The distortion of Nigeria Constitution
Daily Independent – Saturday, August 23, 2008
Abacha, Abdulsalami distorted Nigerian Constitution – Ekwueme
Engaging Dr Alex Ifeanyichukwu Ekwueme in an interview is like going through chapters of a well-edited encyclopaedia of contemporary Nigerian politics. The former vice president of Nigeria has remained a factor in all major political events in Nigeria for the past 30 years, especially on the side of democracy and civilian governance.
In 1998, before Gen. Sani Abacha died, Ekwueme and his colleagues already knew that Nigeria was going nowhere without true democracy, rule of law and popular participation in governance. On Abacha’s death, Ekwueme’s group, the G-34 (Group of 34 eminent Nigerians), became the vehicle through which the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)was formed and nurtured as a popular movement with broad-based participation and membership that would serve as a bulwark against further military intervention.
The PDP, in the eyes of Ekwueme, was equally to provide the platform for economic revolution and national integration through the zoning of key offices and the enthronement of true civilian democratic governance. The Second Republic vice president provided leadership in all these and impacted the whole polity with his integrity, experience and prodigious intellect.
In this down-to-earth interaction with Assistant News Editor, EMMA CHUKWUANUKWU, and Photographer, Goddy Umukoro, the Ide of Okoh in Anambra State narrates how ‘armed robbers’ hijacked the ‘PDP house’ he built, chased away the founders and architects of the winning party and turned the people’s party into what Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka, called "nest of killers". He also explains why he never contemplated leaving PDP for any other party, despite the humiliations he had been subjected to by the "pretenders" who took over the party and why he chose to be patient, adding that the party chiefs who assisted former President Olusegun Obasanjo in derailing the party would eventually regret their actions. He says he has been vindicated today as the PDP runs back to him like the prodigal son for leadership and direction.
The former vice president also speaks on various issues including the distortion of the Nigerian constitution by the military rulers that threw the nation into avoidable constitutional crisis, the Second Republic, the Niger Delta crisis, corruption in the public service and lots more.
Dr. Ekwueme speaks like he has not done in a long time, for a man not given to frivolous statements, a thorough-bred politician and an intellectual blessed with a keen mind for details.
Let us start this interaction with the latest national assignment you have just concluded for your party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), reconciling aggrieved members of the party who have left the party and even those who have issues with the party. Most of your recommendations seem not to have been implemented by your party. Do you think that exercise was worth all the trouble you undertook?
Well, I think it is not for me to judge whether the exercise was worth all the trouble, and I don’t know what you mean by saying that the recommendations have not been adhered to by the party. My business was to try and bring back estranged party members, and, as far as I know, a person like former speaker of the House of Representatives, Alhaji Umar Ghali Na’Abba came back to the party after our intervention. Former governor of Kano State, Abubakar Rimi, who was the first chairman of the finance committee of the PDP when it was formed also came back to the party, and many others from various parts of the country because we toured all the six geo-political zones of the country and had the opportunity of talking to all the party leaders for all the 36 states and Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. Many responded to our intervention by foregoing their grievances and coming back to the party, and I am sure the party is stronger for that reason. So, to that extent, I think we succeeded. Now, as you probably know, the party set up another committee headed by one of our members to work out an implementation programme for the recommendations we made, and I think the committee’s report has been considered by the National Working Committee (NWC)and I believe that today, Tuesday, August 5, the National Executive Committee (NEC)of the party is sitting in Abuja to consider the report of that implementation committee. That will only help to straighten out some of the loose ends that we discovered and get the body moving on an even keel. So, I think the NWC will consider our report and the report of the implementation committee objectively and dispassionately. They may have considered it. I don’t know yet. I’ve not made contact to find out what the result of the NWC meeting.
But some are of the belief that the PDP has been very unfair to you over the years, and we feel the party should have reconciled with you first before you can now go ahead to reconcile other aggrieved members. How would you react to that?
