It was the iconic Charles Darwin who made the case that: “it is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
Nigerians may wake up one day soon to the reality that “our own dear native land” has been reformed in very profound ways without the usual debates associated with such change. This assertion is underscored by the fact that President Bola Tinubu seems to be responding to the desire for change in the manner that our country has operated since the military coup in 1966 ended our six-year-old democracy that began in 1960 when the British granted our country independence.
After being governed largely by the military since the unfortunate 1966 militarily imposed interregnum, which degenerated into a civil war that raged from 1967-70, followed by governance through elected civilians who have been applying the statutes books (1978, 1989, and 1999 constitutions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) developed by the military and foisted on politicians, President Tinubu, having obtained the privilege through the ballot box to govern the nation since 29 May 2023, appears committed to restructuring Nigeria.
But he seems not to be doing so in the traditional way of a set-piece National Sovereign conference such as the 2014 National Conference held during the watch of former President Goodluck Jonathan, which is the type Nigerians are familiar with. Rather he tends to prefer removing bottlenecks on the path to restructuring piece, by piece.
So,, slowly but surely, President Tinubu is engaging in the process of restructuring, relying on the legislative and judicial systems respectively, whenever each of them is found to be more suitable for the purpose.
Perhaps, his apparent piecemeal restructuring initiative is driven/motivated by the fact that more often than not, the records from national conferences on governance systems that are supposed to move our country forward,hardly get implemented but end up being shelved to gather dust after billions of naira must have been invested and a lot of man-hours expended by the wise men/women assembled from across the country to fashion or more appropriately hammer out a system of government or leadership formula that is best suited to move our nation of multiple nationalities forward.
Clearly ,Nigerians were uncomfortable with the parliamentary system practiced by the United Kingdom, our former colonizer, that handed over their system to us when it granted our country independence in 1960. Hence the military coup of January 1966 and the counter-coup of June of the same year that ended the practice of the parliamentary system of governance.
It is striking that while Nigerian leaders were involved in adopting the parliamentary constitution bequeathed on us via several meetings between our elected political leaders and UK parliamentarians in Lancashire England before granting Nigeria independence 64 years ago, the 1999 constitution which is currently being used to govern our country is a product of purely military diktat.
Although Nigeria is a multi-nation country (with three major ethnic groups – Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa/Fulani) like the UK which is an amalgam of four nations – Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and England, and has been functioning well together since a parliamentary system of governance was established in the European country on 1st day of May 1707 when the parliament first met, Nigeria has after only six years of independence (1960-66) dumped the parliamentary system and replaced it with the American presidential system in 1978.
Our country changed from a parliamentary to a presidential governance system after a bitterly fought civil war for three years, heralding a series of military coups with the men in uniform toppling one another until democracy was restored in 1978, which was dovetailed by the crafting of a constitution by the military modeled after the United States of America’s presidential system.
It may appear innocuous, but the reversion to the 1960 national anthem “Nigeria We Hail Thee…” after jettisoning the version that had replaced it from 1998 “Arise Oh Compatriots…” on 29 May 2024, is a clear testament to the fact that President Tinubu is on a mission to overhaul Nigeria from the root to the trunk and the branches, albeit he is doing it piecemeal, hence not many people have noticed the silent evolution.
In fact, it would take a very keen observer to notice the political wheel of change turning slowly and steadily. But in my view, although l am aware some Nigerians may differ, the change of our national anthem from the former to the latter by the National Assembly is part of the restructuring of our country via the legislature in their normal course of work.
It aligns with President Tinubu’s vision of restructuring which he shared with select members of the Yoruba intelligentsia during a visit to the National Leader of the pan-Yoruba socio-political organization, Afenifere, Pa Reuben Fasoranti, in Akure, Ondo State, South West Nigeria last February.
Reportedly, in the course of the meeting, President Tinubu had assured his audience that he was aware of the need to restructure Nigeria but that a good foundation must be laid before restructuring so that it would stand the test of time. The national publicity secretary of Afenire, Jare Ajayi, who was part of the closed-door meeting, made the disclosure. “The President said that the structure he is trying to put in place in Nigeria economically, socially, and politically would be such that it would bring Nigeria back to where it is supposed to be.”
