Posted by The Akwa Ibom State Director of the Center for Human Rights and Accountability Network, or CHRAN, is Franklyn Isong. In this exclusive interview, he blamed Nigeria’s problems on a flawed constitution, speaking with our correspondent in Uyo. Additionally, he demanded the elimination of the one-year National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) requirement. Take-outs:
Nigeria faces several obstacles; what do you believe to be the underlying cause of these issues and how may they be resolved?
A flawed constitution! Nigeria’s problems stem from the fact that the country was founded on a flawed foundation—our constitution. The constitution has been amended, but to no avail. It hasn’t worked from the time of former President Goodluck Jonathan until now.
How is it possible to include roughly 68 issues on the federal government’s exclusive legislative list and still hope for positive outcomes? As per the constitution, the state government needs the federal government’s permission before constructing an airport or seaport within the state.
Legislative autonomy is a ridiculous concept; just take a look at what transpired in Rivers State, where the State Assembly had to file a lawsuit to get the governor to release their cash. This is a result of our seriously flawed constitution. Due to their tight ties to the state government, local governments are unable to operate efficiently.
What is your opinion on the proposal that the Act be changed to allow Corps members to serve in their states or regions due to insecurity, or that the NYSC be abolished entirely?
We have been advocating for the elimination of NYSC as its usefulness has been outlived. We need to rewrite the NYSC Act because the military gave it to us and it has the same issues as the current constitution. In the South, people will not see Northerners and feel free; instead, everyone is viewed as suspicious. If you claim that the NYSC supports cultural unity, visit the North and have a conversation with them. They will claim that this is blasphemy against Islam.
Additionally, I disagree with the push to amend the NYSC Act to allow corps members to serve in their home states since doing so would defeat the goals of national integration and cross-cultural interchange for which it was intended.
So, how do we proceed?
Toss the constitution in the historical garbage pail! Let’s hold a constitutional conference to draft a new constitution. Given our unique national characteristics, the government ought to permit the various regions and the populace to convene and draft a constitution that will tackle the various issues confronting the nation.
What, for example, prevents us from having a state police force under our constitution? It won’t prevent the federal police from existing. How do we combat banditry, a crime that is entirely foreign and unfamiliar to the Nigerian police and military since you don’t call on the army to go battle bandits—how do you combat them? The Army is designed to wage direct combat against the guerilla warfare that bandits are waging. How do you think the police will go about making an arrest? With the right tools, state police and forest guards should be able to combat insecurity.
What do the governors do with the security votes that they receive? The Commissioner of Police must obtain an order or clearance from the IGP prior to deploying officers in order for the governor to mobilize law enforcement to combat crime. The same holds true for the Army; the Commander-in-Chief must give his or her clearance.
It will help to decrease the instances of using public funds to sponsor litigations and allow the person to concentrate on governance when we have a constitution that states that any person who wins an election must conclude litigations before being sworn in to minimize distraction.
Is it not possible to pass legislation requiring INEC to be impartial and accountable to all parties? Where is the fairness in a scenario where the ruling party appoints the chief security officer, the chairman of INEC, the Inspector General, the judicial officials must consult him before submitting the Chief Justice’s name to the Senate, and one man appoints all of the security chiefs? One man is the one to whom all of these are accountable. The constitution must be used to handle this matter.
What prevents Nigeria from implementing real federalism, in which the federal government handles foreign and defense policy and the states are placed on an equal footing with it? The state governments will be able to compete with one another and pay taxes to the central government. The center will lose its strength and appeal, and the state government won’t be able to wait for funding from the federal government before acting.
There was a constitutional conference held under previous President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, but the results have not been implemented. Don’t you think that the current administration ought to revisit and put the outcomes into practice?
We criticized Jonathan’s actions at the time for being a political shambles, as they served as a means of appeasing certain parties in order to fulfill his desire for a second term. At the time, there was a movement to restructure the nation; he was attempting to find a way to become relevant, so he adopted the “restructuring” viewpoint that was in favor of it.