The fact is that people don’t understand why, despite failing to reconcile with me, I still persist, when called upon to do so, in doing my best to put the party together. This is because if anybody can claim credit for forming PDP, I should be the one to do so. But for reasons of modesty, I don’t do so. The PDP was midwifed by the G34, which opposed (Sani)Abacha’s plan to transmute from a military head of state (to a civilian president)without resigning from the army. And it involved enormous amount of risks on the part of G34; those of us who were listed as subscribers to that memorandum and on my part in particular as the person who actually signed the document.
If you go back to some publications between April and May, 1998, one magazine actually carried a headline ‘Ekwueme Takes On Abacha’. And that is not something that one can consider lightly in those days. And it was this risk that we took that gave credibility to the PDP, because people felt that the people who were midwifing it were those who stood against the military regime of Abacha in his effort to move from being a military dictator to become a civilian president nominated by the four extant political parties at that time. And surprisingly, when some of those who were saying that there was no alternative to Abacha at that time were mostly found in the APP, and they did not attract any credibility. So, having built that house, if I may put it that way, and in December 5, 1998 local government elections, it was the first test of the popularity of the associations and which was the prerequisite for the associations being registered as political parties, PDP swept the polls in 28 or 29 out of the 36 states of the federation easily. And the following January, in the governorship elections, PDP had all the five governors of the South East, six governors of the South South and 10 out of the 19 governors of the three regions of the North. So, the party was overwhelmingly popular.
Unfortunately, as things went on, the party was hijacked by people who did not know how it was formed; people who were not there when it was formed, and did not contribute in any way towards its formation. They had no sentimental, philosophical or spiritual attachment to the party. And that was why things went the way they went. And, of course, people like that would not appreciate the enormous sacrifice made by people like some of us who started the party, and they thought they could ride roughshod over us by virtually moving to frustrate us out of the party. Some were frustrated out of the party, but on principle, I refused to be frustrated out of the party, because I didn’t think it was wise to build a house and if armed robbers come to attack the house, you abandon it to them to take over. That was my attitude. So I refused to be frustrated out and I stayed in the party. I never left it for one minute. And I continued to do whatever was necessary to keep it together till now that it is a shadow of what it was in 1998, 1999, to try and bring back its lost popularity, dignity and acceptability to Nigerians. That’s what I feel I have a duty to continue to do in any way possible.
Sir, you contested twice for the presidency of this country and many of us believe you were cheated out by your party men. Was it on principle too that you refused to fight back against such obvious injustice?
Yes, precisely that!
I am a believer in democracy and in civilian democracy. Clearly, a lot happened in Jos at the first nomination convention of the PDP. And it was a very easy thing for me to generate a crisis in the polity which might have tempted the military to stay longer than necessary or resulted in a very traumatic transition if it went on. I didn’t want it recorded in history that because of my personal ambition, I was prepared to sacrifice the peace of Nigeria. So, in spite of everything, I decided to cooperate and I spent my own money campaigning for Obasanjo in all the radio stations in the Eastern region and in the national network of the FRCN (Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria)at my own cost, telling people not to cast protest votes, because some of my supporters were disappointed that my candidacy was truncated, which, of course, has been admitted by some of those who were pretending they didn’t know anything about it. It was a plot by former military officers to put one of their own in the presidency for their own protection.
With all your experience in politics so far, and all the sacrifices you have made to build party politics in Nigeria, what would be your assessment of party politics in Nigeria, given your own experience in the PDP?
Well, it has not been ideal and I don’t think the decision to open the floodgate for registration of parties so that we end up with 50 political parties in Nigeria was a healthy development for party growth. In 1979, when we first contested elections under the constitutional civilian democracy after 13 years and nine months of military rule from January 15, 1966, the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO)as it was then registered five political parties only. And the main criterion was that these political parties must be nationwide parties. They should not be based on narrow, regional, ethnic or religious considerations. To be nationwide, they must have offices in two-third of the states of the federation. They must have executive members drawn from majority of the states of the federation and so on.
