Alhaji Salihu Abubakar Tanko Yakasai ventured into politics in the early 1950s when he joined the defunct Northern Elements Progressive Union, NEPU. He served as Commissioner for Information, Kano State, 1967 to 1971 and was later moved to the Ministry of Forestry, Community Development and Cooperatives, where he served as Commissioner from 1971 to 1972. From there, he became the Commissioner for Finance, a position he held till 1975. In the Second Republic, he served ex-president Shehu Shagari as Special Adviser on National Assembly Matters. The elder statesman was also a chieftain of National Party of Nigeria, NPN, after he decamped from Malam Aminu Kano’s Peoples Redemption Party, PRP.  In 2002, he resigned from All Peoples Party, APP, where he served as chairman, Strategy and Planning Committee and member, Elders’ Committee. Yakasai, who participated in the 1994 Constitution Conference, is also a delegate at the 2014 Confab.  In this interview, he speaks to MADUABUCHI NMERIBEH on national unity, resource control, security, 2015 elections and sundry issues

Some National Conference delegates from the North are saying the South-South did not suffer for oil; that it is a gift from God and therefore, they should not ask for more than 5 per cent derivation. What is your view on the issue?

Alhaji Salihu Abubakar Tanko Yakassai

The issue of derivation was brought during the 1994 Constitutional Conference and there was heated debate over whether it should be granted or not. The people from oil producing areas argued that when agriculture was the mainstay of the economy, the regions that were contributing money from agriculture were given some percentage [and according to their misunderstanding], that 50 per cent of the revenue was given to these regions that were contributing from agriculture. But the reality of the situation is that only 50 per cent of royalty and ground rent was allocated to the regions that were contributing revenue from agriculture and mining. This is very important—50 per cent of royalty and ground rent was allocated to them. Today, if you work out the revenue accruing to Nigeria from royalty and ground rent and compare it to what we had then, it is not up to 5 per cent. So, those who think that in the past, 50 per cent of revenue accruing to the federation account or central account was given to the regions contributing revenue from agriculture and mining are wrong!

That was not the case. What was given was 50 per cent, not of the total revenue, but of the revenue from royalty and ground rent; and we argued that the oil producing areas are not producing the oil. Therefore, they are not suffering because they are not creating the oil; while the farmer worked and he was being compensated for two reasons: one, it was his sweat—because he had to work hard to produce. The groundnut farmer, the cocoa farmer, the cotton farmer, were working and sweating to produce their produce; and people from oil producing area argued that as a result of the activities of oil companies, they are suffering degradation in their soil and also pollution in their waters, in their farm lands, in their rivers and in their sea.

So, after lengthy argument, a special committee of wise men—I can’t remember our number but I was a member of that committee––considered their argument and recommended that not more than 13 per cent should be given to them (oil producing area). It was agreed—that decision was taken when General Sani Abacha was Head of State and he accepted it; but unfortunately, when General Abdulsalami Abubakar was the Head of State, Abdulsalami changed it to not less than 13 per cent. He changed it. I don’t know why he changed it, and now it is becoming a source of instability in the country because every time there is a conference of this nature, this issue will come up.

How was the issue treated in the 2014 National Conference?

Well, a recommendation was made to increase their (oil producing area) percentage from 13 to 18 per cent—that is, increase in the derivation by 5 per cent of the total revenue. Experts in financing worked out that the six states in the South-South would be receiving $79 billion as against 19 states in the North that will receive $73 billion – it has not been decided yet. Now experts in financing worked out that if this 5 per cent increase is granted to them, every state in Nigeria would be losing N200 million every month; and it is calculated that about 70 per cent of the states in Nigeria cannot pay their workers (civil servants) or their contractors—and we feared that if that happens and workers could not be paid by the governments (both federal and states), there would be strike in Nigeria—and that strike would be joined not only by the workers (because it has happened before), but also people who are selling onions or tomatoes or groundnut or what have you; and these are people who have nothing to do with government salary.

When the Committee of 18 was appointed, they made a recommendation that the 5 per cent [added to the oil producing area] should be allowed; and the North should be given 5 per cent to take care of the damage occasioned by the Boko Haram insurgency. Out of that 5 per cent made for the North—North-East, which is the area that has suffered the most, would be given 3 per cent; North-West, 1 per cent; North-Central, 1 per cent.

Then, the delegates from the South-West and South-East said they were discriminated against. They said how this could this be: South-South will get 5 per cent, North will get 5 per cent; and they [South-West and South-East] were not going to get anything? But, some people argued, the Conference recommended that South-East should be given additional state—one state—additional revenue because the more states you have, you have additional revenue; and, therefore, South-East is going to benefit. Then in the South-West, they have some states that are oil producing and or oil bearing—they too [when they got that 5 per cent increase made for oil producing area] would benefit. It was over this disagreement that the Committee reported that it was not able to reach a compromise.

