By Ademola Araoye

It is difficult to discern the aims and to navigate the methods of Nigeria’s national life and processes. But it is certainly easy to comprehend that Nigeria is neither wired for the advancement of the largely miserable humanity trapped in its contraption, nor configured in its operational dysfunctionalities to execute its natural core mandate of being in the vanguard of holistic emancipation of black humanity. Even in the face of its existential conundrums, the clear paradox is that whatever the circumstances of the creation of Nigeria, it was an inexorable act of transcendental inspiration. One way or the other, Africa and, indeed, the whole of black humanity need a Nigeria. This is more so especially given the shifting flux of global ethics in relation to black humanity and the caustic relativity of international morality that has condoned and exploited our fixation with mediocrity and self and group immolation as a continent and race. Once in a while, there is this Sarkozy’s Dakar moment or a Macron slip to remind the more discerning of the true sentiments around our locus in the affairs of humanity. Now, in our helter-skelter in innumerable manifestations, physical and spiritual, we effectively defect from ourselves. Our troubled spirits remain restless. In this restiveness, we defecate everywhere and defect from everywhere.

Understanding Nigeria may be a most challenging enterprise. Seemingly, it would seem that Nigeria subverts it all. The principles underpinning every creative abstraction and construction; physical, procedural and ideational contrivances, developed for the benefit of humanity, has to be upended or better still corrupted to fit the pervasive criminality and entrenched illogic directing the operations of the Nigerian state and society. That is the Nigerian way of domesticating the functionality and utilitarianism of inventions and ideas that have proven to be the central planks of recalibrated imperatives, radical transformations of the status quo, restructured institutions, enhanced procedures and galvanized operational structures, at levels material and ideational, that have proven to be critically useful in the advancement of more sane climes. In Nigeria, the story is, as often, different. Take the internet-from the mundane, such as dating sites providing global platforms to enable aching hearts to ease the search for agreeable soul mate across race, borders and nationalities to life changing interactions including serious transactions such as e-banking, blogging or the much vaunted universal principle of excellence, democratic governance, universal values to communal ethics, faith and religion, the corruption and subversion of these facilities is legion in Nigeria. Nigeria has turned them all into inventions for catastrophic nightmares in 419, unmitigated money laundering and as implements of the most damning imaginations, including the fleecing and corruption of national spirituality. In the public realm, we recycle the most egregious con-artists and the worst brother Jeroboams of every generation.

Perversion is a national past time. These are imbibed in Nigeria as mere tools in pursuit of a national culture of deprecation in the milder Nigerian expression. Again in the extreme illustration of the Nigerian penchant for perversion, the utter destruction of the constructive functionality of every proven instrument for human good or basic valuable assets for society are demonstrated in their absolute corruption and evil ends to which they are put. Participation in formalized and regulated international life and transnational interaction in all forms through human contact, trade, business, tourism and migration, among others, have in the Nigerian instance been so criminalized that it is no longer news when Nigerians are repatriated on a daily basis from usually tolerant European democracies. In more organized societies less tolerant of our abrasive aberrations of national life styles, our scantily regarded lives are in regular periodicity formally truncated in shameful public beheadings in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines or subjected to brutal mass action in massacres as in South Africa. Then in convenient hollow declamation of the ostrich we cry Xenophobia!! Our national culture of perversion is so high and deep that the stark nudity of our mothers, sisters, wives, mistresses, girlfriends aunties and daughters, just like that of our nation, is valued at and sold for less than the famished one Naira. Meanwhile, most of our depraved preeminent statesmen are celebrated hypocrites and shameless rogues of varying hues who have honed in the tactics of deploying all available pulpits to deceive the undiscerning. What does it matter in Nigeria?-life goes on.

A critical part of the national perversion and deception is our dubious claim to being a Constitution driven democracy. At some point we even pretended to be the Gendarmerie of democracy in Africa. Democratic governance in Nigeria has followed the same expressions of national perversion and brigandage. Consistent with the national culture of subverting everything created for the good of human society is the unending history and the current subject of the Constitution of the Republic of Nigeria. A fundamental perversion in this regard is the curious decision of the Legislature, in particular the Senate, to significantly amend the non-paper imposed by fiat on a multinational country of 180 million people by one of the most brutal ethnic hegemonic military dictatorship as the national Constitution. Constitution making has long and chequered history in Nigeria.