But within four years of that dispensation, the political structure had devolved to two main blocks, the National Party of Nigeria (NPN)on the one hand and then the Progressive Parties Alliance (PPA)on the other hand comprising the other parties. So that with time, if the military had not truncated the growth of the system, maybe we would have ended up with two political parties arising by evolution, not by fiat. So that even in the First Republic, when there was no limit to the number of political parties that could be formed because it was a parliamentary system, by the time of the coup of January 1966, there were effectively two political groups in place; the United Progressives Grand Alliance (UPGA)and the Nigerian National Alliance (NNA). Again, we had two political parties coming up by evolution rather than by fiat. And once that happens, we are more likely to have a stable development of political parties.
But in General Ibrahim Babangida’s time, he created two political parties by fiat, which produced interesting results in the sense that if June 12 election had not been annulled, we would have made some progress in terms of having a national outlook in politics. But then, that had its dangers which most people don’t seem to appreciate. And the dangers are that anybody who manages to take over control of any of those parties becomes a lord. And as it were, the Social Democratic Party (SDP)then was virtually taken over by the late General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, which meant that anybody coming into SDP would have to play by his own rules. He would decide who would be chairman and no matter how popular Ekong Etuk was, no matter what he had, if Shehu Yar’Adua decided that it was Tony Anenih who was going to be chairman of SDP, so it was. You can imagine that the same thing happened in the National Republican Convention (NRC)and there was somebody who took over that party, then it means that the whole democratic programme is already hijacked by people who control the party, whereas under the old system where, if party system works by evolution, there was always room that nobody could come and say that he took control of the party machinery and everybody will have to do his bidding. So, that is my assessment of that situation.
The situation you just described seemed to have played out in the last general elections being complained about nationally and internationally. What is your comment on the April 14 general elections?
Well, the elections being complained about is a picture of the social malaise that Nigeria has been suffering from. You cannot expect to have dishonesty in the lifestyle and ways of doing business of doing things in every sphere of the polity and then suddenly in the electoral process, you import angels who will work altruistically and honestly. It is a reflection of the decadence in the society and in the polity. It is unfortunate because once people lose confidence in the electoral process, that’s the end of democracy. If people’s votes count for nothing, why would anybody bother to go and stand in the sun or in the rain waiting to vote, if the results would come out any way in spite of his voting or not voting. So, that is a very unfortunate trend. I hope that with the exercise being conducted now under Justice Mohammadu Uwais, retired CJN (Chief Justice of Nigeria)trying to reform the electoral process, that we would be able to evolve a system that will guarantee free and fair election as much as possible. If India with more than one billion population and over 400 million voters can manage democratic elections successfully, not once, not twice but seven times, there is no reason we cannot learn from experience to evolve a system.
How do we dislodge the emergency politicians who have no respect for democratic principles that you say have hijacked your party, the PDP, and restore credibility to the political parties, especially the PDP?
I was talking about PDP in terms of its history, and the trouble, of course, must be laid at the feet of the former President Olusegun Obasanjo who was not around when the party was formed and who had no sentimental or spiritual attachment to the party. He only saw the party as an instrument or vehicle for attaining political power and once that was achieved, his next concern was to make sure he controlled that vehicle, to ensure that the party did his bidding at all times. That was why we had four, five chairmen of the party within the eight-year period he was in office as president. Fortunately, we now have a thorough-bred civilian president who saw the political party as all of us and the role it should play and his own role in making sure that the party is strong and well organised but not something that he should put in his pocket and use as he deems fit, change the chairman, change whatever he wants. We don’t have such a president now. So, at least for the PDP, I believe that party organisation will be positioned on a healthier basis.
We have 50 registered political parties as at now in Nigeria. Are you advocating that they should be reduced by fiat or …?
I don’t endorse anything being done by fiat because we are not in a military regime. What, of course, can be done is to put boundaries to what a political party has to achieve to continue to exist. What’s the point in putting 50 political parties on the ballot paper and putting so much money in printing the ballot papers, if 40 of them will not get any votes anyway? They won’t have any member in the National Assembly or elsewhere. So, what we can do is to say that any party that does not generate at least 10 per cent of the votes cast has no business calling itself a political party. Or we can say right away, so as not to make it too onerous, any party that does not generate two per cent of the popular votes cast has no reason for existing and should just die a natural death or decide to merge with another party that has succeeded. And as we keep doing that, over time, the number will keep reducing until we probably end up with four or five parties. By the time we have 10 parties, we can say any party that doesn’t generate 10 per cent of the popular votes, which is the average, anyone that falls below the average will die a natural death until we get to a number that is viable and manageable, and that would conduce to a good party structure.
