WHO WILL SAVE NIGERIA?

But all of this pale in significance to the grave implications of the melodrama playing itself out at the National Assembly in Abuja. On the surface, it is a battle for supremacy between the two Houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives with the so-called lower house claiming equality with the upper chamber. You’ve heard it said that its all in the interest of deepening our democratic practice and that a certain group, has in fact taken the matter before a court for determination. It would be interesting to see how the law sorts out the issue. I have no doubt in my mind, however that it more politics than law; that what we are seeing is but the early stirrings of anti-Constitutional Review strategy. Whether the Representatives in the vanguard of the battle are willing tools or unwitting pawns is at this moment be a matter of conjecture, but there could be both in their rank.

It is difficult to be optimistic about the future of this nation. All you need to increase your heartbeat is read the newspapers, listen to the radio or watch the television. And even when you have allowed for the possibility of sensationalizing in many of the reports, you are still left with a sense of foreboding.

The other day, I chanced in on a discussion programme on one of the television stations. There was this guy reeling out the many incidences of violence in the South Western part of the country. It was simply unbelievable that this was happening in a civilian setting which by its rule of law essence ought to inspire peaceful resolution of conflicts. It is one of those seemingly inexplicable contradictions in the Nigerian setting.

Recall the mind-boggling violence that occurred as the immediate aftermath of local government elections in Jos, the Plateau State capital recently. The scenario still playing out in that part of the country, with the State and Federal governments competing on the rights to investigate the incidence, and Governor Jonah Jang alleging impeachment and assassination plans against him, and you cannot but wonder how it will end.

The crisis in the Niger Delta remains something of a low-intensity civil-war with the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) and the government’s Joint Task Force making bloody claims and counterclaims, while sundry freelance hoodlums kidnap just about anybody in sight including, children, clergymen and assorted other relations of dignitaries.

But all of this pale in significance to the grave implications of the melodrama playing itself out at the National Assembly in Abuja. On the surface, it is a battle for supremacy between the two Houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives with the so-called lower house claiming equality with the upper chamber. You’ve heard it said that its all in the interest of deepening our democratic practice and that a certain group, has in fact taken the matter before a court for determination. It would be interesting to see how the law sorts out the issue. I have no doubt in my mind, however that it more politics than law; that what we are seeing is but the early stirrings of anti-Constitutional Review strategy. Whether the Representatives in the vanguard of the battle are willing tools or unwitting pawns is at this moment be a matter of conjecture, but there could be both in their rank

This issue is of great importance because, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, what we do or fail to do with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, has everything to do with the future well-being, not to say, the continued existence of the nation. To put it mildly, it is a bad document, put together by a confused military, driven into disorderly retreat by a civil uprising gradually approaching a crescendo. But, because as one of my friends used to say, even a stopped clock is correct twice every 24 hours, it did serve two purposes. It returned Nigeria to civilian, even if not democratic, rule and; it put some people in office, some of whom would otherwise never have smelt office. It is this latter purpose that is at the root of today’s challenges.

Now, truth be told, it takes class suicide for a group benefiting from a given state of affair to work at changing it. That takes selflessness, courage and a zealous commitment to the greater good of the greater number within the polity. In this respect, I regret to state that in Nigeria, as the novelist would have put it, the beautiful ones are not yet born. In other words, it is unlikely that the 1999 Constitution will be reviewed. If it is, it will not be far-reaching enough to make any difference, because it is not in the interest of those currently at the helm of affairs to do so. Of course, there might be among them patriots willing to lose some privileges, if necessary, but they are in the minority. All of that is if we discount the fact that what Nigeria needs is a new Constitution and a sitting assembly is not equipped for such an assignment.

President Umar Musa Yar’Adua had the opportunity of boldly steering the nation along the right path when he assumed office in May 2007. He passed it up. In the June 17 2007 edition of this column, I dealt with the subject of the way forward then, but of course, it was probably unrealistic to expect a politician of any hue to accept the kind of suggestions made then. But because they are as valid today as they were back then, I shall quote from that piece which was titled, “THINK ON THESE THINGS, MR PRESIDENT”

I said then that he must be able to think out of the box, extra-constitutionally, if you like. I pointed out that the Interim National government option was worth exploring in these words:
“…Some have suggested an Interim National Government. This has been shot down by those who equate it with military president Ibrahim Babangida’s disingenuously constructed booby trap. According to those who argue this way, if it goes by the same name, it must have the same content and end up the same way! Many of this same people say that the ING has no place in our constitution. How simplistic! In a particularly disappointing intervention, a respected constitutional law teacher and columnist, writing in a respected newspaper on two different occasions hid his personal preferences under so much intellectual verbiage and ended up speaking from both sides of the mouth. ING, goes his argument cannot hold because it is unknown to our constitution which is our grundnorm. Then faced with examining whether Nigeria as was being run could be described as a constitutional democracy, he deadpanned: not quite! Now this later is the truth, the unemotional truth that must guide our search for solution to the existing situation.”

I did recognize that for Yar’Adua to even give thought to an idea like that would have amounted to throwing out his chance, and that of his part of the country, to rule the nation – with all the privileges involved. That is class suicide! That was why I counseled as follows:
“A time like these call for men; leaders with vision, able to see beyond self and own-group interests. The Lord Jesus Christ, who for us Christians, is the model (or ought to be) is the best known example of true leadership. He gave up himself for the good of mankind. In the men’s ministry in which I am deeply involved, it is said that “manhood and Christ-likeness are synonymous”. And believe me it is true. You have to resort to self sacrifice in this matter…You must now voluntarily go out of your way to vigorously work for restructuring of this blighted federation. Our current constitution is faulty.. You must find it in yourself to engage with civil society, the opposition and conscientious elements in the international community to put something more concrete, more enduring in place. You must do it quickly; within the shortest possible time, possibly within 18 months. We can then hold fresh elections. If the new arrangement allows you to run and you wish to, I am sure your people will give a clean mandate. On the other hand, if the new arrangement excludes you or you decide not to run, you would not have been the longest serving President in Nigeria, but you would be her greatest.”

As I write this, whether at the Presidency or at the National Assembly, all I see are people more interested in sustaining the status quo; with a bit of tinkering here and there. But it is not going to work.

One wise man said, no matter how far you’ve gone on a wrong road, turn back! There is a Biblical principle for it - it’s called the ax-head principle and it’s based on an incident recorded in the second book of Kings Chapter 6. The so-called children of the prophets had lost the head of a borrowed ax. It fell into River Jordan in the process of cutting trees for use in the building of a new camp. They sought the help of Prophet Elisha. The story climaxed in verse six like this: “Where did it fall?" Elisha asked. The man showed him the place, and Elisha cut off a stick, threw it in the water, and made the ax head float.” It is generally agreed among dispassionate observers that we lost our way when we buried true federalism, and concentrated virtually all powers at the centre. We need to return to that spot to find our way forward. Will the beneficiaries of the aberration preside over the dismantling of their privileges? That is the question.