Thoughts On Sovereign

culled from THISDAY, January 15, 2005

Going through the various National Conferences (SNC) in the Franco-phone countries that successfully declared themselves “Sovereign”, in the early 1990’s, one comes to the conclusion that the Nigerian politicians who are agitating for a Sovereign National Conference are actually planning for a non-violent and a non-military change of government in Nigeria that could take one of two forms.  
One is that they are clamoring for a “civilian coup”.   This was evident from the plan of the leaders of the National Conference that assembled in the Republic of Benin.   They made it known that their intention was to achieve a “civilian coup”.  But they were cautious about it; they made sure that they did not speak about it to the hearing of the President and his aides. But the Nigerian advocates of the Sovereign National Conference have never been shy about their intention unlike the advocates in the Republic of Benin.   The Nigerian advocates have been vociferous in the media and in the various locations in Nigeria.  
To the Nigerian advocates of SNC, the Sovereign National Conference has become the “one thousand-diseases cure” for political ailments or for the resolutions of all crises in policy implementation.   To them inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts should be solved through an SNC; an economic crisis should be solved through the SNC!  
The advocates of SNC are never afraid speaking about their political plan in the presence of the current holders of offices.  To them, the current political order is illegitimate; to them the current government at the center should be thrown out as if it is a military regime.   They are saying so in so many words. They should tell the Nigerian people that what they failed to achieve through the democratic process they want to achieve it by the fiat of a National Conference, an unconstitutional change of government.  

ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY

The second interpretation of the advocacy for a Sovereign National Conference has to do with the implication for the current tenure of the political order.   If the protagonists of a Sovereign National Conference were to have their way and the President by an act of omission, commission or indiscretion allows a Sovereign National Conference to happen, the end result ought to be obvious to him and the political order.   That would amount to an “abdication” of President Obasanjo as President, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  
Abdication is not provided for in the Constitution.   This will be an addition to the three ways under which a vacancy could be declared in the office of the President.   One would recall that a vacancy could occur if the President dies in office, if he resigns or if he is impeached.   Agreeing to a Sovereign National Conference while still in office is an abdication not provided for in the Constitution.   The President should not be forced to this by fiat of an SNC.   This is not all.  
If the President agrees to a Sovereign National Conference while still in office, that would be a unilateral act that could have effect on the polity in other ways.   One his abdication would be seen as binding on the second elective body at the national level (the National Assembly); two, it would be seen as binding on other elective bodies at other levels in the Federation that have different basis of representation.    
 In Nigeria the Presidential System that out of ignorance is interpreted as ‘the government by the President alone’, a unilateral abdication by the President would mean that the act of the President would amount to an end to the current National Assembly, the State Governors, the State Houses of Assembly, the Chairmen of Local Government Areas and Local Government Councils throughout the country.  
These two implications that could arise if the President agrees to a Sovereign National Conference would be contrary to the 1999 Constitution.   
There is a third unanticipated consequence if the President should abdicate.   An abdication of the President would also amount to the dissolution of the political parties and other bodies at all levels in the country.   This will be undemocratic.
The foregoing are obvious issues, which I want to bring to the attention of the President in particular and the political class in general that the nation swoops in danger if care is not taken to avoid the evil plan of the advocates of a Sovereign National Conference.  There are some other obvious issues.

CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS 
President Obasanjo used the term committee twice.   The Committee that produced the guideline would later hand over to another Committee for a later exercise.   The media so far ignored the two and called the latter a Conference.   It would appear that the country and commentators so far are looking forward to a ‘National Conference’ and not to a ‘National Committee’.   There is a difference.   The President is insistent on a National Dialogue that would be carried out in a Committee.
One generally calls a small body a Committee that generally engages in a dialogue as distinct from a large body called a Conference that engages in fierce debate.   A Conference could set up many committees to dialogue on various issues that may not be resolved in a Conference.     
How large can a Committee be in the estimation of Mr. President?   Will such a Committee convert to a Conference at any stage and when?   How will decision be reached in a Committee that is different from a Conference?   Can a Committee claim sovereignty?
My view is that a Committee may not be a respectable body for the purpose of a National Dialogue.  Since the term Conference never featured in the charge of the President, one is of the opinion that the President has in mind something less than a Conference.  
Here one would say that Mr. President is carefully trying to avoid the likelihood of a Conference that would be used to bring about a ‘civilian coup’ that people like Chief Tony Enahoro, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, Dr. Beko Ransome Kuti, Dim Emeka Ojukwu and others desperately want after failing to achieve their purpose through the democratic process.  