You were a very powerful voice during the Constitutional Conference of 1994, 1995. And most of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution we are using now were actually your submissions during the conference, particularly the six zonal structures we have now. What is your view about the move by the National Assembly to amend the 1999 Constitution? And do you think the current zonal structure has helped in uniting Nigeria and addressing the various complaints of marginalisation by various ethnic groups?
No, I was not a strong voice in the constitution we are using now. Because what we prepared in 1994/95 was prepared in the final form after amendments by the various committees and was to be promulgated before October 1, 1998 by General Sani Abacha. I have a copy of that constitution in its final form and that document solved most of the problems we are experiencing now. Unfortunately, when Abdulsalami (Abubakar) took over and wanted to hand over to a civilian government, he set up a 23-man committee headed by Justice Niki Toby, now of the Supreme Court. That time, he was still in the Appeal Court. The committee was to look at the 1995 Constitution and consider what should be the constitutional order for 1999.
Unfortunately, because that 1995 Constitution was done during the tenure of Abacha, and the NADECO (National Democratic Coalition)who felt that nothing good could come out of Abacha regime persuaded the Toby committee that there was nothing worth salvaging; that it would be very unacceptable to use that 1995 and that, in fact, there was nothing wrong with the 1979 Constitution. So, the 1999 Constitution was not derived from the 1995 Constitution which we prepared with the amendments; it is derived from 1979 Constitution. Just a few differences such as declaration of assets before being sworn in.
I can tell you what they took from the 1995 Constitution. One, the National Judicial Council (NJC), which we initiated and which, in fact, actually derogates from federalism. But we felt it was necessary to curb state governors’ powers over the judiciary, so that the judiciary would be assured of funds at all levels, and then the judicial council would be in a position to discipline judges, if they are corrupt or guilty of misdemeanor. So, we put that in. As I said, it wasn’t really in consonance with the true spirit of federalism, but it was borne out of necessity to have a strong judiciary. Now, surprisingly, that element of the 1995 Constitution was retained by the one of 1999.
The other thing that they kept was the 13 per cent derivation which we put in the 1995 Constitution. And we said 13 per cent minimum. I don’t know whether these two items they retained had anything to do with the stature of the chairman of the committee that the jurist, being an appeal court justice and a person from an oil-producing area, or maybe just coincidence. But I am trying to say that if they had left the 1995 Constitution as it was, we would have saved ourselves a lot of headaches. First, that constitution, for instance, prescribed a single five-year term for governors and the president; one term of five years without self-succession.
The idea being that an incumbent governor should not be in place presiding over his own election or the incumbent president be in place presiding over his own election, when the military, the police, the SSS (State Security Service)are all beholding to him, and he is a candidate in an election. Even if he doesn’t want to distort the results of the election, some of these operatives may feel very eager to please the person who is in power as they go out of their way to ensure that the governor or president is returned. So, we decided that five years would be enough. In the first year, you study the terrain, you have second, third and fourth year — three full years — to transform the place and then, the fifth year, you start preparing your handover notes, winding up. Now, you will be there and somebody else will be elected to replace you. That person who is elected to replace you will have five years. After his own five years, if you are so good that people feel that it was a mistake for you not to have had a second chance, you can then come back for another five years. But you cannot have five years followed by another five years; you cannot succeed yourself. A single term of five years without self-succession.
