee canvassed options for the adoption of the federal character principle in the 1979 Constitution as strategy for peace, equity and stability.
It argued that: “There had in the past been inter-ethnic rivalry to secure the domination of government by one ethnic group or combination of ethnic groups to the exclusion of others.
It is, therefore, essential to have some provisions to ensure that the predominance of persons from a few ethnic or other sectional groups is avoided in the composition of government or the appointment or election of persons to high offices in the state.”
To address the above anomalies, the Federal Character Commission was established in 1996. The mandate was to work out equitable formula subject to the approval of the National Assembly for the distribution of all cadres of post in the public service, armed forces, police force and other government security agencies.
It is quite worrisome that 25 years on, the Federal Character Commission has not been able to fulfill its mandate and things have gone from bad to worse in recent times.
President Muhammadu Buhari, was sworn in on May 29, 2015, and since his emergence it appears the federal character has been abandoned.
In the views of many Nigerians particularly those from the South, most of the appointments of the administration are lopsided as it favoured the North.
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, recently reiterated that the essence of the federal character is to “avoid the concentration in a few ethnic hands or geographical places, as we currently have in the leadership of our security apparatus”. Consequently, there is deep-seated divide in Nigeria.
Unable to bear what it considered the present administration’s abandonment of the federal character any longer, some Southern leaders last year headed to the court.
Recall that some leaders of the South last year filed a suit at the Federal High Court to challenge President Muhammadu Buhari’s alleged marginalisation in appointments made by his administration since 2015.
The leaders, in the suit filed on their behalf by 10 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) led by Chief Solomon Asemota and Chief Mike Ozekhome, asked the court to fine the president and three other defendants in the suit N50 billion for allegedly violating provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the federal character principle.
Those sued alongside the president include the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Clerk of National Assembly and the Federal Character Commission (FCC).
The plaintiffs, led by Chief Edwin Clark, Chief Reuben Fasoranti, Dr. John Nnia Nwodo, Dr. Pogu Bittus, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Alaowei Bozimo, Mrs. Sarah Doketri, Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife and Air Commodore Idongesit Nkanga (rtd), accused the Buhari administration of deliberately marginalising the South.
According to them, the present composition of the government of the federation, and most of its agencies, especially as regards the composition of the security and quasi-security agencies do not reflect the federal character principle.
They added that there is a predominance of persons from a few states and sectional groups in positions of authority and consequently threatening national unity and integration.
Some of the issues brought before the court for determination include whether it was not “reckless and adverse to the interest of Nigeria” for the president to obtain a loan facility from the Islamic Development Bank, African Development Bank, the World Bank, China, Japan and Germany amounting to $22.7 billion, for infrastructural development, only to allocate the bulk of the fund to the North.
The plaintiffs also want the court to declare that the loan facility purportedly for infrastructural development wherein less than one per cent of the amount is to be allocated to the South-east for specific infrastructural development, violates Section 16 (1) (a) (b) and S16 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Similarly Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka, in a statement he issued last year titled, “Between ‘Dividers-In-Chief’ And ‘Dividers-In-Law’” accused the Buhari administration of lopsidedness in appointments to key top positions.
He said, “ Lop-sided appointments to crucial positions in Civil Service and parastatals!
Consider the prime economic cash cow – petroleum – exposed a few months ago as a reeking cesspit of nepotism. Who is the Minister of Petroleum under whose watch such an unprecedented contempt for geographical parity –uncontroverted till today — became entrenched?
That happens to be none other than the nation’s president – and he did make a show of astonishment at the gross disparities, promised to subject the anomaly to immediate enquiry.”
As the country continues to search for a viable federal system, this column proposes inclusion, that is, the deliberate creation of political and social structures that will allow adequate participation by the divergent multi ethnic groups and even spread in the allocation of resources.
Aluta Continua!
First Published in Leadership Newspaper