WHO CONSTITUTES THE COMMITTEE?
One may ask if the country is looking forward to such a ‘broadly composed national body’ to be appointed by the President?   Or would the country be looking forward to just a ‘representative national body’ elected by the people or chosen by the people?   The news media that were speculating that part of the President’s New Year Message would consist of a list of the members of the new Committee must have been disappointed, as the speech did not give a list or a clue as to how the body would be constituted.
The President tried to address this issue by adding another element of confusion when he said as follows:
That the proposed National Committee will reflect the various social forces and interests community interests and political tendencies within the nation. 
 
This is from the President’s announcement.
Are these ethnic nationalities, zones, political parties, states, and religious bodies? Some of the advocates of a Sovereign National Conference want ethnic representation and others talk of zonal representation. Both as bases of representation are not provided for in the Constitution.   The two bases of representation provided in the Constitution are individuals and states through the political parties.   How the President goes about this will determine the end sought by the President.
 In the Republic of Benin, the term ethnic or terms that evoked the past divisions in the Benin society were avoided and instead, the term “political tendencies” was used.  The 484 delegates attending the conference represented 52 political tendencies.  
 What would be the bases of representation at the Committee and who determines them and their representatives?
 
WILD GOOSE CHASE! 
 
The notion of “wild goose chase” when it comes to a body that is meant to discuss political issues is misplaced.   The attempt to prevent it gives the impression that government or the President can. He or the government cannot, even if it tries to do so.  
The nature of an assembly of Nigerians consisting of many politicians itching for limelight and boiling with many unresolved issues since 1993 especially since 1999 makes the outcome unpredictable.  The President would be saddled with many ‘fishing expeditions’.  Let me resort to memory lane.
 
One would recall that President Babangida set up the Constituent Assembly in 1988 with a charge that there were some issues that should be considered settled that only required some improvements here and there and not wholesale change. President Babangida was accused of imposing some “No Go Areas” for the Assemblymen and Women even though the term ‘no go area” was never used by President Babangida in his address of caution to the Assembly. What were these issues?  
I can recall some of them as the Presidential System, Federalism, and Non-adoption of any religion as a State Religion, Human Rights etc., to which could be added, by you and past leaders including General Gowon and OBJ dub “National Unity”.  
 
One would recall that one of the byproducts of the June 12 was the craze for a Sovereign National Conference. One would recall that the plan of the defenders of the June 12 rightly or wrongly was to embark on a Sovereign National Conference with a view to renegotiating Nigeria.   The leaders of the Afenifere and the NADECO in Diaspora had perfected their plan for renegotiating the Nigerian project if and when the Sovereign National Conference were agreed post 1993.   In 1998 they could not have their way as a result of the divine intervention that eventually provided for the emergence of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo.
 It should therefore be noted that when politicians especially in the southwest talk about ‘fundamental restructuring’ and ‘true federalism’, these were euphemisms for something less than what other Nigerians who believe in Nigerian as an indivisible entity believe in as “national unity”.  
 
It should be further noted that when the people of the southwest canvass for a Sovereign National Conference, they have in mind the right of any ethnic nationality to secede from the Union. They could not understand why their son was not allowed to be President in 1993 and they still see the current fact that their son is occupying that seat as an aberration because he is not occupying that office in their image.
There are documents on the need for ethnic self-determination from the various meetings of some ethnic nationalities canvassing for the right to self-determination in the Nigerian Constitution. Cases of this abound in the daily papers.   Some of the leaders of the Niger-Delta are thinking in this direction that true Federalism means the right of any ethnic sections to secede if the resource control is not adequately handled.  
 
My fear is that these issues will surface under one guise or the other. The leaders who are demanding that Sovereignty should be conferred on the National Conference are actually saying that they would want to commence the process of dismantling the union as inherited by the Nigerian political class from the colonial ruler in 1960.    How does Mr. President hope to deal with the manifestations of this?  Would a strongly worded statement on the unity of Nigeria as a No Go Area help?    It will not help.   They would try all gimmicks that would bring that right to self-determination to the fore.    This is why the President’s fear of a wild goose chase is real and unavoidable.  
 
EXAMPLES OF WILD GOOSE CHASE

Let me bring to the readers’ notice two events from the nation’s history where the body set up took certain actions that were unanticipated by the regime.
 