Now, the same way, that 1995 Constitution stipulated the six geo-political zones. In fact, that is the only document in which you find the six geo-political zones as espoused at the Constitutional Conference put down in black and white. And then, also ensuring that six principal offices in the country are spread one to each zone so that every zone has a sense of belonging. The president, vice president, the prime minister, the deputy prime minister, president of Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives. That was put in black and white. Of course, in the PDP, we made our own internal arrangements for this zoning. We ensured the president, the vice president, the president of Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF)and the chairman of the party, must be held one from each geo-political zone. The idea being that if these six people holding these positions meet to consider a matter and then take a decision, then not only are the six zones of Nigeria party to that decision, but also the executive represented by the president and vice president, the legislature represented by the president of Senate and speaker of House of Representatives, the party that produced these people represented by the chairman of the party and the bureaucracy represented by the SGF are all involved in decision-making. So, everybody is carried along at all levels. We made that internal zoning arrangement. But in the 1995 Constitution, as amended to be operated from October 1998, the six positions there, we had prime minister and deputy prime minister, which Abacha wanted because he wanted to be president and have a prime minister like the French model — president, vice president, prime minister, deputy prime minister. The six positions spread among the six zones, so that if these people, everybody in Nigeria is represented, nobody can say he didn’t know how a decision came about or that he was not a party to it.
Do you think the current effort by the National Assembly to amend the constitution will yield the desired results? Are they going about it the right way to achieve a constitution that will correct all these anomalies you have identified?
What they tried to do the last time and the matter ended in fiasco because of the third term was to do a wholesale overhaul of the constitution and I don’t know if that is what they want to do now. There are areas in the constitution which are clearly defective, and which everybody has accepted, and there are some areas which require Supreme Court’s intervention, which they have done in a few cases, but not necessarily by direct amendment. Take the matter of the creation of local governments. It is put in such an awkward manner in the constitution. It says ‘after’ the local government had been created, then the National Assembly will adopt them so that the schedule will be amended. And some people say that states have no right to create local governments. But the constitution says it is after they had been created that the National Assembly will come in.
There are awkward provisions like that which need to be cleaned up. They may not be more than 50 or thereabouts of such awkward provisions. Those could be addressed; they won’t be very contentious. Get those cleaned off and then continue. If there are any problems that arise later with other sections of the constitution, we can look at them. For instance, the matter of some people that are indicted; if such indictment is approved by the Federal Executive Council (FEC)or a state executive council, is the affected person fit to contest an election? Then, the Supreme Court, I think because it wanted to curb the excesses of the vice president, decided that it must be a matter of conviction. So, on that basis, Atiku was declared eligible to contest that election. But actually, the matter of conviction is covered by another section of the constitution. So, if you have such nebulous terms like indictment, you have to explain what indictment means. Does indictment mean conviction? If not, how far does it go to identify indictment as it affects somebody’s eligibility to contest elections? These are things that could be straightened and cleaned up without going into total overhaul of the constitution which will be tedious and might result in total failure, if one item is unacceptable just like third term was unacceptable that time and the whole thing was torpedoed.
You mentioned the celebrated open confrontation between former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Obasanjo. You were vice president to President Shehu Shagari for over four years, did you at any time have cause to disagree with your boss at that time?
Well, I didn’t say anything about an open fight about president and vice president. I was only talking about Supreme Court’s decision on indictment in terms of the vice president’s qualification to contest for the last election. But if that is the way you put it, that is your language, not mine. As you know, as you’ve heard from me, you’ve heard from Shagari. We worked very well together throughout the four years and three months we were there. We didn’t have any cause for serious disagreements, and I say serious because any two people working together like husband and wife will have disagreements at one time or another. But we did not have any serious disagreements that would result in open fights that other people would know about. No such thing! We worked very well together.
You know, Shagari was a full-blooded democrat. He started his political life in the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives in Lagos and then served as a federal minister. Then he eventually came back and served in the council at that level. So, he served in all tiers of government and he is a thorough-bred democrat. He had no dictatorial tendencies. So, he was open to discuss any matter and would accept superior argument. When we first started, there was a memo that came before the Council of Ministers. We didn’t call it Federal Executive Council; we called Council of Ministers. The first memo that came under his signature was the first in council. I had a few reservations about some of the contents and some of the recommendations. So, advisedly, I said nothing throughout the meeting when that memo was being considered. After the meeting, he called me and asked me why I didn’t make any contribution. So, I told him that we had to work out a modus operandi. If he would like me to comment on any memo, I could do so before it comes to council. Then he can consider my input before putting final documents, because it would seem embarrassing to come to council and start shooting down everything in the memorandum. It will seem as if the house is divided. So, he told me that it didn’t matter; that I should say whatever I want and put forward any argument I had.