In the face of increasing manifestations of deep cleavages and associated massive agitations for the redesign of the fundamentals of the state nation space , many experts consider, with hindsight, that the Independence Constitution of 1 October, 1960 and the 1963 Republican Constitution provide the best constitutional framework for the multi-national character of the Nigerian state space. Respecting the heterogeneous nature of Nigeria, the Constitution was supreme in order to assuage fears of domination of minority groups. Paralyzed by political crises in the country, the Republican constitution did not last. The coup d’etat if January 15 1966 removed the political class and abrogated constitutional rule. The military centralized national administration in line with its command structure. This brought about military rule until 1979. On October 1, 1979, General Olusegun Obasanjo promulgated a new Constitution, the outcome of a worthy effort led by Nigeria’s leading luminaries that included FRA Williams and Justice Udo Udoma. The 1979 constitution did away with the parliamentary system of government and put in its stead a presidential system. Meanwhile, the impact of military intervention was to entrench politics in the programming and mindset of the military itself. The military became more political than politicians. Ex military officers have since been some the most prominent in Nigeria’s national life. By self admission, they explicitly teleguide the Nigeria operations in usurpation of the popular will.

Abacha’s unilateral vomit supplanted the more worthy enterprise promulgated by the Obasanjo administration in 1979. General Sani Abacha’s encryptions, worthy of use only as a salanga tissue paper was in itself a primary perversion. How could a serious country given the murderously partisan antecedents and character of that dictatorship simply move on as usual and dignify that unworthy codification of stinking belch and vomit of warped unpatriotic minds as the Constitution of the Federal Republic. The Senate, in furtherance of accustomed national perversion, has been mobilized by two convenient immediate concerns. The first is to realign the balance of power between it and the Executive with a view to weakening the capacity of the latter to pursue its anti corruption campaign given that not an insignificant number of the Senators have massive skeletons in their closets. These motivations in themselves are dangerous rationalizations to amend a constitution. A more egregious perversion preceding the current Senate opportunistic pretensions in Constitution writing is our lack of character collectively as a people and the depravity of our collective leadership, in all realms and not just the political, that for very selfish reasons did not and would, even now, not crucially interrogate the context and content of the vomit of a dictator now imposed as the organic law of the land.

The attempts made in the post Abacha era to write a credible and legitimate Constitution for Nigeria have been feeble. Olusegun Obasanjo’s latest constitutional conference (distinguished from the worthy one of 1979) was doomed given his obvious insincerity and his implacable focus on his Third Term agenda. A little salient digression here. The Third term agenda of Olusegun Obasanjo has been costly for Nigeria, both domestically and, more tellingly, in the shameful abridgment of the pursuit of rational and strategic foreign and security policy. Obasanjo’s Third term ambition directly led him into mortgaging the overwhelming national interest in the ceding of Bakassi to France via Cameroon. His singlehanded violation of the integrity of the national territory through the diminution of the Nigeria land space in a very strategic locale also had grave constitutional implications. In this reckless unconstitutional treasonous misadventure, Obasanjo’s sole intention was to create the impression of being a unique African statesman more concerned about continental stability than the narrow interests of his country. The same logic prevailed in Obasanjo’s policy in Cote D’Ivoire. By supporting the proxy of France and Sarkozy’s personal friend in Cote d’Ivoire he sought to ensure the support of France for his third term agenda. The real quid pro quo of this tactical moves was for France, a first and most powerful power in black Africa, to acquiesce to his unconstitutional attempt at term elongation.

More direct evidence is emerging that corroborate long standing evidence that Obasanjo again subverted the integrity of Nigeria by betraying the country’s solemn word to Charles Taylor, admittedly a renegade, in order to court the support of the US establishment under George Bush, for the Third Term agenda. Of course, there is now revealed feisty Obasanjo’s humiliating plea kneeling before Muammar Gaddafi of small Libya- a nation of a mere 6.4 million people- for understanding for his unconstitutional third term project. The Legislature was corrupted in the process, even if the institution eventually thumbed its nose at him. That is the embarrassing length a revered democratically elected Nigerian president would go to violate the Constitution. Obasanjo thus personifies the historic nadir in the perversion of a society, state and a fumbling Nigerian nation has sunk. Made irrelevant, abused or not, it is important to highlight that the various Constitutions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria have had permanently fleeting character and, accordingly mere short term legitimacy, as well as has historically been opportunistically instrumentalized to serve the interests of the more daring and even preeminent individuals in the national space. This is achieved along with the encouragement and support of a partisan contesting constituent group or groups. The Constitution of the Federal Republic with permanently fleeting short term legitimacy, has thus has been under permanent abuse. In contrast, the Constitution of India, a multi-national state with a probably more complex mosaic, was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, and came into effect on 26 January 1950. Although amended over a hundred times since 1949, the Indian Constitution stands an expression of the stability of its democracy has not been repudiated or jettisoned. This is despite the many tumultuous moments of India’s national politics.

