Military rule and oil revenue mix compound Nigeria’s federal woes

Nigeria’s federation was born out of the need to hold a multinational state together and assuage fears of ethnic exploitation.

The Richard’s Constitution of 1946 recognised three regions — Northern, Western and Eastern — and the colony of Lagos.

But these three regional governments set up by the British encouraged many people to think that the only people who counted in Nigeria were the Yoruba, who were predominant in the West, the Ibo who controlled the East, and the Hausa who were dominant in the North.

Mutual fears and suspicions of domination among ethnic groups placed intense pressure on the colonial administration for a federal Nigeria.

Nigeria gained independence on October 1, 1960 after the 1959 federal elections. The first constitution provided for a federation operating in a parliamentary democracy.

Series of coups

There can be few mistakes in constitutional design more serious than to create a federation in which one part is larger than the rest put together.

The Northern region had more than half the population of Nigeria and 79 per cent of its territory. The lopsided federal structure further fuelled fears and suspicions among ethnic groups.

A fourth region — the Mid-West — was carved out of the Western region after a political crisis between 1961 and 1962.

The federal structure meant it was impossible for the Southern region to control political power at the centre. Yet the South had a head start in education, which was important for jobs. The Northern region thus feared Southern domination in economics and public services and tried to protect its civil service from being swamped by the South.

Tensions were further brought about because the regions were not ethnically homogenous. Almost every sizeable ethnic group had its own fear of domination by someone else.

Due to these tensions, the military staged a coup in January 1966, altering the balance of the North’s political power and the South’s monopoly of economic power. The South now had both political and economic power, but this was short-lived as Northern soldiers reacted violently to the loss of political power and staged a counter coup in July 1966.

Nigeria then suffered a series of coups in which the military ruled from 1966 to 1979, between December 1983 to August 1993, and from November 1993 to May 1999.

The military has in fact ruled for a total of 30 years of the country’s 50 years of independence.

Except for a short-lived period in 1966 when the first military government under General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi declared Nigeria a unitary state, successive military regimes aimed to make the federation more functional. Though each regime referred to itself as the Federal Military Government (FMG), authentic decentralisation proved elusive given the authoritarian character of military government.

By the time Nigeria returned to democratic government in 1999, it had a total of 36 states, most created during the years of military rule.

In 1967, 12 states were created from the four regions, and these were increased to 19 in 1976. General Ibrahim Babangida created an additional two states in 1987 and then extended them to 30 by 1991. In 1996, General Sani Abacha increased them to 36.

With the increase in states, more local governments were created until they stood at 774.

But as the number of states increased, the weaker they became in relation to the federal government. The loss of autonomy, which was the very reason for their creation, stemmed from the fact that they were established from the centre.

In a regular federation, separate states join to form a union, but in the case of Nigeria, the converse resulted in an ordinate-subordinate relationship between the federal government and the states.

By 1999 when the civilian government took over, the federation had become excessively centralised. The nature of military rule by decree meant that the central government had assumed functions reserved for the regions without opposition from political parties.

Representative institutions were banned under military rule.

Because of its oil revenues, the federal government derived greater resources than did the sub-national units, especially from profit tax. There were, therefore, calls for devolution of powers and restructuring of the federation leading to constitutional reforms.

Under the 1999 constitution, Nigeria operates a federal structure of government with the legislative, executive and judicial arms modelled on the American presidential system. It has three tiers: federal, state and local.

The federal legislature is the bicameral National Assembly (NA) comprising the Senate and House of representatives. The NA makes laws on trade and commerce, labour, aviation, other forms of interstate or international transport, police, prisons, mining and minerals.

The House of Representatives consists of 360 members elected from single member constituencies. The Senate is made up of three senators from each of the 36 states and one from the federal capital territory of Abuja, bringing the total to 109.

The executive power of the federation is vested in the president, who appoints the ministers subject to approval of the Senate. The civil service is under the control of the president, carrying out federal administrative functions.

Each of the 36 states has a unicameral legislature, the House of Assembly, responsible for making state laws, which must be consistent with federal law.

The executive power of the state is vested in the county governor, who has a deputy and who appoints commissioners as ministers. Each state has its own civil service.

Each state enacts laws to set up local councils and provides for their structure, composition, finances and functions.

Local government functions are divided into two categories. The first is those exclusively within the preview of the local governments and include economic development.

The second set is performed with state governments and includes provision of education, the development of agriculture and natural resources and the provision and maintenance of health services.

Two dominant factors

The 1999 Constitution provides that the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission tables a budget plan before the NA, which then debates it, taking into account the principles of population, equality of states, internal revenue generation, terrain and population.

A study by the Institute of Economic Affairs (Kantai, 2010) observed that “the Nigerian experience of devolution and federalism has been compounded by two major factors — the successive military governments at national level between the 1960s and 1990s, and the distorting influence of oil on the national economy.

“In Nigeria, part of the problem animating the federalism/devolution debate is the fact that emphasis in many occasions has been placed on distributive, as opposed to developmental policies. Often, the easy money gained from international oil sales is the much sought-after prize, as opposed to building up the wealth of the country.”

An important element is the derivation principle, which states that, when revenues are collected from an area, a large amount of them should stay in that area. This tends to make the rich regions richer and to arouse invidious opposition and resentment from the less well endowed regions… which could explain the Niger Delta crisis where its vast oil revenues are siphoned off to other areas.

Nigeria’s major achievement is that the federal government’s previous political dominance has been weakened by the emergence of semi-autonomous governments. The statutory sharing arrangements for federally generated revenues between the three tiers have minimised the federal government’s discretionary allocation of resources.

Also, the over-centralisation of agricultural decisions and functions has created a situation where more responsibility has been given to the state and local governments. These tiers are closer to the farmers and know the peculiar agricultural problems of their areas. The agricultural sector has therefore continued to perform well.

To ensure fairness in appointments to the Federal Public Service, the government established the Federal Character Commission to monitor the pattern of appointments with the aim of giving Nigerians a sense of belonging to the nation. The Commission also provides a point for redressing complaints.

Problems have revolved mainly around a lack of intergovernmental consultation and coordination, the overlapping of duties and the weak resources of local governments.

In the immediate aftermath of the return to federalism, there were signs of militarism in the actions of the government. There were concerns that the autonomy of the state governments was being disregarded by the arrogance with which federal officials treated state governors.

Such a conflict was over the minimum wage when in 2000, then President Olusegun Obasanjo announced a national minimum wage of 5,500 Naira (Sh2,750) for state governments and 7,500 Naira (Sh3,750) for federal government.

While recognising the powers of the federal government to set the minimum wage, state governors held that the president could not act without consulting the state which is responsible for negotiating wages of their employees. For almost a year, the country was gripped by wage crises and strikes because many states could not afford to pay the new wages.

Lack of consultation

Similarly the federal government introduced Universal Basic Education and launched it in Sokoto region before a Bill was sent to the NA.

The state governments frowned upon the announcement of federal programmes in areas of concurrent legislation without regard to the priorities of the states, especially where the states were to implement it.

The programme was later harmonised, but the accusations from central government that states were sabotaging the basic education programme could have been avoided through initial consultation.

Poverty alleviation faced similar problems, with the states arguing that each had their own poverty eradication programme.

In the maintenance of law and order, state governors have complained that the State Commissioners of police ignore them and take orders from the Federal Inspector General, even though the governor of the state is the chief law officer.

High crime rates in the face of police inefficiency, particularly in larger states, led some to demand a review of the Constitution to enable them to establish their own police forces. However, most states argued for greater decentralisation of the police force because they lacked the resources to sustain state police.

State local government relations have also faced hiccups, with the state officers patronising local officials. Local government officials complain about undue interference from governors and this is prevalent in areas where the local government chairmen come from different parties with the state governors.

In such instances, the governors have been accused of plotting to shorten the three-year tenure of elected local officials in order to put their supporters in office.

Governors, on the other hand, take issue with the federal government for relating directly with the local government.

With the increased democratic culture of cooperation in intergovernmental relations, Nigeria may see a gradual adjustment in its federal structure in favour of more appropriate power sharing among different government levels.