In an attempt to bring people together, Jonathan started designating chieftains and elders from various ethnic groups to attend the meeting. We formed Pronaco, a group headed by the late Anthony Enaharo, and we suggested the ideal constitution for the nation. The first words of the constitution that we now have are “we the people of Nigeria have agreed.” Where did we agree to sit, may I ask? I wasn’t present. Just three generals sat down at Aso Rock, pulled out the constitution, and forced it onto us.
Allowing each ethnic group to designate a representative for the conference will cut across all boundaries; the government should not appoint individuals of their choosing. We should organize a meeting of national ethnic groups to discuss pressing social concerns. Minorities exist in every state and should be allowed to voice their opinions. You cannot wish them away, especially since they are not paid to uphold the constitution.
If you look at the history, the people who drafted the US Constitution walked and some even rode their bicycles to get to the conference location. No one was paid for their labors; it was considered a service that was being rendered. Each ethnic group has its leaders, and representatives are free to speak up and discuss ethnic differences. The reality is that there is distrust between the various ethnic groups, and this is attempting to destroy the nation; what the northerners want may not be what we want. We are aware of the desires of every ethnic and religious community, and the conference should represent those desires.
If we want to divide, then so be it. If we want to strengthen the regions, then so be it. What matters is that each area will have a premier who will work with the president, who is only a ceremonial president. The premiere will have a connection to local realities. Have you ever seen a president visit every state to learn about the issues they face? Obasanjo, among other things, attempted to call all of the council chairmen to Abuja to inquire about their progress, but that was the extent of their visitation.
Are you in favor of Biafra as an indigenous person of Akwa Ibom?
No, I’m not. Where is the Biafra map? Somewhere in Enugu, they sat down and sketched a map, including the states of Rivers, Akwa Ibom, and Cross River. Do we belong in Biafra? That is the same issue with the constitution that we have: not many people sat down and decided that this was it. You need to be able to hold a referendum where people can vote voluntarily or at all in order to have a map. Not when you assume that persons from Akwa Ibom are a part of your group just because two of your members are Cross Riverians or Akwa Ibomites. No, that isn’t true. I’m trying to say that the Biafra issue is a political agitation for which there needs to be a political resolution.
Together with the governors and other state officials, they ought to take a seat back and figure out how to proceed. In actuality, not every Igbo person supports the Biafra cause. Igbos are dispersed around the nation; the question is, are they willing to lose them? What percentage of Igbos who own property in the north are prepared to give it up? It is political advocacy, in my opinion, and ought to be treated as such. The Igbos will advance when they are prepared to get together and decide what has to be done.
However, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the pro-Biafra organization IPOB, remains detained. What is your opinion on this?
It is unacceptable to retain Nnamdi Kanu. But the Supreme Court decided lately that he has a case to answer. However, the way Kanu was extradited was incorrect, as the Federal High Court and the Appeal Court both stated. Do you violate laws and norms in the name of combating crime? The same thing is happening to Nnamdi Kanu as it is to Ibrahim Elzazaky.
I would like to suggest that the government handle some of these agitations with sincerity. After all, you don’t kill a mosquito fly with a sledge hammer. What goal does the government hope to accomplish by detaining these individuals? Peace and harmony should be the goals of government. I have witnessed a few honest Igbo leaders contact the federal government and ask to be given permission to release Nnamdi Kanu on bond. Why then does the government not want to hear them? What goals do you have in mind? Not everything has to be accomplished by coercion.
Let me tell you something: pursuing justice does not always result in peace, and you may be told to “go and enforce it in a volatile state.” Alternative Dispute Resolutions exist because you must first achieve peace before you can pursue justice.
In the years that it has been detaining Kanu, what accomplishments has the federal government made? All that exists in the Southeast is a catastrophe. Seek tranquility while you pursue justice.