Your government was toppled mainly on allegations of corruption and ineptitude. Considering the level of corruption in the present democratic dispensation, how would you react to such allegations during your own democratic regime?
Well, allegations are allegations. You would appreciate that when we were there, we had a formidable opposition in the UPN, NPP, GNPP and the PLP, and the UPN had a virtual monopoly of the media, the Lagos-Ibadan axis. So, whatever picture they wanted the people to have of the government so as to put it down or to derogate from its credibility, they would create it. Eventually, when the military came and toppled us and started their investigations, the first people they tried in court and jailed were the very people who said we were corrupt. They said how they shared the commission they got from an insurance building, and so on. All that came to the open. And whether we were corrupt or not, I think I’ll ask you to get a copy of the Justice Uwaifo report which was a judicial panel that looked into Shagari’s matter and my own, a retired military police and a civilian equivalent, a judge.
And they went through all our assets and liabilities with a toothcomb and they announced their verdict of how we performed. So, when I hear people talk about corruption in the Second Republic, I laugh because there was no contract at that time, except defence for the military that did not go through scrutiny at the Council of Ministers level where everybody made an input. Of course, if it is below two million, it would be dealt with at the ministerial tenders’ board at the ministry’s level. But we didn’t have the capacity to just call somebody and just sign a contract worth so many millions without going through tender, which happened when we left office. From then on, people were signing contracts based on negotiated figures without competitive tendering and without coming to council. So, I pleaded not guilty to those charges of corruption during the Second Republic, which was orchestrated by the opposition who had control of the media and who brainwashed Nigerians to believing them. But as I said, when the chips were down and when the military decided to open up the can of worms, they were the ones mostly affected.
Your party, the PDP, has been accused of high level corruption both at the states and at the federal levels. How do you react to that?
I don’t know about now. I don’t know of anybody accusing the president and the in-coming government of corruption. I’ve seen accusations levelled against the last government of Obasanjo during his eight years mostly based on public, open enquiry conducted by the National Assembly which they are entitled to do under the constitution. Well, that’s the way we see it. He (Yar’Adua)has to answer for himself; I cannot answer for him.
You are an accomplished architect, a thorough-bred professional who was well to do even before entering politics. One would like to know what prompted you to enter politics which many people regard as a dirty game decent people should avoid.
Yes, they told me that in 1979. They said: what are you going to do in politics? It is a dirty game. If you go there, they will mess you up. I said: but you have a chance to serve and to make a difference. And I don’t regret getting involved in it, though they tried to mess me up. They succeeded very much, but as I said, the truth will always come up. The Uwiafo report is clear. You see, one single decision you make in politics could affect so many lives. For instance, people don’t remember it now, before 1979, in the public service, the senior staff had car loans and car basic allowances, that’s for transportation. They had housing provided. But the junior staff had no such things. I personally took the responsibility and credit for the fact that I said well, it is inequitable.
What we should do is have a formula so that level 1 to level 17, each person, at every level, you have so much for housing allowance, so much for transportation allowance. If you get your transport allowance and you want to convert it into a loan through a bank to buy a bicycle or motorcycle or a car, that’s your business. But I stopped the disparity between junior service and senior service. I created an egalitarian situation. Junior staff all over the federation who now get transport and housing allowances don’t know where they came from. But I know where it came from because I started it. I couldn’t have started that if I was running my office at Awolowo Road, Ikoyi Lagos. One decision you can make in public service can affect thousands of people. So, anybody who has an opportunity to serve and make such an input should not avoid it because it (politics)is a dirty game.
You have been in government and you are familiar with the Niger Delta crisis. What will be your recommendation on how to resolve the Niger Delta problem?
I don’t have an off-the-cuff solution because it is a problem that has existed for half a century. The Willinks Commission report was in 1958, and a few other reports. We are in 2008 now, that’s 50 years ago. It started with the Niger Delta development report, followed by the Willinks report. But that didn’t impact too solidly on the quality of life. But over that period of time, the quality of life has been degraded enormously.