Shortly after Tinubu’s reassurance to Yoruba elders on his commitment to restructuring Nigeria, making him the second (2nd) sitting president of Nigeria after GoodLuck Jonathan to acknowledge the need to restructure the nation and commenced work in it, which is remarkably unusual as it would ultimately whittle down the power of the president, in April last year, Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, a strong Tinubu supporter, raised the fear of the following consequences if Tinubu did not restructure Nigeria, “… even your economic policies will fail, your infrastructure and transformation will fail. We will just go back threading the same old spur.”
Although the restructuring started from day one when he made the proclamation: “subsidy is gone” during his inauguration on 29 May 2023, which is about a year ago, the subsequent policy pronouncements that President Bola Tinubu has made towards restructuring Nigeria for good have been positive and bold steps.
They include the initiative of securing local government autonomy from the stranglehold of governors by suing them (governors) in court for a clear court ruling concerning the illegality of their not conducting local government elections, rather they appoint caretaker committees comprising people that, rather than being elected representatives of the people, are nothing but glorified Special Assistants or Sole Administrators, thereby usurping the role of men/women who are supposed to be elected by the masses.
Once that matter, which is currently pending, is resolved in the law court (the Supreme Court has reserved judgment), there would no longer be ambiguities through which there had been contraventions of the law as it would become grounds for impeachment of any governor in breach.
Another aspect that President Tinubu has commenced setting up the framework for restructuring is central policing, which has been in practice since independence after it replaced local policing with native police that is the nucleus of the Nigerian Police Force, as it is known today.
This means that like our political system, which has changed from parliamentary to presidential and is subject to another change, policing has also changed from local policing in the colonial days to the centralized policing currently in practice and about to be reversed to the old system like the national anthem which recently got reversed.
Preparatory to adopting a state policing structure, of which Nigeria remains the only country amongst 25 in the world still operating federal policing systems, Mr. President has set up a committee with the 36 state governors to achieve the mandate of devolving the central policing system in Nigeria to the states in conformity with the practice in the United States of America, Australia, Germany, and Sweden.
Currently, the Federal Government keeps 52.68 percent of all incomes in Nigeria. Some pundits are making the case that no matter how difficult, President Tinubu should let go of some of the 52.68%. That would certainly happen if the state policing initiative of Mr. President becomes a reality.
That line of reasoning is validated by the reality that it would be required that some funding currently going to the federal government be allocated to the states to support state police as soon as the current central police is rejigged with less power. That is because the initial rejection of the concept of state police by governments at subnational level was because they could not afford it.
Put succinctly, perhaps the NPF would be reverting to the way it was in the pre-independence days with provincial police taking charge of managing local crimes and the NPF only getting involved if the crime was committed across state boundaries, which was the prevailing order of things.
The third silent restructuring sign on the horizon is the ongoing negotiations between organized labor and the federal government on the national minimum wage.
By the time it concludes, the identified aberrations in the National Minimum Wage Act 2019, which imposes a uniform minimum income for workers nationwide (a law that some of us have argued breaches the principle of true federalism which guarantees a reasonable level of autonomy of each of the federating units) may likely be reversed to allow each state to negotiate the minimum wage that it can afford to pay depending on the state’s capacity and ability.
If such a likely scenario were to manifest as a product of the intensive engagements between organized labor and the federal government, it would require the parliament to amend the National Minimum Wage Act 2019 in the manner that the National Anthem Act 2024 was amended as part of the activities marking the first anniversary of the incumbent administration on 29 May this year.
In my column of June 18 titled: “Minimum Wage, President Tinubu And The Cow Milk Family”, l made a case that the best option open to President Tinubu is to accept to pay the negotiated minimum wage of N62,000 agreed with the organized labor union leaders by his team of negotiators before the workers’ strike of June 3 was suspended.
In suggesting that goverment should go beyond offering Nigerian workers a fabulous minimum wage by tinkering with the debilitating increased electricity tarriff, l recommended that some negotiating wisdom should be drawn from the famous Negotiation book: Getting To Yes.., by the pair of Roger Fisher and William Uri who played prominent roles in negotiating the end of Apartheid regime in South Africa.