Obasanjo handed a poisoned chalice to Umar Yar’adua and the Goodluck Jonathan administration that ran with it with the mindlessness of a blind errands boy. As for Goodluck Jonathan, he was too engrossed on his re-election to gamble with the larger challenge of laying solid foundation for Nigeria’s longevity. Or was he simply overwhelmed by the complexities of straightening Nigeria? The watch word had been pragmatism and political convenience, instead of long term national interest and longevity of the state space as a nation space. The conference report of the Jonathan Constituent Assembly did not mean much to him. The two, Obasanjo and Jonathan, were both very Nigerian in their attitude of putting their personal political ambitions over and above the long term interest of the troubled and rickety Nigerian federation. Their ethical perversion included deploying massive national wealth in pursuit of their respective egomaniacal narrow self projects. This is also so because legitimizing the illegitimate political settlement served the ethically pauperized elite interests engaged in the formal and informal negotiations of the national political settlement.
The unimaginable depth of national depravity in the across the board corruption that the post Abacha era has thrown up is a direct reflection of why those waiting in the wings to take over the levers of political power and reins of the economy could not be persuaded to build a robust foundation in the form of a consensus organic law for the land. The real challenge today is the rapid and radical transformation of the evolving balance of forces across the nation. This development presents a challenging context of any attempt to formulate a consensus and legitimate Constitution for the country. Given the evolved complexities of the Nigeria state in 2017 and the well advertised ethical and moral deficiencies of the Senate, it is the least able to distill the evolved interests of the new forces across the land into a coherent and functionally viable organic law that commands the acceptance of the many mushrooming militant new Turks in the increasingly turbulent national arena.

The main planks for demands for structural reconfiguration has remained the consolidation of ethno-regional interests to reverse perceived historic imbalances or to consolidate historic hegemonic proclivities. The challenge has been central to the many national conversations so far. A not so nuanced underpinning of these major orientations is the contention around the revenue allocation formula in what a creative mind has termed feeding bottle federal arrangement. The challenge of local state level value production in that febrile largely emotive interaction is perceived as a veiled threat to the continued fiscal wellbeing by those fixated in the status quo regime. Accordingly, there is the problem of the fear of perceived incapacity to generate in sufficient quantum of revenue locally. Some perceive a lack of political will, while others are basically concerned about disproportionately skewed potential sources of revenue generation at other locales. The fear seems to be around the potential for some states to regain their developmental impetus more rapidly than others. This elephant in the room has become central to the discourse on the future of the Nigeria state space. These all evolve in the context of a history group and minority marginalization at all levels, including religious persecution, now unabashedly violently accentuated by Boko Haram.

Three major forces would seem to have emerged in relation to the future of Nigeria. Status quo forces are suspicious of the intentions of, first, radical reformers but also second, dismissive and contemptuous of the threats of the more radical repudiators of the very notion of the continuity of Nigeria. In this polarized universe inhabits a range of forces in a spectrum occupying a hard implacable pole of hard line status quo forces mainly from the mainstream and a dwindled core hegemonic North. This status quo sentiment is emblazoned with the face of Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), representing the relatively monolithic core North as distinct from the increasingly more and more heterogeneous geographical expression of a North. This dissipated old North often includes a disenchanted Middle belt, traumatized Christian enclaves across north of River Niger to the fringes of Sahara desert, including the North East, Southern Kaduna and the Zuru axis. The ACF of the core North in 2017 is unapologetic about its posture that is fossilized from pre independence Nigeria.
In the third decade of the Third millennium, the ACF is mobilized responding to political stimulus instigated in 1953, middle the last century. I would seem to appear that there is no room for evolution and positive attitudinal orientations. The ACF, in the recent words of one the founders of the group, who is 91 years old, traces the origins of what it terms as the current agitation for restructuring as a continuation of the struggle of a people who want to dominate the country. He specifies the Action Group motion of independence raised by Anthony Enahoro in 1956 as responsible for the perpetual impasse of the Nigeria nationhood. For forces in this mould, the Nigerian state space is fixated in the unending struggle for partisan hegemony. Paradoxically, the counter argument of those moderate revisionist forces who perceive an entrenched hegemonic North as the singular bane of the federation, is to balance the structure of the federation to move away from what is perceived as hegemonic status quo to a structural equilibrium in equitable balance that facilitates justice and fairness for all. These forces, not exactly new, are moderates in reaffirming the centrality of the continuity of a transformed and structurally realigned Nigerian state. They repudiate the extant structure of the federation while insisting on support for the continuity of a transformed Nigeria state strengthened by structural realignment for equity, justice and fair play.

