Of Poverty, Revenue & Surplus Allocation

By Sam Onimisi
One need not be a soothsayer to predict a looming battle which will be fought on geo-political basis as soon as the combatants are done with their preparation-and it is going to be a three-pronged battle. The issues, causes, and reasons for the ‘war’ are strewn in the streets and only the very lackadaisical among Nigerians would by now be oblivious of it. Let us quickly make an outline of the issues, the forces behind the clamor and the possible beneficiaries and victims of what promises to be an obstreperous mayhem. First, the National Assembly is currently engaged in a cantankerous debate over the huge allocation of funds for projects in the South-South geo-political zone as against other zones, especially the three Northern geo-political zones. Second, a group of concerned Northerners has opted for the controversial ‘Sovereign’ National Conference as a way or means of re-positioning the North to regain its pre-eminent or controlling position in the political economy of the country; and to resolve the security challenge posed by the Boko Haram terrorists. And third, the Northern Governors’ Forum is calling for a new revenue formula to replace the current one which is perceived as unfavorable to the North.
Given the zeal and glee with which the Northern Caucus of the National Assembly rolled out statistical data to back up their claims, one would be tempted to accuse or dub them as surrealists. The immediate problem I see in their approach is the very complex econometrics they employed in making out their case which, as it is, will require a large number of econometricians or econometrists to sort out and make simple for the common man to understand or support.
My pain is that national debates such as this were always conducted in such an obstreperous manner and at the end; the real issues and the desirable benefits would be lost without gains, and making no one wiser than hitherto. For this singular reason, one is forced to join this debate or battle without the facts available to the distinguished and honorable members of the National Assembly, the ubiquitous Northern Governors Forum, or even the fledging coalition of Concerned Northerners. While the three Northern groups are ready to quote copiously from the large quantum of statistical data at their disposal, one is free to contribute to the debate using a commonsensical approach. I beg of you, is there any offence in this?
The issues the three Northern Groups are championing are basically the same and could be reduced to one: a better or more appropriate political economy for Nigeria. The Northern Caucus of the National Assembly was accused by a colleague and friend of mine of insincerity and opined that they are fighting for selfish interests and not for the poor people of the North. He questioned their legitimacy in terms of their numerical strength in the legislature-a number which he said is derived from the dubious population censuses of the past and the equally questionable creation of more states and Local Government Councils in the North upon which representation in the National Assembly and the revenue allocation and sharing formula were based. Take special note of the issues he has questioned as they are not only germane but central to the legitimacy of the Nigerian nation-state. Before I could caution this Pontius Pilate against his seemingly incendiary opinion, he rushed ahead to assert that the very resources from which revenue are derived-petroleum and gas-constitutes about 90% of Nigeria’s foreign income earner and that it is derived from the soil of the Niger Delta. He sought to know the contribution of the North to the national purse or treasury from which they share what they see as inadequate. He questioned the North’s sense of fairness in comparing the flat desert terrain of the North compared to the swampy and tortuous topography of the South, especially of the Niger Delta, in the area of costs of construction of roads and houses. He said that civil engineering costs in the South-South are at least 8 times more than similar projects in the North.
In what turned out to be a monologue instead of a dialogue, our friend went on memory lane to recall those who rule Nigeria from independence and that majority of them were Northerners who formulated and implemented or supervised the implementation of economic, political and socio-cultural policies-all of which he claimed were slanted and skewed in favour of the North. Of a truth, my mind quickly remembered Tafawa Balewa, 1960 to 1966, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, July 1966 – July 1975, Alh. Shehu Shagari, 1979 – 1983, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, 1983 – 1985; Gen. Ibrahim Babamasi Babangida, 1985 – 1993; Gen. Sani Abacha, 1993 to 1998; Gen. Abubakar Abdulsalam, 1998 – 1999 and Alh. Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, 2007 – 2010. This represents about 37 years of Nigeria’s 52 years of independence! The tenure of Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi is cancelled out by that of Gen. Murtala Muhammad both of who served for six months each. Earnest Shonekan’s two months was everything but a Shenanigan!
Now my friend asked: if there is poverty and illiteracy in the North, who created or nurtured them? He sought to know why the North is still complaining in spite of 35 years of Quota System of admission to tertiary institutions which gave the North a lower pass-mark as against that of the South. He also asked if it was anyone from outside the North who forbids them from going to school-a development which he said is, as old as the Lugardian era which has since metamorphosed into a terrorist organization called the Boko Haram.
This friend of mine appeared to be so possessed of the issues that he didn’t allow me a moment to respond. He said that he knew of no one in the South-South who prevented the North from industrialization out of the trillions of Naira they allocated to themselves during their years in power. He went as far as reeling out figures of the investment portfolio of former Heads of State of Northern extraction in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, and Doha, not to mention those in Britain, United States, France and Switzerland. To make matters worse, he accused them of looting the nation’s treasury only to use it to purchase public enterprises which they sold to themselves at very cheap prices. He went on and on until I got exasperated and reminded him of the criminality of the Niger Delta boys which forced late President Umaru Yar’Adua to take military action against them. I also reminded him of the magnanimity of the late President who instituted an amnesty programme for the rehabilitation of the South-South ex-militants.
He interjected again to mention the statement credited to Sanusi Lamido Sanusi who claimed that the Boko Haram rebellion is a protest against the lopsided revenue formula which deprived Northern States of their fair share of the national cake. He asserted that Sanusi was either being economical with the truth or he was being mischievous. He said Yar’Adua acted in self and group interest by unleashing soldiers against the Niger Delta militants and that the amnesty was to pacify the militants to stop disrupting the flow of oil from the oil blocks and fields allocated to Northerners by northern heads of government.
If all my friend said are true, then three issues came out in bold relief and they are: that there is no agreement in all fundamental areas of nationhood as the real population of the federating units, the basis of revenue generation and sharing formula, the administrative units or geo-political structures are in dispute and are being questioned. The fact that the Boko Haram has taken up arms against the state constitutes even a more serious challenge to Nigeria’s nationhood. Unless we all want to join the Boko Haram war to answer the question once and for all, the sensible alternative is to engage in national dialogue for the sole purpose of negotiating new terms of co-habitation as one nation-state, though with a caveat: since the existing institutions of governance are the products of impunity of the past which has failed woefully but which still tilts towards maintaining the status quo, a new body must be constituted to convoke an Ethnic Nationalities Conference, the outcome of which will produce a new Constitution for the country. And the earlier, the better!