One conference, many voices?

President Goodluck JonathanThe release of modalities for the proposed National Conference has generated a flurry of reactions from a cross section of Nigerians.

Some have questioned the sincerity of the Federal Government, the timing of the conference, and the restriction of issues to be discussed to all other matters, except the indivisibility of the nation.

There is no gain saying the fact that the idea of a national conference under whatever guise is not new.

For the most part, the timing and motive of previous conferences including the one being proposed by President Goodluck Jonathan, has also been viewed with suspicion. This is also largely due to the fact that a large number of Nigerians don’t trust their leaders.

This does not obliterate the fact that there were positive outcomes from conferences of this nature in the past. It is on record that the 1957 Constitutional Conference held in London went a long way to prepare Nigeria for Independence.

While the defunct Eastern and Western regions extracted the right to self-government from the British colonial masters in 1957, the Northern region was granted the same right in 1959.

It was the outcome of the same conference that saw Nigeria adopting the Parliamentary system of government and bequeathed to us a Bi-cameral Federal Legislature.

The Constituent Assembly of 1978 gave birth to the 1979 Constitution which also paved the way for the current Presidential System.

Subsequent constitutions such as those of 1979 and 1999 drew substantially from recommendations of these previous conferences.

These historical facts have done little, if anything to douse anxiety among stakeholders over the number of delegates and the process of nominating those to attend this month’s proposed National Conference.

According to modalities released by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Ayim Pius Ayim, President Goodluck Jonathan will nominate a total of 46 out of the expected 492 delegates to the conference.

He was also given powers to appoint the chairman, deputy chairman and secretary.

This is apart from the 26 delegates which the Federal Government is expected to nominate.

A breakdown of the President’s nominees indicate that he is to pick one elder each for the 36 states of the federation including Abuja, as well as six representatives for the Judiciary.

Political observers posit that the decision to saddle the President with the responsibility of choosing delegates from certain states was inspired by a threat of boycott by the opposition All Progressives Congress.

Modalities for the conference gave state governors the liberty to nominate three delegates each, while “where the state governor fails to nominate, the President shall nominate the required number from the state.”

In dismissing the idea of holding such an important conference in an election year, the APC national leader, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, described the conference as the Jonathan administration’s “Greek gift and public deception” which states controlled by APC would stay away from.

The pan-Yoruba Socio-cultural organisation, Afenifere, which does not share Tinubu’s point of view, was however uncomfortable with the power given to the President to nominate almost 25 per cent of delegates.

Secretary of the organisation, Chief Basorun Arogbofa, said “The President has been given much power to nominate so many persons. “He will nominate the chairman, deputy and the secretary and a range of other groups into the conference. That could amount to certain controls.”

He also said his group would have preferred a smaller number of delegates as well as government subjecting the outcome of the conference to a referendum, instead of sending it to the National Assembly.

The Arewa Consultative Forum saw things differently. National Publicity Secretary of the Forum, Mr. Anthony Sani said, “Though the ACF has never believed the solution to our national malaise lies in the conference, as long as the promoters believe it can further the cause of a united whole Nigeria, there should be no qualm. We hope the deliberations will calm the nerves in the polity.”

Sani said it was doubtful if any serious thing could be achieved within the three months the conference is expected to last.

An issue which has remained contentious is the role of ethnic nationalities in the entire process.

Yinka Odumakin, National Publicity Secretary of Afenifere, said any conference about Nigeria’s future after the first 100 years without ethnic nationalities driving it, would be a disservice to the people.

He explained that what the British colonial masters forcefully brought together were ethnic nationalities, not trade unions or professional bodies.

According to him, those agitating for anything less than a conference of ethnic nationalities are scratching the problem on the surface.

He said, “When the former USSR disintegrated, ethnic nationalities which formed the USSR did not go back to their trade unions or professional bodies, they went back to their ethnic nationalities.

“What the British brought together in 1914 was the Efik, the Yoruba, Ibo, Ibiobio, Hausa, Igala and several other ethnic nationalities from the North and the South to form Nigeria.”

History, he said, was full of such examples. He observed that Nigerians could ill-afford to run away from the inevitable.

Odumakin is not alone. National Chairman of the United Peoples Party, Chief Chekwas Okorie, expressed similar sentiments.

He said, “This country is made up of ethnic nationalities that were clobbered together by the British colonial masters without any form of consultation.

“The National Conference that will restore people’s confidence in a united Nigeria ought to have been convened around the ethnic nationalities as major and critical stakeholders.”

Okorie also expressed worry that the decision of government to approve that 75 per cent of delegates (most of who were its appointees), to pass any item where consensus fails, was suspect.

He said “This is not satisfactory at all. What this means is that if majority of the delegates want a particular decision adopted by the conference, that majority will lose out to the minority simply because they do not number up to 75 per cent.

“We shall end up having a situation where the dissenting 26 per cent of the delegates will have their way while 74 per cent of the assenting delegates will only have their say. This is a clear recipe for the failure of the Conference.”

The politician also expressed disappointment that government was planning to have such decisions incorporated in the 1999 Constitution.

He said this was deceitful and a betrayal of the trust of a majority of Nigerians who welcomed Mr. President’s initiative for a national conference.

“Nigerians expect nothing short of a brand new constitution that will go through a referendum as a pre-condition for it to be promulgated into law,” he said.

While the Ohaneze Ndigbo said it was still preparing a response, the Ndigbo Unity Forum kicked against the idea of the President and governors nominating most of the delegates to the conference.

The President of the forum, Mr. Augustine Chukwudum, described arbitrary nominations by the President and governors as undemocratic.

He said “Let the people elect their representatives and then organised labour and civil society organisations can send delegates as well.”

The Trade Union Congress also objected to President Goodluck Jonathan hand-picking chairman and deputy chairman for the national conference.

TUC President, Bobboi Kaigama said, “We would suggest a situation where the conference will elect its chairman and deputy chairman. But the Federal Government has the right to appoint the secretary.”

As expected, the ruling Peoples Party, on its part saw nothing wrong with any of the approved guidelines for the conference.

National Publicity Secretary of the party, Chief Olisa Metuh, said the President has delivered on his promise to convene a national conference.

Beyond partisan postulations, political observers appear united in expressing concerns over what they consider defects capable of rendering the outcome of the latest attempt, ineffective.

They argue that while this would not be the first time a sitting Nigerian President would nominate delegates to a conference of this nature, the sheer size of this one calls for concern.

Of greater concern is the deviation from the normal practice of allowing delegates elect their officers especially the chairman and secretary.

Those in this school of thought argue that the President ought to have restrained himself from showing an overt interest in controlling the process and outcome of the conference.

The President’s supporters are of the view that there was nothing wrong in him providing guidance for a process which was his idea.

What is at stake is certainly greater than any individual or sectional interest. The next 100 years of a nation which has so far fell short of its enormous potential; is certainly worth discussing. Whether or not the latest effort is diversionary as some have alleged is left for the conveners to either validate or disprove.