Then, the Chairman of the Conference (Justice Kutigi) referred the matter to the so-called Committee of Wise Men. I happened also to be a member of that committee. We came to the committee and we couldn’t agree among ourselves. Then a member of the committee recommended that we should return the matter to the Conference and the Conference itself should return the matter back to the President with the three areas of disagreement—5 per cent increase in derivation for the South-South, 5 per cent to the North and 5 per cent to the development of Solid Mineral resources in the country. And that we should advise the President to appoint a committee of experts (technical committee) that will go through these recommendations and see the consequences of lifting 15 per cent from the federation account in addition to 13 per cent—that will make it 28 per cent; and see whether the country would be able to bear the implication of it.

So, this is the final decision. The matter will be referred to the President and he will be advised to set up a Committee of Experts and whatever they recommended, based on the implication of whatever is going to be deducted from the Federation Account, then it is up to the President to accept or to reject.

Some critics have argued that the Confab, which gulped about N7 billion, is a waste of fund. What is your view?

No, it is not a waste of fund.

Why do you think so?

We are 500 people brought from all parts of the country. We have so far spent four months in the Conference. We made over 2,000 recommendations. These are brand new recommendations that will enhance the quality of life of the people of Nigeria, national stability and the national economy. It is not a waste of time or fund. And out of over 2,000 recommendations, not a single one was rejected. The committee that handled derivation, which is called Devolution of Power Committee, made 109 recommendations, the Conference adopted 108 of the recommendations—only one recommendation was returned to the President for coloration.

So, anybody who told you that 500 people would spend four months deliberating on general national purpose and made 2,000 recommendations that will improve the quality of life of the people of the country—that will bring stability in the country, that will enhance the revenue generation in the country—that person is a stupid man to say that all the lengthy work will be useless for the country.

We witnessed conferences like this in the past. There were recommendations that were thrown under the carpet. Do you see the National Assembly adopting the recommendations of the 2014 Confab?

That is up to them to decide. The National Assembly’s business is to amend the constitution, they don’t recommend. The Conference has a mandate to look at burning national issues and make recommendations. For instance we recommended that 5 per cent of the total revenue should be dedicated to the development of solid mineral resources. If that is done, the national economy will grow, Nigerians will be better employed, there will be massive employment in the country and the purchasing power of an average Nigerian will be enhanced. The National Assembly never did it.

Then we recommended that 70 per cent of Ministers and Commissioners should come from the elected members—people who campaigned, people who know the problems people are undergoing in the villages; because we realised that one of the things bringing problems in Nigeria is that Ministers and Commissioners are picked from the streets; and therefore, most of them do not know the suffering of the ordinary man. The National Assembly did not make such recommendation. When eventually we approve the report of the Conference, it will be published. I ask you to go and read the over 2,000 recommendations and see whether the National Assembly has ever recommended any one of them.

If at the end of the day, the National Assembly rejects the recommendations of the Confab, how will you feel about it?

I will feel bad because they have not done their job. If 500 people of high calibre were brought together to discuss national issues without any no-go area and we sat down for four or five months and made recommendations to the National Assembly, and for that National Assembly to reject the entirety of the recommendations, that National Assembly is not working in the interest of the country and the Nigerian people.

You can agree with me that President Jonathan is in dilemma over his 2015 ambition. If he goes ahead to contest, the North will be angry with him; if he decides not to contest, the boys in the creeks will foment trouble. What is your advice to Mr. President?

Look, let us take you for example. You are an ambitious young man. If tomorrow they make you the President of Nigeria and fortunately, you have the opportunity to go for second term, I am sure you will go. Nobody will get the kind of opportunity President Jonathan has and throw it overboard. Only a senseless person would say that Jonathan will not attempt to contest. It is up to Nigerians to elect him or not to elect him. But I am sure Jonathan will attempt to contest the election and probably, if his party adopted him, it will remain for Nigerians to vote for him or vote for candidates from the other parties.

You are one of the opinion leaders in the North. Do you advise President Jonathan to contest election in 2015 against the wishes of your people?

I leave President Jonathan to exercise his democratic right as guaranteed by the Constitution. I will not dictate to him what to do or what not to do.

At a point you pulled out of the Arewa Consultative Forum. How is your relationship with the apex northern socio-cultural group?

My stand, which brought about my disagreement with ACF, was for Jonathan to continue in terms of rotation of power. ACF refused to support me, so I pulled out because ACF was set up to fight and protect the interest of the North. For an organisation that was set to promote the interest of the North to reject a proposal that the rotation which they never started should be terminated—it was not worth my membership, and I moved. But when they changed, they came to re-align themselves with my own thinking and they supported that position.