While the increase in the minimum wage to N62,000 from N30,000 would directly impact the members of NLC and TUC which are unions that constitute organized labor union workers which surveys reveal are about 8% of Nigerian worker’s 92% of Nigerian workers in the informal sector are suffering under the yoke of the recently increased electricity tariff, which has risen by nearly a whopping 300%. These workers will continue to be crushed unless the new tariff regime is reversed and adjusted.
To ensure that the intended relief from the tough and bold reform measures undertaken in the past 13 months of his administration positively impacts all Nigerians, not just organized labor, the electricity tariff increase that is choking the masses must be reevaluated. Although it applies only to consumers on Band-A tariff (an estimated 15 million people/12 million households), high electricity tarriff along with a similar 300% increase in the petrol pump price, are contributing to the increasingly unbearable high cost of living.
The tariff must be repealed or reviewed downward because it is an over-ambitious policy decision by the technocrats in the National Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) who imposed it without fully weighing its ramifications. Aparently, they did not consult the operators of the Distribution Companies (DISCOS) and Generation Companies (GENCOS) for practical advice, despite these operators being responsible for last-mile service delivery.
For instance, due to the astronomical tariff increase, some major hotels nationwide are receiving monthly electricity bills as high as hundreds of millions.
In turn, they charge their guests about N400,000 per night per room. Since hotels are patronized by business people, such as manufacturers, the high cost of accommodation is factored into production costs, which are then passed down to consumers on Band B electricity tariff, who were supposed to be shielded by keeping charges at N68.00 per kilowatt.
The high electricity tariff paid by hotels also applies to goods manufacturing firms that require significant electricity for production.
In light of the cost of living crisis it has triggered, the ideal solution is to bring down the tariff increased by 300% (from N68.00 to N225.00) for Band A consumers to between N150-180.
This would reduce the current scramble by consumers on Band A to move to Band B. Simultaneously, the rate for lower-end consumers on Band B, currently N68.00 per kilowatt, should be marginally increased to between N80.00 – N100.00. This adjustment would replenish NERC’s revenue base, as the government can no longer afford the N1.5 trillion naira monthly subsidy on electricity which is the motivation for the dramatic tarriff increase.
If implemented, this price modulation would reduce the cost of living by eliminating the skyrocketing cost of essential commodities that manufacturers pass on to consumers including Band B consumers, who were thought to be protected from the 300% increase in Band A tariff, but who are indirectly bearing the brunt of the high cost of consumer goods.
Witout a doubt, the concept of taxing only the rich via an increase in their Band A electricity tariff has had a boomerang effect. So,President Tinubu must intervene by reversing this poorly thought-out policy, much like he reversed the planned cash payment of a meager N8,000 to the vulnerable, which he increased to N25,000 upon realizing the insufficiency of the original amount.
By and large , it appears that President Tinubu is restructuring Nigeria in piecemeal rather than attempting a one-fell-swoop approach that has failed in the past, as seen with the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). The PIA, critical for the Nigerian petroleum industry, took over two decades to pass, delaying much-needed reforms and investments.
As such ,President Tinubu’s gradual and pragmatic approach to restructuring, which amounts to restructuring in bits and pieces is likely being influenced by lessons from previous administrations. His actions in that direction suggests that he might be cutting away the trunk and branches of the constitution before uprooting it and laying a more solid foundation as he has promised. This is evident in his careful changes since taking office and his long-standing advocacy history for restructuring Nigeria.
In conclusion, as Ralph Waldo Emerson wisely said: “Without ambition, one starts nothing. Without work, one finishes nothing. The prize will not be sent to you. You have to win it.”
President Tinubu is undoubtedly a man of robust ambition as reflected by his ‘emilokan’ declaration when his political future seemed bleak after formidable odds were stacked against him during 2023 presidential campaign and elections.
From the legislative branch, some 50 House of Representatives members are pushing for a return to the parliamentary system, but this seems unlikely owing to the incongruity in that system which was used in justifying the coup by the putchists and the subsequent civil war of 1967-70. In view of president Tinubu’s political leaning which is more American than British,Nigeria is more likely to adopt a hybrid system between the British parliamentary and American presidential systems to produce what we can call our own home made constitution . But the decision which lies in the womb of time ultimately rests with President Tinubu.
■ Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria. To continue this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng
