Confab: South-East Delegates Sabotaged Igbo Agenda , Says Ikedife

                     

Dr. Dozie Ikedife, British trained surgeon and former National President of Ohaneze Ndigbo Worldwide, is among the South East delegates at the National conference. He spoke in Nnewi on how far the proceedings of the Confab have gone pending the re-convention in August 4,  and the impact made by the delegates from the Igbo origin.

odogwuemekaodogwu.blogspot.com brings you the interview with some newsmen

How far do you think the confab has gone in meeting the expectations of Nigerians?

Thank you. In the first instance I want to make it clear that on my own personal perspective, the Confab was very necessary. Before we went into it, it was clear to many people that there was a lot of anger in the country. There was a lot of unhappiness for so many considerations and the confab was an opportunity for people to dialogue and looking at issues that make people appear so unhappy.

To that extent, the dialogue was well utilized. Let me give you background which you already know that after the presidential address and reaction to it from members, the confab divided into 20 committees, each handling one aspect of the discussion. At the end of the period of committee work, we went back to plenary and the result of each committee work taken and discussed. We had clearly covered the reports of 19 committees except there are certain topics that were bracketed, that is where consensus was not even reached, it was left for further visit laterun down the line.

Now, it went sufficiently well and a lot of issues, consensus was reached. At first, it looked as if the conference was not going to take off because there was a new introduction of certain percentage for deciding on issues. Except of simple majority or 2/3 majority, element of 75% majority was introduced. But thank God, most issues were discussed and agreed without giving into vote.

It shows that Nigerians may at sometimes appear to be fed up with each other but the dialogue as it went down, people started to realize that we are concerned about very many common issues.

Many people came to the conference, including myself with set ideas that if it is not this then nothing will happen. And as the rubbing of mind went on, many people had to abandon the rigid positions and adopted more reconciliatory attitude and approach, following the realization that nobody own Nigeria exclusively. Nigerians were no more interested in ‘born to rule syndrome’ and people who were been shunted to decide as it were second grade citizens, let it be clear that they are no more prepared to accept that situation and position; that no Nigerian is more Nigeria than the other and we do not have classes of Nigeria, first class, second class, third class or even unclassified.  

So, things went on smoothly, burning issues were raised, tempers flared and settled down. And I think in the long run, it was a very good conference where people were able to express their opinions. Now, there are two reservations, one, the president said there was a no go area in the conference. Much as we obeyed him implicitly, but to me, I had a question, suppose the solution to Nigerian problem is to be found in no go area, should we not chase the solution into those no go area? That was not merely a rhetorical question, it is a thought that kept coming to the mind and going out and to the best of my knowledge, it has not been adequately answered.

Number two, as an issue was the frame work on which the discussions and conclusions and recommendations of this confab will be.   We are worried that it must not be like other confabs which were held, conclusions drawn and recommendations made, and all were kept in a keep in view file.

And to the best of our knowledge, legal foundation has not been properly established but we came out with three suggestions, that some of the recommendations were what will be called Matters Executive Implementations. Some, we thought will get the attention of the legislature and some we thought may require referendum involving the entire populace.

These are the three categories of recommendations or issues distilled out from the proceedings

How are you going to treat the derivation problem when you reconvene on the 4^th of August? 

We seem to have reneged in our function by not making clear recommendations on derivation and that we rather threw it back to the presidency.

You ask what led to that throw back. Now, it is a fool that begins what he cannot start. It is a fool who does not know the limit of his knowledge, capacity and ability. It is alright to throw out figures and make recommendations but we thought that finally the thought have been flouted but we believe that for you to throw out realistic figures, you needed some more information within the time available. We were not able to consult all the experts who give us the facts, figures and the complete data.

All we suggested was that a new committee will be set up and that will have access to various facts and figures that will help make recommendations more realistic.

There was another issue that was a little bit controversial, when the committee dealing with that suggested increment of derivation percentage from 13% to 25%, that seemed to have gone down well but at a later date, the Northern delegates came up with another suggestion, cutting off another 5% and threw it into the three Northern states, 3% to North East, 1% to North Central and 1% to North west, as areas where Boko Haram is doing damage.    

             

Some of us argued against it but subsequently said okay, that the thing should be re-phrased that 5% should be reserved for areas where there had be controversies, upheavals, wars and what not. And we should therefore start with the victims of Nigerian Civil War, which should be visited first.

And that it is imprudent to give financial support to somebody who is still fighting you, has not stopped or apologized and if you give him further support, it will strengthen his fighting capacity.

               

So Boko Haram areas, logically should not benefit for now until the damage is finished, then you can assess the degree of damage and know whether 3% is enough. As at now, it is a matter of guess work because the rampage is still on and besides, you have not even identified who the rampageous groups are. You have not been able to confront and discuss with them. And even if the money reaches them, you are strengthening their hands in the fight. So, it does not seem logical, however, all these were issues that led to- okay let us leave these areas mean while.   

Many of us, delegates to the confab did not plan to stay much longer. There was a time people were thinking that many of us were enjoying staying there because of the fictitious amount of money that people thought we are being paid.  

                      

At one time, one newspaper said that the lunch we were given was costing N60, 000 per plate per person. Ridiculous and it could not be. Many of us had to be thrown out of their hotel rooms because they could not pay, particularly when the allowance was delayed.

It wasn’t a total of going there for money, we were there on serious business, starting by 9am to 6pm.

This issue of State creation which the South East agitates for, how well do you think confab treated it?

I think that the issue of state creation was well treated. There are other issues relating to structure of government which I will like to elaborate a little.

But dont forget the question of giving one more state to South East geopolitical zone will make it a par with four other zones, leaving one still with seven.

It was a foregone conclusion, in the previous confab, it was agreed and re-confirmed in this very confab. The recommendations of the committee which was accepted was one state will be given to South East to bring their number of states to six. Secondly, if more states are to be created, the states to the geopolitical zones should be equal.

So, if we are going to create for instance North west to have eight states,it means South East will have three states created from the present file and the rest four, that is South West, South South, North Central and North East will have two more states so that there will be a total of 48 states together with the federal capital territory. That was the recommendation.   

              

There are other predications that must be met, the states must be viable, they must have a certain number of people making up the population. And the state from which they will be carved out must also be viable.

So, these are the checks and balances to ensure that we do not have frivolous creation of states that depend entirely on revenue allocation for the states.

It is necessary to note that the issue canvassed was the question of the federating units. The people from the South West wanted  the geopolitical zones, to become the federating units. They are defacto recognized but not yet  dejury. It also suggested that even states that wanted to merge could do so.

The other issue is the question of local government.  There are a lot of inequity in the creation of local governments. If you make comparisons, let me give you two illustrations from South West, Lagos has a population of about 9m people, Osun State has a population of about 3m people and has 33 Local Government Areas, while Lagos State has 22 Local Government Areas. How do you justify it?

Kaduna and Katsina, the proportion is comparably similar, then Lagos and Kano, they both almost equal population. Kano has 44 Local Government Areas while Lagos has 22. How do you justify this?

The whole of South East geopolitical zone has almost equal number of Local Governments against Kano and Jigawa State.

Somebody humorously said that some of these local governments were created even to appease some girl friends, that it was not based on any rationalization of either population which should be the principle bases for the creation.

So, we recommended strongly that allocation from the federal government should not go to local government areas directly and to remove this inequality, we suggested that states can create any number of local governments they want and the funds for local governments should go to states, let the states therefore distribute them to where they think best.

Again, in order to assuage the yearning of some people, we recommended that states will be created where there are chunks of minority people that are really been maltreated.

Another derivation issue; we did suggest that it was observed that when money from oil producing states are given to the states, the communities from which the oil is drilled and tapped suffer the greater damages to the environment. And sometimes, the money does not get to the particular community; therefore, we suggested that communities from which the oil is produced should have a good chunk of the money allocated to the oil producing states, going direct to the communities.

Another thing we suggested to help assuage the question of derivation, if you look at the map of Nigeria, virtually every state and of the 774 local governments areas, many have some mineral lying there to be exploited. So, we created a fund for solid minerals like gaseous, liquid among others, for development and exploitation of them so that most of the states opposing the increase of allocation for derivation, when you mine gold, bitumen, tin etc, then you will also be getting money from derivation. So that is a staccato of activities that went on at the National Conference.

This issue of derivation became so contentious, does that compel the shifting of decision to the presidency and what would you have suggested?

Now, I served in the committee that dealt with this particular issue. In that committee, about 34 of us, it became so hot that we debated for five good days. After debating for sometimes, we said, alright bracket it and let us touch other issues otherwise we will not make any progress at all.

In the end, what the committee recommended was that everything should be left in status quo because it appeared such a sensitive issue could be the last straw that will break the Carmel’s back. And we in our wisdom said no, leave everything in status quo, at least for the mean time because we saw how explosive it was tending to be.

Yes, it was very contentious, in our committee it was hot. I don’t want to start discussing who said what in the committee but I am sorry to say that at one time I threatened somebody in physical encounter. Some people threatened walking out and it was so hot and we said let the sleeping dog lie.