Are you with ACF now?

Yes. I have been attending ACF meetings. You see, I am more qualified to be a member of ACF than 99 per cent of the members as of today.

Why?

Arewa Consultative Forum was originated as Arewa Consultative Committee, ACC, by General Hassan Usman Katsina when he was governor of Northern Region. He asked the political parties that were operating in the North to nominate five people each, to serve for the promotion and consolidation of northern unity. I happened to be one of the five members nominated by NEPU, with Malam Aminu Kano, Malam Yarima Balla, Malam Abubakar Zukogi, Alhaji Yahaya Sabo. Then, NPC had Alhaji Aliyu Makama Bida, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, Alhaji Ahman Pategi, Alhaji Maitama Sule and the rest; in UMBC, they had Chief J.S. Tarkaa, Chief Jonnah Assadugu, Malam Bitrus Rwang Pam, Chief Issac Shaahu, Malam Maiyaki from Kaduna, and Mudus. Fifteen of us constituted the first Arewa Consultative Committee; with Umaru Dikko, who was a non-partisan civil servant, serving as the secretary. We became the initiators of ACC that transformed to the ACF of today.

Then, after the creation of states, we resolved to work together in any political dispensation. Now, during Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida era, the North constituted more committees for certain reasons. Shehu Shagari had formed the Shagari Committee which transformed to the Turaki Committee—I happened to be a founding member of that committee. Later on, Alhaji Abdulraman Okene, of blessed memory, formed Arewa Northern Elders Forum—I happened to be a founding member of that organisation. And later on, Sule Katagum, with others formed the Northern Unity and Development Council or Forum.

I was not a member of that club. Then, through the advice of the late Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammadu Maccido, the three organisations were brought together and merged into Arewa Consultative Forum. So I became a member of the Arewa Consultative Committee as a right because I happened to be a member of the two out of the three constituent organisations that were dissolved to form the ACF. And since its formation, I was one of the three original members appointed as members of the Board of Trustees, BOT, of ACF. Three of us are still alive. The three members are myself, Maitama Sule and Magaji Dambata. Till today, we are all members of the BOT of ACF. Others have been acting, but the BOT of ACF still exists. Three of us are live members, unless we die. It is up to me to leave ACF or to come back.

Boko Haram problem has become knotty. How best can it be solved?

I saw a more serious problem in this world than Boko Haram. There are so many, but I will take one—the Northern Ireland problem, the number of killings and destruction that Northern Ireland suffered during the insurgency—they saw more bloodshed than Nigeria is passing through. For 25 years, Northern Ireland was in tatters, but in the end they had to resort to dialogue—it is now history; and through dialogue, the havoc was regretted in Britain, in Northern Ireland.

Now, about eight months ago, for the first time in history, the Queen of England shook hands with the leaders of the Irish Republicans as a result of the dialogue. So, I think there is nothing impossible if dialogue is adopted. But sooner or later, there will be dialogue. It is only dialogue that can solve the problem of insurgency in Nigeria. The Nigerian Government and Boko Haram should sit and dialogue—let them state their grievances—and the reasonable ones among them should be adopted. Dialogue, only dialogue, is the answer.

Do you agree that the Boko Haram insurgency is political?

It started as religious agitation—and mark you, initially, they were fighting security forces. They started with the police, and the police could not cope and the military were invited. And now they are fighting both the police and the military and the civilian. They go to the market, and when they don’t meet anybody in the market, they will set the market on fire. It is not religious—it is an insurgency. Wherever you have insurgency, only dialogue works. I do not know if it is political, but I think it is not.

The Presidency has come out to say that some politicians are involved in the Boko Haram saga. And it has threatened to expose them. Do you think exposing those politicians would be the best thing to do at this time?

Well, Jonathan is the President and he knows better. And I think he may think it is better to expose them or not to expose them; but in my candid opinion, I advise Jonathan to adopt dialogue.

The 2015 elections are on the way. There are ominous signs that there might be trouble. What do you think can be done to avert trouble during the elections?

Look, only prophets of doom are thinking that in the 2015 elections there will be trouble. I don’t belong to that class of people. I am a man who thinks positively, and with the experience that we have in the Ekiti election, where it we was conducted free from all sorts of acrimonies; and the defeated Governor accepted there and then the result of the election—that is an indication that INEC is learning; and this is something that you can only learn through practice.

Nobody ever thought that they were going to conduct free and fair election—and INEC did it. And if INEC can do it in Ekiti, I see no reason why they cannot do it in Nigeria.