One was in 1977/78.   President Obasanjo would recall that he led the country through the 1977/78 Constituent Assembly. As a member of that body I can recall vividly what happened that was detailed in my book, Beyond the Tripod in Nigerian Politics.  
One would recall that some of us in the Constituent Assembly set the agenda in the absence of a tightly scripted program from the then military junta. This was why and how some of us undertook many issues that led the Supreme Military Council to delete many provisions from the final draft Constitution.  This was a painful thing to do.   But today the country would be in uproar if the work of the National Dialogue or Conference or a Committee is reversed.  
The second was in 1994/95. One would recall that under the most tightly scripted National Constitutional Conference under General Sani Abacha, the Conference was still able to take a decision that the Military should pack out after a given date. This was one of the crimes of the late General Shehu Musa Yardua of blessed memory.

ORIGIN OF SNC

With these two events in mind, one would recall the way the idea of Sovereignty came about in the lexicon of the use of the National Conference in resolving political issue in empirical cases. 
I was a consultant to a US group that produced a teaching material in video on democratization in six African countries.   I still have access to the transcript on the Republic of Benin, which is dubbed the ‘prototype’ of what a National Conference that declared themselves “Sovereign” should be. 
 
One would like to remind the Nigerian political class especially those who still believe in the Nigerian federation that what happened in Benin and in other French Africa states are good examples of the “wild goose chase”.   Why wouldn’t the Nigerian political class wait like the other African cases that seized sovereignty after the convocation of the National Conference? 
 What seems obvious is that the Nigerian advocates of a Sovereign National Conference do not have confidence in themselves and they do not trust their ability to do what others in Benin, Congo, Niger, Zaire and Chad did by declaring themselves “sovereign” after convocation.  
 
The plan therefore of the Nigerian protagonists of the Sovereign National Conference is to extract the term “sovereignty” from the President before they meet. They in effect want the President to abdicate before they commence the deliberations in the National Conference. This poses certain critical questions for the political class:
• Why should they unlike the cases of Benin and others that declared themselves “Sovereign” after the commencement of the Conference want President Obasanjo to grant them with Sovereignty before they commence their session?  
• Are they aware of the implication for the political order if President should do so before the commencement of the National Conference or Dialogue as the case may be?  
• Do they know that if they succeed in extracting “sovereignty” from the President, they would by implication be bringing about a “civilian coup” or bringing about a change of government through a non-violent and a non-military method not provided for in the Constitution?    
• Do they know that if President Obasanjo grants the National Conference sovereignty before the commencement of the Conference, he would by implication be abdicating his reign of power?   
• Do they know that by this act the President’s abdication would be tantamount to an abrupt change of the existing political order that would extend to the National Assembly and other levels of government?  
 
One would urge the advocates of the Sovereign National Conference to level with the Nigerian people and tell them the truth as to what they have in mind.   May I use this medium to counsel the Nigerian political class that it is how the term “sovereignty” came about that is crucial to the current debate?   They should follow the development in Benin and others.   This was how and why it was called a “civilian coup” that General Shehu Musa Yar Adua was said to have toyed with in 1994/995.     
One hopes President Obasanjo is aware of the possibility of a “civilian coup”.  There are people who could experiment with that.   One hopes the President is aware that there are many anti-government elements itching to use one reason or the other to raise question about the legitimacy of this political order.  
For the attention of readers, the definition of “Sovereignty” is contained in the discussion between President Mathieu Kerekou and Professor Robert Dossou, the Chairman of the Planning Committee and the Dean of Law of the University of Cotonou.  According to Dossou,
When the debate began, Kerekou called me and asked, “What does it mean, Sovereignty?” 
According to Dousou,  I told him whatever the conference decides, no one can overrule this decision. This is from the transcript of the video on Republic of Benin.  Underline is mine for emphasis.
This type of question will arise, as some protagonists of the Sovereign National Conference would want to face President Obasanjo and the country with a threat of violence if the President Obasanjo should change any of their decision.  How would the President prevent this?  
I support the idea of a National Dialogue if and only if it would address some thorny issues arising from the crisis of governance.   I can identify three such as the mode of organizing elections, the mode of articulating and aggregation of interests through the political parties and the inter-governmental relations. The conditions that led to National Conferences in Benin and in other Franco-phone states in Africa did not exist in Nigeria today, hence the option of a National Conference did not arise.