We realized that Nigerians as today is an inflammable commodity and nobody should carry naked fire where there is an inflammable commodity. If we put this to the bitter end, it may end up in a way that an explosion will be in our face. As I said that the quantum of bitterness and anger is high and we must not push the issue to the brink of explosion.

You saw Nigeria inside out, first republic, second republic; do you think the outcome of the confab should be subjected to a referendum?

As I said earlier, we categorized the decisions into three compartments, one that will require executive action, second category that may need to go to the federal legislative house, the third category that may go to the population for a referendum.

As I also said that we are not yet sure of the legal foundation on which to plant all that we are doing, whether they will go the way of previous confabs where certain things were picked and implemented and remained buckles in limbo.

I am not a clairvoyant to be able to tell you what the government thinking is.

The South East came with self determination to the confab and it was thrown away, why was it considered to be an option for the geopolitical zones in the country?

There are many issues raised and this particular one you are talking about is a clear sensitive issue.

One delegate raised it in three different occasions, putting it through three different ways before it was captured.

 

There is no doubt, many people wanted true federalism by which each region or its geopolitical zone or each federating unit should have its own constitution, move at its own pace and have a lot of reserved legislative powers, both concurrent and some exclusive. It was well thought out and when we go back, we shall re-discuss.

The recess is not just go and cool off, it is to enable the secretariat document the conclusions which they will bring back to us to re-discuss and agree that these are the things we agreed on, before signing them.

Even though, at the beginning we did agree that no issue on which decision has been taken should be revisited because if we do allow re-visitations, they will be going round and round and will never be an ending issue. 

There are issues that when the documentations come up we might say no, this is not what we said but there is a strong feeling of people who say, ‘regionalism or nothing ! Don’t forget the confab is a meeting of 500 people. Ten of you may hold a strong view but you come out and if it is contrary to the view of all the rest, I am afraid, the majority must have its way and you don’t hope to have all your input accepted. You must go with a mindset that if this is accepted, fair enough and if it is not, any other way the majority goes, I will go with them too unless you want to declare yourself unilaterally out of the game. So, you can’t leave it all your way. Give some, take some, yield some, persist in some and if you go persisting in all, you may lose all.  

You did mention about the compensation of the victims of the civil war from Igbo extraction, when that was raised in the conference, did it receive support from other delegates from other geopolitical zones?

Not quite the way you will expect. There were people from the South East who said no to it, that it is too far gone and cannot be re-visited”.

I don’t want to mention name but there is one boy, I call him a boy because he is not as old as my second son, he said no. no , that he doesn’t want to come back to discuss all these things, that after all he is a Nigerian, and he is not here for tribal interest. He is a boy from South East and that will tell you the mood that you may think we are together, some have different views and sometimes, surprisingly, very farfetched views.

Can this be attributed to what people say, the South East delegates didn’t prepare well for the confab?

No, it is not the question of South East been prepared or not, it is altitudinal change. There are people who got there through various means as suppose to those who are there under the umbrella of ethnic nationalities or state government delegates.

There are some federal government delegates, while some came under professional bodies, organizations, youth movement, handicaps, civil society organizations, and many other channels. Some showed more loyalty to their organisations than to their states or geopolitical zones. 

Give us an idea of some of those things you had in mind to achieve in the confab which was either not accepted or you were not allowed to air your view.

We went there thinking we will have the federating units within the geopolitical zones, we did not achieve it. We went there thinking that one state alone will be given to South East and others will raise the issue so that five geopolitical zones will have six states, one will have seven. We didn’t achieve it.

We went there hoping that self determination by the geopolitical zones will be a concluded issue so that you will take your destiny in your hands and develop at your pace.

We went there thinking that we should have state police, that of course was agreed. It was not a total loss nor was it a total victory. As I said, win some, loose some and that was the proper healthy attitude to adopt in going to an issue like this. If you went there and kept rigidly to the script you have been written for yourself or the script that has been written and given to you, and got there and found that it was not going to carry the day, either  you stay and continue or you walk away.

Walking away, I don’t think is the best option, you make the best of the situation and that was what most delegates turned out to adopt as their altitude; to get the best of the situation.

Somebody raised the issue of Jonathan’s re-election in 2015, what could be your personal view to this development?  

I am sorry; I don’t have a personal view because I am not in politics anymore.

If you look at the political goings on, a lot of them seem to be heading towards explosion. There is still a lot of corruption in the land and there is still a lot of disrespect to the rule of law. All these don’t argue well for continued existence of this country.

We must know when to call a spade a spade and not a garden fork.

This spate of impeachment particularly of people who left PDP, I don’t know how healthy it is and where it is going to lead.

If we want one party system, let us say so and then they will all fall in line. As I said, I am not in any political party now but what I am observing doesn’t give me happiness.