Chido Onumah is the Coordinator of African Centre for Media & Information Literacy. In a chat with Adam Alqali, he speaks about his new book, a collection of essays titled We are All Biafrans, which draws attention to the nature of Nigeria’s federalism. The book is due for public presentation on Tuesday, May 31, 2016, at Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre, Abuja.
1. What do you want to achieve with the collection of essays We Are All Biafrans?
The aim of the book is to draw attention to the nature of our federalism, to provoke debate about the structure of the Nigerian nation. We complain about the many problems of Nigeria but the last thing we want to do is do something about it. Nigeria is a country with great potentials but it remains just that: a country of great potentials. We need to understand why the country is not working. The country is not working because the structure does not make it possible for the country to work. What I am saying essentially in the book is that we all, Nigerians from all walks of life and across the country, are victims of many years of misrule and bad governance and we all need to come together to fix the country.
2. You argued that Nigerians are living with the “pretence to being a nation” do you think Nigeria is not a nation?
Nigeria is a nation and yet Nigeria is not a nation. It is a complex paradox. Nigeria is not a mere geographical expression as the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo was once quoted to have said. Maybe it was then when that statement was first made but I think the country has moved a long way from that period that today we can say that there are truly national structures and nationalistic forces. They may not be in charge, but they exist. Perhaps, what we are seeking is “a more perfect union” as Americans would say. On the other hand when you see the serious lack of existential confidence in the country and the lack of effort to address it you can understand my choice of the word “pretence”. What we need to do now is to reconstruct our nation to work for the majority of Nigerians.
3. You argue that most, if not all, of the problems of Nigeria are rooted in the structure of the country. How is Nigeria’s structure affecting its unity and development?
For me, this argument is the central thesis of the book. Nigeria is supposed to be a federal republic yet the country has been run as a unitary state. Rather than have strong states and a week centre, the reverse is the case. That means the struggle to control the centre is a life and death struggle. It also means that the states have become irresponsible, a case of having power without responsibility. Our states are unwilling to be creative in ensuring that they function effectively. We have a situation where the states are mere federal units rather than federating units. If they were federating units, we would have a situation where power will be shared between the federal and state governments properly and the states would be responsible for creating local governments, for example, rather than the federal government doing that. It is an anomaly for the federal government to take responsibility for creating local governments. It is bad enough that this is what we have, it is worse that local governments are mentioned in the constitution. Essentially, the federal government has put an end to development in the states. It means that for any local government to be created, we would have to amend the constitution. The local governments are closest to the people and they form the basis for the development of any country. States should be given the power to create local governments as it suits their individual needs. Some people may argue that these states were created by the military regimes as part of effort to enhance national unity. But we should not forget that the states were carved out of the four regions that were in existence up until the January 15, 1966, coup. And these regions were semi-autonomous. In an attempt to force national unity, we ended up destroying the very basis on which this country was built. Yet, national unity has eluded us. It only tells us that we need to go back to the fundamentals, to see what else we need to do to make Nigeria a country or nation that is acceptable to the majority if not all Nigerians.
4 How should the Nigerian project be restructured for it to be a success?
I have said this many times but it is worth repeating here. Nation-building is not a tea party. Restructuring Nigeria is not a silver bullet in the sense that once we restructure all our problems will go away. But it is a necessary beginning, a necessary condition without which nothing else can work. Once we have a “proper” structure, then we can begin the essential task of national development. But the situation we have now is that even when we try to fix the country, the problems associated with the defective structure seem to hold us back. My idea of a restructured Nigeria is one in which states, which ought to be federating units, are given the power, the leeway to initiate their mode of development. Our state assemblies, for instance, are redundant because they have no role and exist at the mercy of the governors. But when you have a situation, for example, where you have state police, it means the governors would have to be truly responsible for the security of lives and property in the state. It means the state assemblies would have to make laws that will be enforced by the chief executive of the state. If governors have to generate money to run their states, it means the lawmakers would have to demand accountability from the executive. We have states that have no responsibility toward their citizens. No country develops like that. When we restructure Nigeria properly, the federal government would have to shed a lot of its load and pass them on to the state governments. There is no reason why state government should not be venturing into the construction of rails. But that is not possible now because such initiative is in the exclusive list of the constitution.
5. You argued that the rulers of the country have not been bold enough to confront the subject of Sovereign National Conference (SNC). Do you think Nigeria needs a SNC and why?
First of all, I think Nigeria needs some form of serious national conversation about the future of the country. This is not the way to run a country. Having said that, it is for Nigerians to determine the nature of the conference they want to have. I personally feel we need a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) in the sense that the decisions arrived at such a conference will be binding and inviolable. The idea of SNC gained prominence almost three decades ago, about the time former military dictator, Ibrahim Babangida, was dribbling Nigerians in the name of political transitions. It was clear that his efforts were only going to worsen the country’s fragile unity. Things have gotten worse since then. While I call for an SNC, another part of me really wish that we do not get to a situation where we need an SNC in the proper sense of the word. An SNC properly speaking takes place when groups in a country, usually in a conflict situation, arrive at juncture when there are no more options except for mutually assured destruction. In such a situation, an SNC is called to save the country from destruction. We may not have gotten there yet but then we need to do something so we don’t get there. As it is, we can still have an SNC considering the level of crisis in the country. With all the things happening around us from the herdsmen issue to the crisis in the Niger Delta to kidnapping and wanton killings to the renewed agitation for Biafra, something has to give unless we make conscious effort to get Nigeria back on track. I have argued that Nigeria’s greatest challenge is the existential crisis confronting us. The lack of existential confidence in Nigeria, the lack of belief in Nigeria is a major problem. It shows in everything we do, in the pattern of corruption and stealing of public fund, the way we attack one another and our general attitude toward the country. And it is because of this lack of belief in the country that we need some kind of conference to restore hope among Nigerians in their country.
6. How do you hope We Are All Biafrans will shape debates and discussions on the future of the country as a united and indivisible entity?
I hope that the book will trigger a national conversation or debate about the structure of the country, about the nature of our federalism about citizenship rights and about the many other ills of the Nigerian society. But not just that. I also hope it will shape debate about what we need to do to enhance national unity, peace and progress. In some of the essays in the book, I spoke about the fact I am confident that it is far better and also easier to keep Nigeria as one nation. And the reason is simple. Nigeria of 2016 is not Nigeria of 1960 or 1966. I don’t see the country breaking up into tiny republics. It will be the worst civil war in human history. But we shouldn’t take our unity for granted. Even if the country does not break up into tiny republics, we could have a Somalia situation on our hands if we do not pay attention to our current crisis. The aim therefore of this book is to warn of the impending disaster and what we need to do as a nation to walk away from it.
This interview first appeared in Blueprint newspaper of Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Get more stuff like this
Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.