WHY IBB REJECTED THE IDEA IN 1989

In conclusion one would like to review the genesis of the idea of a National Conference in the Republic of Benin in 1989 and why President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida rejected the idea in 1989.  
 
One would recall that IBB decided in the past that Nigeria should not embark on the National Conference as a means of bringing about democracy to Nigeria.  He used the Republic of Benin to illustrate that the two developments that provided the environment for the easy introduction of the National Conference, as a model of political change did not exist in Nigeria. He alluded to the internal and the external environment that were not present in Nigeria in the early 1990’s. 
On the internal development, the Republic of Benin was aptly described as follows: Almost the entire nation was on strike. All normal activity ceased, as demonstrations became daily events. Then Benin protesters took strength from another uprising.  
This is from the transcript of the video on Benin Republic.   Underline is mine for emphasis).
Despite all the political problems afflicting this country since 1993, nothing in Nigeria in 1989 and especially since 1999 up till today could approximate what Benin went through in the late 1980s and in the early 1990s to warrant the hue and cry over Sovereign National Conference in Nigeria.   What one could surmise is that those who are advocating it such as Chief Tony Enahoro , Alhaji Balarabe Musa and others who are talking of ‘fundamental restructuring’ of Nigeria are itching for “a civilian coup”.   They want to achieve what they could not achieve through the process of election despite the fact they were given money to found political parties and compete in 2003. 

On the external event, one could recall the fall of the Berlin Wall and the uprising in Europe that eventually led to the collapse of the Communist states and unplanned democratic transition in Eastern Europe. Professor Doussou aptly described the phenomenon as follows: On the 9th of November 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, I was in Brussels.   Alone in my hotel room I drank a bottle of Champagne.   So when I returned home, I dropped my suitcase and ran to see Kerekou.   I told him President; you have seen that the Berlin Wall has fallen.   Why are you hesitating about my proposal?  Unless we act quickly, there will be a civil war.   And he said, ‘Drop it! Drop it! I am thinking about a National Conference.
This is from the transcript of the video on Benin Republic.   Underline is mine for emphasis).
Nothing like the fall of Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Communist states in Eastern Europe could be repeated in the world today to warrant an enabling environment for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference in Nigeria.  
The international environment of Nigeria politics is not conducive to the kind of environment that warranted the convocation of the National Conference that converted itself into a Sovereign National Conference in Benin and elsewhere in Africa in the early 1990s.  The President of Nigeria is well respected internationally compared with the run of the mill political class in Nigeria.  He is an acknowledged peacemaker to different parts of Africa.   No one in the developed democracies would conceive of a situation in the world that warranted the call of a National Conference in the Francophone countries in Africa.    
The foregoing analysis is meant for the President in particular and for the political class in general.    From my study of empirical cases where political changes had been brought about through non-violent and non-military methods, it should be obvious that the pro-democracy forces in Nigeria since 1993 do not possess the characteristics of a virile civil society that successfully led to political changes in the US, the Philippines, the Republic of Benin and Republic of Georgia.   I am referring to the ‘Southern Christian Leadership Conference’ in the US led by Dr. Martin Luther King; 2. the ‘ peoples power’, organized by the people of the Philippines; 3. the ‘National Conference’ organized by the Students, Professors in Benin; and 4. the ‘Rose Revolution’ in the Republic of Georgia.     
 
One could add the fifth, the ‘Orange Revolution’ from the recent political change in Ukraine.    In all these cases the leaders were clear as to what they were looking for.   The Nigerian advocates of the SNC are yet to level with the Nigerian people as to what type of ‘revolution’ they are gunning for.     Can men and women in their 70s bring about a revolution?   I’ll leave this to future essay.   In my view an advocacy of a Sovereign National Conference by old people in search of relevance should not be allowed in Nigeria today.   If they are allowed to have their way, the end is one of  two things:
A Civilian Coup through a non-violent and non-military method for the changing of a government of today outside the Constitution; and  2. An abdication of reign by the elected government headed by President Obasanjo that would extend to the other elective bodies at the national and other levels of government outside the Constitution.
 Both of them are unconstitutional method; they are not necessarily illegitimate means of changing government.   But they cannot take place in Nigeria today as Nigeria lacks a virile civil society.    A word is enough for the wise!    A stitch in time saves other stitches!   This essay is to sound some warning.

• Omoruyi,  former Director-General of the defunct Centre for Democratic Studies, contributed this piece from Abuja.