But let me tell you, the trouble that happened in the past, after 2011 elections, was not caused by election malpractices or rigging, because it happened after the election. You can also agree with me that the areas where people were killed, maimed and houses were burnt, government properties were destroyed, were where General Muhammadu Buhari won the election. So, it was not as a result of rigging. Buhari won in Kano, he won in Kaduna, he won in Sokoto and yet, the perpetrators of that havoc did it in Kano, did it in Kaduna, did it in Bauchi, did it in Sokoto where, if you go to the records today, Buhari got the majority of votes in those states. So when people want to make trouble, they can make trouble.

Some pundits believe that with the Adamawa and Nasarawa experiences, there is a pattern the PDP-led government is using to fight the opposition through impeachment of APC Governors using state Assemblies. What is your view?

Impeachment is the provision of the constitution, just like you have the right to vote. If they have the necessary number of members of the state Assembly, and if they have a genuine ground that the governors in the respective states have violated the Constitution, members of the state Assembly may take a step to impeach the governors. It is a constitutional provision—when the state House of Assembly implements the constitution, they are not doing anything wrong. As long as members of the state Assembly do not abuse their constitutional right, it does not cause me any headache, at all.

The recent pardon granted Mohammed Abacha, is it political?

President Jonathan is a politician. It is political.

Recently Governor Musa Kwankwaso said the whole idea behind the 2014 Confab was to give way for Presidency Jonathan’s life presidency ambition. And Senator Bola Tinubu called President Jonathan an autocrat. What do you think?

They both are opponents of Jonathan. They can accuse one another. It is not my business. I am not a member of PDP; I am not a member of APC. I am a freelance politician—so I don’t care. They can accuse one another. It is not my headache—it is their problem.

Some of your critics, especially your kinsmen, view you as pro-Jonathan. Is it true?

What I disagree is for people to say that a northerner has no right to be objective in viewing or evaluating what the authority is doing. I have the right to make my best judgment on anybody—Kwankwaso, Jonathan or Tinubu—I have the right. Let me tell you, at one time Bola Tinubu was a taxi driver. Today, he is one of the multi-billionaires in Nigeria. He did not become a billionaire until he became a governor! I have no quarrels with them.

Give us a candid appraisal of the 2014 Confab?

I will advise you to be patient. In a matter of three weeks, the whole report of the conference would be made public. I told you that we made more than 2,000 recommendations. When the reports is published—check the recommendations, read them—take the one you think is positive, check the one that you think is not positive for Nigeria. Then, come up with your conclusion.

What do you make out of the current controversy of people registering as indigenes and non-indigenes in the states?

Let me tell you, I am disappointed in this boy in Imo State—Rochas Okorocha. Such people are not eligible to be in the position of leadership. A leader should be somebody who has foresight and can think of the consequences of his action. If a leader should create trouble to peace-loving people, that means that he is not qualified to be called a leader. To those governors who started all this rubbish about registering people, what difference would  it make if you register somebody; and after registering him, he turns around to become a Boko Haram member? In Nigeria, there is only one constitution and one citizenship.

There is nothing like Abia citizenship, Imo citizenship, Lagos citizenship or Kano citizenship. We are all citizens of Nigeria and the Constitution of Nigeria has guaranteed human right to every Nigerian; that we are entitled to go and reside anywhere in the country, and that we are entitled to go and pursue our legitimate businesses anywhere in the country – and that nobody has any right to harass you in whatever business you are pursuing legitimately. It is clear to me that these people do not read the Constitution of Nigeria, otherwise, where do they get their authority to register people and why discriminate against citizens from a particular section of the country? Why not a Yoruba man be registered? Why not an Urhobo man be registered? Why only northerners? What argument do you have in that?

What these people did, particularly, the governors of Abia and Imo, was to expose their incapacity to lead; that they have not read the constitution of the country under which they are now ruling, and that they are only playing to the gallery. What we need to do is that if anybody wants to enhance security in the country, you can support security agencies to do their job; if they are not well funded, they should contribute. They do so by providing free accommodation to security agencies in their states, they can provide them with uniforms, they can provide them means of transportation for them to do their work or provide them with close-circuit cameras to monitor crime and reduce criminal activities; but to ask people to register, you are asking other states to follow suit.

How do you explain somebody who has been staying in your state even before you were born to register? This is unthinkable! I am particularly disappointed in Rochas Okorocha. I am more annoyed with him because if people were not allowed to leave their state of origin and settle in other states, Rochas Okorocha would not have been born in Plateau. He would have been somewhere else; and all the fortune he has made started here in the North. He was born in Plateau, grew up there, schooled there and interacted with people there and nobody harassed him. So we don’t want other governors to think like this, we don’t want them to be so stupid like these two governors.

Clearly, any govenor from the South-East who tries to undermine the harmonious relationship existing between the people from that zone and northerners is not interested in promoting goodwill between the two communities, particularly the current business interest of the Igbo people resident in the North, whose financial fortune in the region is estimated to be higher than N41 trillion.