STRIKER: Choice And Identity In A Federal Republic

A Federal Republic of Nigeria is the objective of our founding fathers. In a Federation, there are federating units. The federating units are to be completely independent in governing their internal affairs while cooperating to maintain a federal government on the basis of agreed needs. The duty and powers of a federal government anywhere are basically “to levy taxes, regulate commerce, establish a uniform law of naturalisation, establish federal courts (subordinate to the Supreme Court), establish and maintain a military, and declare war.” Essentially, therefore, they are to simply keep safe, project, and keep the country in good and noble standings amongst the comity of nations; organise and maintain the armed forces, homeland security, currency, foreign affairs, and such.

The federating units at Independence in 1960 were the regions. Eventually balkanised into states by the military government, the states are now the federating units and none of the states has forgotten its regional affiliations. Their internal affairs, choices and identity are supposed to be independently regulated as deem fit for the welfare of citizens.

Military incursion into government, which ought to have been declared “a crime against humanity” by the United Nations ever since, put paid to the ideal of a federal republic. The military, with its brutal and unaccountable governance, stayed about 30 out of our 62 years since independence and, after its own regimented chain of command “from top to bottom” changed the operating system to a unitary one with an almighty federal government at the centre. When oil was discovered and “free” oil rent money replaced taxation of citizens’ productivity as basis of governance, the die was cast for Nigeria’s sustained underdevelopment, and all the consequent miseries and tribulations. They supervised every return to “civilian rule” dictating the tune -having produced the most powerful of the elite through corrupt processes; authoring the constitutions according to their favoured unitary, anti-federal, anti-people and anti-productivity mode.

Since return to “democratic” rule 23 years ago in 1999, only two CEOs of the federating states have put the last anti-federation constitution (1999 Constitution as amended) to task, as concerns the rights of states to choice and identity on the matters of the prosperity of its people: Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu blazing the trail in Lagos, and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, following through in Osun.

In 2003, Tinubu created 37 additional Local Governments, not as LCDAs then but LGs, which the state has the rights to do. The majority of the country’s elite who were against restructuring into a genuine federation were jolted, a few who were emboldened by Tinubu’s steps took the queue. Then the Almighty Unitary-Federal Government descended on Lagos Government, seizing its LGs allocations from the Federation accounts. The other states that took the queue chickened out and returned to status quo. Tinubu didn’t and the Lagos government went to court, winning all the way to the Supreme Court. Although the court supported the Lagos rights, the Federal government and national assembly never did till date, and only the 20 LGAs remain recognised due to fake federalism anchored on oil-money sharing which they discern will become complicated; despite the fact that an LCDA in Alimosho alone is equivalent to more than five LGAs (arbitrarily created by the military) in many other states and geopolitical zones, who are collecting independent fund (oil money) from the federation allocation accounts.

Similarly, for its residents and industries that were traumatised by inept power supplies from the national grid, Tinubu made a bold move for independent power generation for Lagos via the ENRON initiative. It suffered similar frustrations from the central government.

Rauf Aregbesola as governor of Osun was similarly persecuted, and even accused of attempts to