Environmental pollution. It appears as if as the volume of crude oil extracted has been on the rise and income generated has been increasing, but the quality of life of the people from where crude oil is being extracted continues to plummet. I won’t say I feel happy, but I feel slightly relieved that the 13 per cent we are talking about now was my creation at the Constitutional Conference of 1994/95. The revenue allocation committee of the conference had some people from some parts of the country saying that under no circumstance should derivation increase more than three per cent. In the end, they moved it up to five per cent. Then we countered and we were saying it should be 50 per cent or nothing. Eventually, by doing some arithmetic, which was unassailable, it was clear that 13 per cent was minimum, and we put it in those terms that under no circumstances should derivation be less than 13 per cent at any time. And that has resulted in influx of revenue into the main Niger Delta states of Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers and Akwa Ibom; and to a smaller extent Edo, Cross River, Imo and Abia. But that was supposed to be the minimum, and it was envisaged that periodically, it would continue to be reviewed upward, not downward.
Unfortunately, nobody took the initiative to initiate that review and now the matter has got out of hand and 50 years neglect cannot be cleared overnight. But still, the direction to go must be to have infrastructure development, education, health services, good social services, water supply, electricity, and then employment, economic development for the area. There is no reason the whole of the Niger Delta area should not be a model for quality life compared to the rest of Nigeria. But it is something that you cannot do by fiat. It will require proper planning, comprehensive planning, programming and the cooperation of everybody, all Nigerians, including the Niger Deltans themselves.
The issue of Ndigbo in Nigerian politics is disturbing to a lot of Igbo people and the Ohanaeze Ndigbo. It became more disturbing recently when we heard that the list of those you recommended to Yar’Adua for appointment into various boards was thrown out by the president. What’s your reaction to the marginalisation of Ndigbo in Nigerian politics?
Well, I can only speak for the schedule of positions allocated to Anambra State. I was out of the country when they did the allocation. But if you look at it, it’s not a very healthy, very inspiring list. It just happened that I have it here. (Brings a list out of his pocket, and reads): "Anambra State; Details of Chairmanship of Federal Boards. 1– National Universties Commission–one member; National Examinations Council of Nigeria–one member; Voice of Nigeria–one member; Public Complaints Commission–one member; Federal Polytechnics–one chairman and one member; Federal Colleges of Education–one member; Federal Universities–two members; Federal Medical Centres–one chairman and one member; National Troupe of Nigeria–one member; Medical Rehabilitation Therapist Board–one chairman; University Teaching Hospitals–one member; National Hospitals–one member; National Investment Chemical and Leather Technology, Zaria–one member; River Basin Development Authority–one member; National Institute for Sports–one member; National Institute for Trychonosmiasis Research, that’s Tse-Tse Fly–one member; National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons–one member. Psychiatric Hospital Management Board–one member." These are the slots for Anambra. I don’t think anybody will look at it and think this is an impressive allocation for a state for federal boards. So, that is the situation as it is on paper.
If you should meet President Yar’Adua, what would you tell him concerning the list you just read out?
I will tell him that it is important that every citizen, every part of the country should have a sense of belonging. That is the bottomline and I am putting it very simply. And you cannot have a sense of belonging if your board members are for psychiatric hospitals, national troupe, tse-tse fly research and leather something in Zaria. So, where are all the others?
Sir, with over 40 years in politics, do you have any regrets?
Forty years? No, just 30 years in politics. I don’t have any regrets. It’s rough at times. And it’s a thankless job in every respect when you get involved in it. I would have thought that after all the sleepless nights and all the risks, one would be rewarded by a better society, a better country. But as I said, I have no regrets.
As an architect of international repute, you must be pained by the many incidents of collapsed buildings across the country.
Yes, I am pained and it is as a result of lack of compliance with laid-down regulations for putting up buildings. The Architects Registration Council has consistently insisted that buildings must be supervised by qualified architects and builders. But what do you expect when buildings are being construted by draughtsmen with unknown quantities of building materials?