These vociferous moderates are located mainly in the establishment and mainstream of the South. The moderates comprise also of a few sympathetic elements, represented in the perspectives of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, in mainstream core North. These revisionist and reforming elements however dominate the South West, only recently re-christened to its old nomenclature of Western Nigeria. In furtherance of their political stand, it is notable that that the Governors of the states of the Western region have agreed that the boundaries separating their states are artificial, and that religions, political affiliations, among others, would not be a barrier to regional development. They also enjoined each other to significantly improve bilateral and multilateral co-operation to foster regional economic governance and development. It is noteworthy that the pan-Yoruba Afenifere group has validated their initiative to integrate socio-economic and cultural developments of the Yoruba speaking states. It urged the governors to match these words with action in order to ensure that the Yoruba nation is restored to the right path of giant developmental strides which the years of unitary rule have derailed us from. It proclaimed that it was time to resume the region’s march of history. In the South East, the reformists also coalesce to form the mainstream of as well as the pro establishment political forces in the heartland of Igboland, such as the Ohaneze and the political elites in governance and legislature at both and federal levels, factions of a mellowed MASSOB, the PANDEF in the Niger Delta. But they face considerable challenge to their continued legitimacy as the authentic opinion leaders from more radical new forces under the aegis of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

A myriad of new forces with radical visions of the future of the Nigerian state space have emerged in the to be contended with. Their revolutionary mantra is the dismantling of the Nigerian state. It is yet to be seen whether these young Turks including the Coalition of Northern Youth in the core North, the Nnamdi Kanu led Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nwazuruike’s Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and the Yoruba Liberation Committee (YOLICOM) in Western Nigeria would impact in the very disruptive and radical fashion their political creed suggests. Or are some of the militants clones of old forces to articulate extreme views as part of the on-going posturing and public-bargaining? Some have highlighted that a total of 18 new armed groups have sprung in Nigeria in the last 17 months, according to a report by a crisis-monitoring group. The same report in Premium Times of 18 October, 2016 indicate that by that date the number of armed groups in Nigeria had grown in multiples. They are cited as the Islamic State West Africa and the Movement for Unity & Jihad in West Africa – both offshoots of ISIS and Al-Qaida in Islamic Maghreb; the Boko Haram; Armed nomadic herdsmen and the resurrected and re-armed Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta.

Others are the Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force; the Niger Delta Liberation Front; Niger Delta Avengers; Biafra Avengers; Red Egbesu Water Lions; Asawana Deadly Force of the Niger Delta, the Adaka Boro Marine Commandos; the Utorogon Liberation Movement; Joint Niger Delta Liberation Force; and the Joint Revolutionary Council of the Joint Niger Delta Liberation Force. Yet others are the Red Scorpion; the Ultimate Warriors of the Niger Delta; the Niger Delta Red Squad; Niger Delta Vigilante; the Niger Delta Greenland Justice Mandate; the Ijaw/Oduduwa Militant Movement (in Ogun and Lagos States) and the Agatu Warriors in Benue State. Most of the militant groups are located in the Niger Delta, where the people have for too long claimed to be relegated to the background with regards to the affairs of Nigeria. The proliferation also may suggest a lack of coherence in the structures for agitation at the local level, or even a robust politics of agitation intrinsic to every movement. Such politics is often associated with the political economy of social mobilization.

Yet, the litmus test of the seriousness and the potential impact of these groups, especially the major ones, may be gauged in their responses to the June 6, 2017 notice of the Coalition of Arewa Youths to all Igbos to quit the north by 1 October, 2017. Also, reactions to the Senate rejection of restructuring provides another serious test of their determination. The Coalition of Arewa Youths comprises Arewa Citizens Action for Change, Arewa Youth Consultative Forum, Arewa Youth Development Foundation, Arewa Students Forum, and Northern Emancipation Network. The Coalition ostensibly issued their ultimatum to Igbo to return to their ethnic heartland in order to achieve the secessionist agitation for a Republic of Biafra. As the IPOB and MASSOB had welcomed this and mined its propaganda value to the hilt, it revealed the deep fissures in the politics of the South East. The threat of the radical IPOB to delegitimize the Igbo establishment and its associated public moderate Igbo posture in the national discourse became real. The Ohaneze was forced into seeking a rapprochement with the core North. This has played into the hands of the radical and youthful IPOB.